This is anarchive of past discussions onWikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent main page.

I think this is the correct place for this? I apologise if not. Is anyone free to take a look at the above article and see if this edit[2] is suitable. I reverted the original edit as unreferenced but they have added it with some references. The reason I ask is because when they posted the refs on their talk page, at least two of the doi references didn't work.Hoq Md Rakibul. The reason why I think it belongs here is the connection toAyurvedic.Knitsey (talk)17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Knitsey:I think this is the correct place for this? It is.

I have reverted the edit.

This is possibly part of the recent push by promoters ofAyurveda to publish on Wikipedia.

Source 1 says things likeTriphala has a prabhav, meaning special action or trophism, for all doshas (energetics and mind–body types) and thus is balancing for all doshas and constitutions. The gunas, or qualities, of Amalaki are heavy and dry, and both Haritaki and Bhibitaki are considered light and dry.

"Prabhav" - claimed to be a mysterious "special action" that can't be explained by normal properties. It's essentially a catch-all term for "magic effects we can't explain."

"Doshas" - According to Ayurveda, these are three supposed body energies: Vata (air/wind energy) Pitta (fire energy) Kapha (earth/water energy)

"Energetics and mind-body types" - the belief that people have different constitutional types based on which "dosha" dominates their body.

"Gunas" - supposed mystical qualities like "heavy," "dry," "light" that herbs possess beyond their actual physical properties.

I think Hoq Md Rakibul would have a better experience on an Ayurveda-wiki.Polygnotus (talk)17:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Polygnotus. I keep up with some of the Ayurveda articles but MEDRS sourcing isn't my strong point (in fact it's virtually nonexistent) so I tend to leave anything that's referenced to those who do know how to assess it.Knitsey (talk)17:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Knitsey Which dosha dominates your body? Are you an Kapha Pokemon or more a Vata-type?Polygnotus (talk)18:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Fat, fat is how my body is protected at the moment. That and I sometimes have to use a walking frame still. Thats great for not damaging my body by walking into things. I did once change all the interior door handles in my house as I had a beautiful kimono but it kept catching on them. That used to cause a few injuries. This is what you meant right?Knitsey (talk)18:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Kapha prakriti.Polygnotus (talk)18:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Physical Traits of Kapha Dosha

Heavy and bulky body

White and pale tint of the body

Excess and over body weight

Body weight once increased will be hard to reduce

Slowness in all body activities

Closed and proper teeth

Slow and sluggish body movements

Thick and shiny hairs

Always sleepy I would be insulted. But you're not wrong.Knitsey (talk)19:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Knitsey:In short, Kapha prakriti individuals are Strong, Stable, Energetic, Intelligent, of quiet nature and with long life span.[3]Polygnotus (talk)19:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Well thats much better.Knitsey (talk)19:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Dawn Perlmutter is a scholar who has had books published by Routledge. On the topic ofSatanic Ritual Abuse, I believe she isWP:PROFRINGE, and her works on that topic should not be used. Here are some select quotes from her bookInvestigating Religious Terrorism and Ritualistic Crimes, published by Routledge:

One of the most controversial and heinous crimes entailing systematic indoctrination techniques is Satanic Ritual Abuse. Although there are numerous psychological interviews, police reports and physical evidence of survivors of ritual abuse, the extreme denial of these crimes has made it almost impos- sible to prosecute offenders.

It is also why so many anticult organizations are concerned about the issue of Satanic Ritual Abuse where traditional Satanists have been prosecuted for infiltrating nursery schools and day care centers.

Other famous controversial descriptions of victims of Satanic ritual abuse and entire Satanic communities practicing Traditional Satanism are described in the classic nonfiction (although some claim they are fictional) books titled Michelle Remembers and Satan’s High Priest. Both books describe in detail heinous ritual practices of Traditional Satanists. The religioustolerance.org website lists 41 multi-victim/multi-offender court cases involving allegations of ritual abuse.

The debates about the influence of Role-Playing Games on violence were at their peak in the 1980s — the same time when allegations of Satanic Ritual Abuse were being taken seriously. Unfortunately, in the 1990s, there was a backlash against both allegations claiming that Satanic Ritual Abuse and Role-Playing Games were part of a Satanic panic.

Juries prefer to believe that atrocities such as torturing, impregnating and having sex with your own children in the name of Satan could not possibly occur and opt to believe the cult apologist experts’ opinions instead of hard evidence.

Given that this explicitly advocates for the existence of satanic ritual abuse as a phenomenon, satanists infiltrating daycare centers, the legitimacy ofMichelle Remembers, the blame of RPGs on violence, all very fringe opinions, am I correct in believing that Perlmutter's work on Satanic Ritual Abuse largely should not be used, despite the reliability of the publisher?

This was born of a specific dispute today over whether we could use her to call someone a "cult apologist" (I said no because she above calls everyone who didn't think satanists were human sacrificing children a cult apologist) which we will probably find better sources for eventually, but I have encountered this book before while looking into other topics about violence and found its tone and theses to be very odd despite its otherwise reliable publisher, so I thought it better to ask here.PARAKANYAA (talk)13:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As she is an academic, who had been published no. But we could only use here for her opinions, not for them being facts.Slatersteven (talk)13:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

"As she is an academic, who had been published no" ... I'm having trouble parsing this response. no to what part of my question? Do you dispute that this is PROFRINGE?PARAKANYAA (talk)13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No I am saying we can't dismiss her opinions based on what we think, she is a published academic, as such her views may well be fringe. But they are also by an RS.Slatersteven (talk)13:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Not all published academia is an RS, though. We can absolutely dismiss sources based on what they think if it departs from what the vast majority of RS say. That's whatWP:PROFRINGE is. There are plenty of reliability published academics who published bogus stuff on say, race science, which is perfectly "Valid academia" process-wise but still unusable because it is fringe. This book is probably not like that on every topic, but if it is on one it is probably unusable for that one.PARAKANYAA (talk)13:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

We can opt not to use a source on a particular topic if its view on that topic is incompetition with the view of most scholarship. We don't "dismiss" a lengthy book source covering numerous topics because of how we judge its views in one specific area.Cambial—foliar❧13:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, hence why I said it is "probably not like that on every topic, but if it is on one it is probably unusable for that one."PARAKANYAA (talk)13:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Perlmutter's book is cited by government bodies and academia across a broad range of disciplines.^[1][2][3][4] The book covers a wide variety of topics related to religious violence, much of which relates toIslamic terrorism. Its contents on one specific area, which constitute a small fraction of the book, are not a reason to discount this scholarly work as a source. I know little about Satanism or its misrepresentation, but I think PARKANYAA makes a fair argument that it should not be cited on the topic of Satanic abuse.Cambial—foliar❧13:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate for the topic of satanic ritual abuse.Simonm223 (talk)13:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely cannot be used to call someone a "cult apologist", not even as attributed opinion, not without an extremely strong and high-quality secondary source covering the fact that it made that statement. That's obviously aWP:BLP-sensitive claim and would require a source of the highest quality; a source that plainly has a fringe understanding of cults does not qualify. The above quote is absolutelyWP:PROFRINGE, and absent extremely strong secondary coverage to illustrate that her opinion here is significant, that would mean, to me, that she shouldn't be cited on topics related to cults or Satanism or the like at all, not even as an opinion, not unless there's strong reason to believe a specific opinion she has is relevant. Now, as far as some of the other things people said above, does notnecessarily render everything she says on other (non-cult-related) topics unusable but I would usually argue that a source being unequivocally PROFRINGE in one topic is a good reason to cast a critical eye on it for other topics, too, since it's a reason to suspect that the source may not have areputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially if secondary sources have noticed its fringe nature. That is to say, while we'd have to be cautious about potentially using it for fringe claims, we cannot ourselves simply toss the entire source in the dustbin based purely on our own assessment of what it says; but ifsecondary sources have said "wow this source is garbage because it's printing all these fringe claims", then the entire source is probably not a RS and is generally not usable for much, if anything. But at the very least the idea of using her for a BLP-sensitive claim related to cults is not defensible. --Aquillion (talk)17:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The claim in OP is factually incorrect. The earlier discussion was not about citing the book 'to call someone a "cult apologist"'. It is not used about any person, living or dead, in any way.Cambial—foliar❧18:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Either way, see the review I posted below. After reading how thoroughly that eviscerates her, I would say that Perlmutter is not aWP:RS and should not be used anywhere, for anything, in any context.WP:USEBYOTHERS, as you have tried to use to argue for her usability, isn't a strong indicator (especially when it comes to government usage, of course; but even academic usage may only mean that one specific sentence or part is usable.) A review like this completely undercuts any claim that the source could conceivably have areputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk)18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Update: I found an academic review of her book. It is not flattering, to say the least:

It is perhaps fortunate, however, that very little of what Perlmutter writes is actually true, or is, at best, of questionable accuracy. In her glossary of terms, for example, she claims that the Necronomicon is a “testament written by the ‘Mad Arab’ Abdul Alhazred, in the 9th century A.D.” (p. 418), when it is in fact a literary creation of short story writer H. P. Lovecraft designed to provide a plot device for his Cthulhu mythos. Similarly, in her section on Satanism she includes Aleister Crowley, even though she freely admits that he “never considered himself a Satanist” (p. 120). More seriously, Perlmutter makes a number of claims about ritual violence and, in particular, the relationship between the Goth subculture and both Satanism and ritual abuse that are questionable to say the least. These include the contention that “traditional Satanists are proposed [by who, she does not say] to be a highly organized, international, secret cult network that is actively engaged in a variety of criminal activities, incluive [sic.] of arson, ritual abuse, sexual abuse, incest, kidnapping, child pornography and ritual murder involving mutilation, Nova Religio dismemberment and sometimes cannibalism” (p. 114). Going further, she claims that Satanic “religious practices include blood rituals, animal and human sacrifice and a variety of sexual sadistic ritual practices for the glory of Satan” (p. 114–15). The fact that little or no evidence for such claims has been found by either scholars or law enforcement agencies is not mentioned. Perlmutter’s book reads like a lurid, modern day Malleus Maleficarum, and describes a world of Satanic ritual violence, gothic sadomasochism, and so on that only exists either as a form of urban myth or in the minds of modern-day witch hunters. While the world she describes is fascinating, it bears little if any relationship to the reality of the marginal religions she describes. The fact that her book is aimed at law enforcement agencies, however, and presents itself as a form of manual for investigating the incidents she describes, makes it all the more worrying.^[5]

Based on this I would say that she is absolute garbage as a source - clearly not generally aWP:RS on anything - and should not be cited, in any context, for anything, except via an extremely high-quality secondaryWP:RS. (It is also worth pointing out that Perlmutter's background is an assistant professor of art and philosophy; ie. she has no actual expertise in any of these topics whatsoever, further underlining the fact that we have no business citing her for her opinion on them.) --Aquillion (talk)18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Well said. It is entirely possible to be both an academic andWP:FRINGE, and Perlmutter is about as clear-cut an example of this as is ever likely to be found.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Soundly seconded. Sometimes openly expressing a sufficiently nutty view can itself be a strong sign that a source is unreliable regardless of other signs of reliability.Loki (talk)18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/asp/people/Perlmutter/index.html was interesting.Polygnotus (talk)18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yikes!Simonm223 (talk)11:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

So what we're seeing here is another example of an academic deciding the whole world operates according to their specialty. With a specialty on the aesthetics of the sacred Perlmutter is treating an analysis of the aesthetics of the sacred as being the Key To Everything. She'd probably have fascinating and insightful things to say about the work of Caravaggio and its relationship to violence but she didn't stop there and instead decided to try and use the power of aesthetics to solve crimes.

This is, of course, an aestheticization of politics andWalter Benjamin had somethings to say about that which makes it unsurprising that the end result of her work is the unscientific creation of an othered scapegoat population selected on aesthetic grounds.Simonm223 (talk)12:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This rather refutes the idea that even as an SPS her use is valid, I stand corrected.Slatersteven (talk)12:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that this case might make for a good test case forWP:RSPS individual authors on individual topics. I can think of a few other people who come up a lot and this is a better way to handle sourcing than trying to parse publisher.jps (talk)19:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

As for the general proposal, why? RSPS is already a nightmare. Listings by individual authors would be ever worse. If this was an outlet and not 1 person, this wouldn't even be enough to add it to the list, because it is forperennial sources, not everything that has ever been discussed. AFAIK this person's come up never, before this, other than a passing reference from someone trying to justify themself on the satanic panic talk page like a decade ago.

I just noticed it because my interests sadly happen to line up a lot with the contents of the book so whenever I would search specific terms related to them, this book turned up with surprising frequency... but that is because I have weird interests, and though this book's quality is bad it has some really, really weird informational deep cuts. And when Cambrial added it as a source by some coincidence I already had the book open in a tab while looking for information on an obscure neo-Nazi guy who is mentioned for like half a page.

This is not the kind of person or source who would ever be "perennial" anything, there's plenty of protocol for choosing not to use 1 source. I realize now that though we said it was Routledge before, it was actually originally from a publisher they bought out which while reliable is not quite as established as Routledge... generally, publisher is probably the best default look.PARAKANYAA (talk)03:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I've mentioned before that I moonlight as a film and literary critic and I have a background in philosophy so, unsurprisingly, aesthetics is something that interests me quite a lot. As soon as I heard what her specialty was, and her approach, it was like a light turning on. Not only is it intelligible how she fell into fringe writing I can even access multiple critiques, from within philosophy, of thatspecific trap.

But I agree that RSPS is not the right avenue here explicitly because reliability is contextual. I suspect that Perlmutter is probably quite reliable on the topic of religious art just likethe physicist who decides quantum field mechanics explains consciousness is likely reliable for matters of subatomic particle collision and should be treated as unreliable for matters of psychology or metaphysics.

I've said before atWP:RS/N that I dislike the tendency of RfCs to determine works to beWP:GREL/WP:GUNREL because deciding something is "generally (un)reliable" often leads to a cessation of interrogation of the text. "Of course it's reliable, the New York Times is GREL." We need not compound that error further.

It's pretty clear that Perlmutter should not be used for cults or for the intersection of faith and violence. We can see precisely why she is not usefulin the nature of the critiques of her work andin the nature of her credentials. But those same things establish a matrix where she might be reliable elsewhere (work on religious art). Let's stick to context-driven approaches to reliability.Simonm223 (talk)12:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I've created an article for diet influencerPaul Saladino and, as this is outside my field, I would be grateful for other editors reviewing it.BobFromBrockley (talk)15:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Saladino is someone who has deserved an article on the for a long time. That said the article relies far too heavily on quotes rather than summarising what sources say.Hemiauchenia (talk)15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I've made some effort at cleanupHemiauchenia (talk)16:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This article seems to me to be written in a medical tone and structured much like other psychology articles. However, it is in a paranormal series and the mentions of psychology are qualified with "speculative". I haven't been able to figure out what this means. Would anyone care to take a look at this? And maybe you all know some way of making the article clearer. Thanks in advanceAspets (talk)13:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Glancing over the article, looks like a big case ofequivocation fallacy. The article should either be split between the paranormal notion of an empath and the psychological measure, which is about the normal parlance concept of empathy.

The article description opens with "This article is about the descriptor for someone with high empathy." If that's what the article is about, all mention of paranormal should be moved toEmpath (parapsychology) or something similar.VdSV9•♫15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"This article is about the descriptor for someone with high empathy."

Then that would be "hyperempathy", which is a pop-sci term that appears on websites like Psychology Today.[4]

The Empath article is decidedly about a fringe topic:In parapsychology, the mechanism for being an empath is said to be psychic channeling; psychics and mediums say that they channel the emotional states and experiences of other living beings, or the spirits of dead people, in the form of "emotional resonance".

I agree the article should me moved/split andEmpath (parapsychology) created. Ahyperempathy article already exists, so any mention of high empathy (rather than psychic empathy) should be removed from the new article.TurboSuperA+_(connect)15:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hyperempathy is currently a redirect, although it could be a place to put the scientific concept of "having high empathy" if it's not just merged intoEmpathy. --Aquillion (talk)17:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that. There's a lot of results for hyperempathy on Google scholar. It looks like it is connected to autism, too. There's plenty coverage for an article that's sufficiently different from "Empathy" as a standard human/animal emotion.

I think I'll draft one, but I will need help with it, because there are two "types" of hyperempathy: psychopathological view of it as a disorder and a view that takes neurodivergence into account and sees it as an aspect of autism. One can be hyperempathic without being autistic (one report is of a patient who became hyperempathic after brain surgery).

Putting all that intoEmpathy would bloat it, I think.TurboSuperA+_(connect)17:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

What is "speculative psychology" anyway?TurboSuperA+_(connect)15:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Woo.[5]Simonm223 (talk)15:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like the article is about two separate things - the serious scientific study of empathy, and paranormal woo-woo. We should probably split it. Really, only one paragraph in the lead and one section in the body are focused on paranormal stuff. Also, what does it mean by "speculative" psychology? None of the sources that I can see use the term - it seems to have been added by a well-meaning IP who was trying to indicate that the paranormal stuff was woo, but they applied it to the scientific concept, too, which isn't correct or supported by the sources and ends up making it look like the parts of the article devoted to mainstream science support the woo-woo parts. I tried rearranging things and tweaking stuff a bit, but really, the other consideration is howEmpath relates toEmpathy; the scientific concept might be duplicative with that article. --Aquillion (talk)16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  As I pointed to above, the APA describes "speculative" psychology as psychology that is based on conjecture or unsupported theory rather than experimental or research evidence and treats it as largely synonymous with "Armchair Psychology."Simonm223 (talk)17:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that the parts on hyper-empathy, the neuroscience of empathy and dark empathy are not described that way in any of the sources we have (and there's no particular reason to think theyare speculative.) They seem to have been labeled as that by an IP who saw the parapsychology template and assumed the whole article related to parapsychology; but labeling them that way gives the impression that the sourcing in those paragraphs (which is, at least at a glance, reasonable and not woo-woo or to low-quality journals or anything of that nature) supports the parapsychology parts, which is false. --Aquillion (talk)17:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

OK I see what you mean. And I think I agree with you that this seems a likely course of events.Simonm223 (talk)17:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• I wonder why we haveEmpath as well asEmpathy (which, granted, is an over-stuffed mess).Bon courage (talk)02:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• @Aquillion @Aspets @VdSV9 @Simonm223 @Bon courage I created the article atHyper-empathy because it seems to have a hyphen or space between the words in most cases. I changed the redirect ofHyperempathy to it. I also removed the "heightened empathy" and moved the science stuff from the article to Hyper-empathy. I renamed the article toEmpath (parapsychology) as VdSV9 suggested.TurboSuperA+_(connect)08:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  The pageEmpath (parapsychology) still is mixing up common parlance usage and the woo meaning.VdSV9•♫12:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  You mean the paragraph talking about "common parlance"? I wouldn't call the source it is based on "high quality"[6], so I don't think anything of value will be lost if we remove that paragraph.TurboSuperA+_(connect)12:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Dark Empath has nothing to do with parapsychology; it's aboutdark triad traits. It can't be left on theEmpath (parapsychology) page. As I pointed out above, only one paragraph in the lead, one paragraph in the body, and the pop-culture section actually have anything to do with parapsychology. --Aquillion (talk)14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  What do you suggest we do with the Dark empath stuff, copy it to the dark triad article, if it isn't already there? I'm happy with removing content, but I don't know if it should just be deleted or if it should be copied somewhere?TurboSuperA+_(connect)14:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should have probably gone a bit more slowly; splitting the article is a bit tricky. For now I've simply moved all non-parapsychology empath stuff to the hyper-empathy article, since they're fundimentially talking about the same thing (people with a high level of empathy), but this will probably require tweaking the lead and definition of that article eventually, since it does seem like "empath" is sometimes used as a term for "person with hyper-empathy." If hyper-empathy isn't a valid place to put the non-parapsychology stuff then we should slow down and undo the split - just deleting half the article in the interest of turning it into a stub-sized article on parapsychology doesn't seem helpful. --Aquillion (talk)14:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I think my question was more basic. Why have Empath as a standalone article when we haveEmpathy (orHyper-empathy or whatever)? We don't have an articleInsomniac orSchizophrenic but we have articles onInsomnia andSchizophrenia which cover what people are like who have those things.Bon courage (talk)14:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Dark triad is already an article. Why can't the dark empath stuff go there?

There does seem to be enough sources out there for "hyper-empathy" to have its own article. I don't think a fringe topic like psychic empathy should get this much consideration. The "empath" label reminds me of "star children". The original lede even mentioned "Highly Sensitive Persons", which is a tangential connection at best.

The more I think about it, the more the "empath" article seems like it was an attempt to promote and legitimise fringe views by mixing them in with non-fringe views.TurboSuperA+_(connect)14:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The move toEmpath (parapsychology) has been reverted as controversial, I have started a move discussion on the article's talk page.Pinging@Aspets:@Simonm223:@VdSV9:@Aquillion:@Bon courage: since they commented in this topic.TurboSuperA+_(connect)06:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the split. I think the state of things when you had moved the content was very good, and I find the revert to be unmotivated.Aspets (talk)08:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

A new user is edit warring Atlantis nonsense into the article (see[7]), further eyes on the article would be appreciated.Hemiauchenia (talk)13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Somebody may want to explain to them on their talkpage[8].Hemiauchenia (talk)13:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Long time listener, first time caller to radio station WFTN.

Hi, I'm calling from Melbourne, Australia.

Bédeilhac Cave#The German aircraft legend would appear to me as hinkey as all funk.

Please see also:World War 2 Bomber Found in fish finger

Kind regards,

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘11:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This page appears to make a lot of health-related claims with sourcing that failsWP:MEDRS. It also has a DYK nomination atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Shakuyaku-kanzo-to. I've tried to point out some concerns, but it would be helpful to have input from other uninvolved editors. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk)20:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Recently created by now blocked editor. An "everyone visited the Americas" author. I've reorganized a bit. It's heavily based on newspapers, which are now available in the Wikipedia LIbrary but I don't think are very good sources in any case. I want to do more work on this but with cataract surgery tomorrow probably can't. Minor point, name as title is ok, and searching with it useful. Longer form name, no. And Baron?Doug Wellertalk17:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Right, UFO stuff again. There has been some edit warring and rather persistent Talk page lobbying to have this article say thatlegislators allege there is a secret US government “legacy program” that has retrieved “technologies of unknown origin” and “biological evidence of non-human intelligence”. Regarding the currentproposal here, I don't see that cited sources justify it. But since it is an actual fringe theory, I wonder ifWP:FRINGE requires us to frame it with a textual explanation of how it deviates from the mainstream understanding, or since it has gotten so little traction ignore it entirely asWP:UNDUE.- LuckyLouie (talk)13:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of repetitive discussion on that talk page, including one user who has taken to copy/pasting the same stuff repeatedly.MrOllie (talk)16:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

That same user is also repeatedly accusing others of "censoring" the article. Regarding LL's comment above, the lack of any sustained coverage in secondary sources makes itWP:UNDUE.JoJo Anthrax (talk)06:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In other news, this article is in continued need ofWP:CLEANUP. I tried my hand at part of it, but it's still a big mess.jps (talk)14:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. I've nominated a book for AfD underWP:NFRINGE, which I thought would have made which guidelines applied fairly clear, but I am now not so sure, so I am now also listingWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Age of Debt Bubbles here.Alpha3031 (t •c)05:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. I have voted to keep the article as the book passes GNG and is published by a reputable publisher with a review process. In general, it is harder to pinpoint "fringe" in the field of economics, because it is a highly contentious field where everyone is wrong to some degree. Not every country in the world follows the same economic policy either (talking about liberal capitalist democracies), so chances are that what is considered fringe economically in one country may not be considered fringe economically in another.TurboSuperA+_(connect)08:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you can't argue scholarly consensus in a given field doesn't exist just because you thinkeveryone is wrong to some degree. Nor is government policy the measure of scientific consensus on a topic. Austrians are fringe, and they are very unapologetically so. The new synthesis is mainstream economics, rubbish like "debunks fractional-reserve banking" is the stuff of crackpots. There is very much that is broadly accepted in economics, and when you overturn one of those things, you win the Nobel prize (like, for example, Card did) not publish a book that nobody outside your circles cite.

To argue there isn't a mainstream and a fringe for economics is economic negationism.Alpha3031 (t •c)10:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The article is about a book, it just needs to satisfyWP:NBOOK to have an article. Just because you disagree with the book is not a reason to delete the article.TurboSuperA+_(connect)10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

NBOOK still requires reliable sources like everywhere else on Wikipedia.Alpha3031 (t •c)10:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The book satisfiesWP:BOOKCRIT 1.The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. Links:[9][10][11][12].TurboSuperA+_(connect)11:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, how the hell are those reliable sources?Alpha3031 (t •c)12:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

FromWP:SPS:Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The first two are written by experts: "Daniel Lacalle (Madrid, 1967). PhD Economist and Fund Manager. Holds the CIIA (Certified International Investment Analyst) and masters in Economic Investigation and IESE"; William White worked for OECD and has been awarded for his work in economics[13] as well as written about in Financial Times[14]. This establishes them both as subject-matter experts. The third link is a blog, so that can be dismissed. The fourth one is a company that seems to write updates on market trends, it hasn't been discussed on RSN before, I don't see a reason not to use it as a source to establish notability. By my count that is three sources where the book is discussed, thus satisfyingWP:BOOKCRIT.TurboSuperA+_(connect)13:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Great, now we're definitely getting somewhere, thank you! Even if expert SPS is certainly a...novel argument in support of notability, I'm willing to accept it in full for the sake of progressing the discussion. Second question, aren't personal websites excluded by thenon-trivial (note 2) requirement ofWP:BOOKCRIT #1?Alpha3031 (t •c)13:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

They're non-trivial because they are published by experts. The only time when SPSs are explicitly not allowed is when they are used as third-party sources for BLPs, perWP:RS/SPS:Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. I can't find anything in P&G that says that expert SPS cannot be used towards notability of a book.TurboSuperA+_(connect)13:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the other SNGs require secondary sources, which is why it's rarely a issue. BOOKCRIT doesn't explicitly do so, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's certainly a very novel interpretation to use SPS to support notability as far as I'm aware. But, you do understand the only reason we even have notability guidelines at all (WP:WHYN) is because we can't meet the core content policies without sources meeting those requirements right?Alpha3031 (t •c)13:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Assyrian continuity, the central myth ofAssyrian nationalism, is promoted on Wikipedia as "almost unilaterally" supported by "modern contemporary scholarship".☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉)16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories#Reputable peer review versus what exactly? Too tired to respond tonight and as I’ve already been arguing about fringe stuff with this editor it’s better in any case that someone else respond. I’m not getting much sleep as due to my cataract operation I can’t wear my CPAP mask for my sleep apnea.Doug Wellertalk17:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey all,

I'vesuggested some text for a new FRINGEORG section of the guideline, intended for the "Coverage in Wikipedia" section, just after FRINGEBLP, but referring to some sourcing issues too.

We've only got a handful of editors discussing the possibility of a new section over atWikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Resuming discussion (again) of FRINGEORG. It would be great to hear from more people, and in particular to hear whether folks think my suggestion might be a step in the right direction.

Cheers,Generalrelative (talk)18:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Question about whether apparent skeptic and "UFO research"Steven Greenstreet'sNew York Post YouTube videos are reliable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk01:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering if we should useThe Greek Myths in this. A pretty bad book.Doug Wellertalk19:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Only for Graves own opinion, if it has influenced later writers on the supposed location of Atlantis.Hemiauchenia (talk)19:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the article content isnot Graves opinion, but need to checkThe Greek Myths to confirm.fiveby(zero)20:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Graves' theory, if we elevate it to that level, wasLake Tritonis. He says in what i believe is his most extensive work on the subject[15]:Under its waters, if anywhere at all, lay the true Atlantis... Pharos was "grafted" onto this earlier story. Stephen P. Kershaw, a seemingly trustworthy author, does not mention Tritonis or Pharos but addresses a part of Graves' argument:

There are those who have argued that Thopompus's narrative could indicate an Atlantis tradition that does not go back to Plato...Graves' suggestion is the purest speculation: there is not the slightest evidence to back up his assertion. There is only one source for the Atlantis story, and that is Plato.

As an aside Kershaw has this to say:Tony O’Connell’s useful resource, theAtlantipedia website, gives an indication of the enormity of the task, listing ninety-eight different theories that were produced between 2000 and 2011 alone, covering pretty well every corner of the globe: Alaska; Albania;...

Location hypotheses of Atlantis looks like just a dumping ground to get rid of some of the content from theAtlantis article. Also, for what it's worth,Atlantipedia thinksWP got this wrong.fiveby(zero)21:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously Atlantis was at the southern tip of Manhattan Island… under tower 7… that’s why 9/11 took place! They had to burry the evidence! (Am I doing it right?)Blueboar (talk)21:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That depends, are you committed to theAtlantis Research Charter or following the24 criteria of the 1st International ConferenceThe Atlantis Hypothesis – Searching for a Lost Land?fiveby(zero)22:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Doug, i was going to clean references in that article but could not bring myself to remove the first citation checked: an article byK.T. Frost even tho the use in completely inappropriate in context. Anyway kind of feel this presentation of "location hypotheses" is flawed from the outset.fiveby(zero)14:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I moved this page because "Location hypothesis" is a bit tooWP:PROFRINGE implying that there is an academic discussion of this idea within the context of thescientific method.jps (talk)14:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Make America Healthy Again(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch

Attempts to whitewash the quackery underway; probably a worthy addition to your watchlist in any case.Bon courage (talk)11:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, a big chunk of the content is not about the subject of the article. It mostly wants to talk about Kennedy's personal views and veers off into things like lyme disease and raw milk that aren't even mentioned in the report.GMG^talk13:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a movement rather than a report. And in any case taking theAutism Society of America's critique of its programme as "unrealistic and misleading" and watering it down in wikivoice into having a "potentially unrealistic goal" is one of many profringe thoughts currently in the article.Bon courage (talk)13:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

We're not doing a great job at examining it as a movement. It's kindof just asserted in the lead. In fact, we describe it as a movement more times in the lead than in the body. In the body we have a substantial section on the election and appointment. Most of the rest of the article is just about Kennedy's personal views.GMG^talk14:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work. That shouldn't of course be along a weasel/pro-fringe track, like "Kennedy's statements about autism have been criticized by scientists as unscientific, bythose that claim autism is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder that has no cure."Bon courage (talk)14:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The easiest remedy is to remove the passage entirely. The first source is specifically about Kennedy and doesn't so much as mention MAHA or a movement. The second is just a general page on autism.GMG^talk15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

incredible bit of white washing. might be worth telling NPOVN as wellBluethricecreamman (talk)15:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That article was very shitty. I took a scythe to it, it needs a proper writing, let alone a re-writing. --Very Polite Person (talk)16:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's a MAHA primer by THEBGR Group:[16]. It at least forms a basis of what might be discussed in an article. So muchWP:COATrack andWP:PROFRINGE potential in that, though. The brief does not address the fundamental disconnect between the group and scientific evidence or public health consensus.jps (talk)15:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There are several articles atWP:SBM.[17]Bon courage (talk)17:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

(Moved toWikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Promotion of anti-trans fringe theories on J. K. Rowling)

Adam Cuerden^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of allFPs.}19:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Definitely bring this up atWP:FAR. If there is controversy overWP:NPOV, that is disconfirming for featured articles. I'm not sure this is technically aboutWP:FRINGE theories, though I agree there are a few such ideas floating around in these spaces. Consider cross-posting this concern atWP:NPOVN (and maybe closing discussion here since I think it is better posed as a neutrality question).jps (talk)19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

SeeWP:RSN#Is ScienceOpen a reliable source?Doug Wellertalk16:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

James Woodward (physicist) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodward (physicist)

jps (talk)15:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

And now see

Martin Tajmar (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar (2nd nomination).

jps (talk)08:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

And now see

• Walter Dröscher (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Dröscher (2nd nomination)

Burkhard Heim is based largely on a singleNew Scientist article that is, itself,one of the reasonsNew Scientist has a bad reputation.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)19:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Another source invoked multiple times is fromMUFON, for crying out loud. Someone needs to take a weed-whacker to that article.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I have not figured out yet whether we can countenance a Burkhard Heim article with the sources as presented, but note thatHeim Theory has now been merged into the biography. James Woodward is a good object lesson, perhaps.jps (talk)00:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really a fringe issue, I think it's more of an issue about inclusion. But issues about the reliability, and how to judge the weight of sources, that are critical of a subject are the kind of skills that you develop working with fringe subjects. Anyone who's interested seeWP:RSN#Hugh Urban on Frithjof Schuon andTalk:Frithjof Schuon#NPOV Template. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

United States gravity control propulsion research (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Have you all seen this article? Looksa lot likeoriginal research and thestitching together of unrelated sources to me.

What do you think we should do with it?

jps (talk)13:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on a quick look at the citations probably around 3/4 are inappropriate. Clean the ref's and see what's left over? I like the concept ofHistory of anti-gravity research, but fringe topics don't often attract editors who will take a historical view of the topic.fiveby(zero)16:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That is very nearly aWP:TNT type argument.jps (talk)16:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It includes "references" like "Confirmed on April 12, 2004 via private communication with Dr. David Kaiser". It's pervasively bad.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)19:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Clean, but rememberWP:NPOV even if you are dubious or disbelieving. If a reference is not relevant either tag it or delete it. Any statements that are backed by true sources should be kept. Remove anypeacock (I already did some) carefully.

Any sections which are not relevant and/or unsourced should be removed.Ldm1954 (talk)20:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I like Kaiser's stuff, but think the article if it survives should be citingKaiser, David (2018)."The Price of Gravity: Private Patronage and the Transformation of Gravitational Physics after World War II"(PDF).Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences.48 (3).University of California Press. instead of his dissertation. But there has to be a better place for that content other than a WP article about anti-gravity propulsion research 1955-1974.fiveby(zero)00:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Seems to be some COPYVIO fromhere part ofMontauk Project. I'll try and find a copyvio tool to run the article through before rm'ing anything else.fiveby(zero)16:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Tcisco, can you tell us who is the original author here and where first published?98.2% matching text. Yourversion from 2008 is the earliest i've found so far.fiveby(zero)16:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

NM, looks like all the versions i'm finding are copying from WP.fiveby(zero)17:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The more I think look into this, the more I come to the conclusion that the entire endeavor is little better than a conspiracy theory. I have no doubt that there was funding for various out-on-a-limb projects from time to time through NASA or the DOD. I also acknowledge that theGravity Research Foundation has a fascinating history (though I thinkDavid Kaiser sometimes overstates the importance of these fringe endeavors much as he may have withHow the Hippies Saved Physics). But as acoherent topic, I think this simply does not have a place. Most, if not all, of these individual ideas were entirely independent; some WAAAY out on theSteven Greer limb and others adjacent to legitimate research. So, what do y'all think? AfD?jps (talk)14:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

After a bit of googling, my suggestion isthis.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest AfD and not prod, make it procedural, and in the AfD it would be good to dump all the sources/ref material in one go or link to this section:

• Talk:United States gravity control propulsion research#All the current sources in the article and relevant data

The toss that entire pre/nowiki blog into the AfD in a pre-collapsed note so it's saved for theoretical future wiki work. Whatever all that data's value (or not), it's nearly 20~ years of collecting by 100+ users. --Very Polite Person (talk)16:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It ain't Kaiser's job to write Wikipedia articles. When heteaches the 20th century history of physics there are 18 prior lectures which form a basis before "Counterculture and Physics". I imagine you bring much of that background and knowledge to article content so i can easily see how a source like Kaiser is problematic given the P&G's. But c'mon, anti-gravity pills and heel inserts, its so much fun reading.

Anyway looks like prod worked and best thing all around was probably deletion.fiveby(zero)17:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

This group does not exist. Their existence has been questioned since they were mentioned byIlya Ponomarev following the killing ofDarya Dugina. The Kyiv Independent[18] and Washington Post[19] reported that the killing was planned and carried out by the Ukrainian SBU. This is echoed by The New York Times[20], the Kyiv Post[21], the BBC[22], The Guardian[23], The Independent[24]. The "National Republican Army" has not been mentioned since the news surrounding Dugina's death had died down and there has been no new evidence of this group's existence. The only "evidence" of the group is a Telegram channel, and anyone can start one of those.

In addition to the two articles mentioned, the group is also mentioned here:Russian partisan movement (2022–present)#Assassination of Darya Dugina. Probably in other articles too.

Searching for the group on Google returns Wikipedia and a bunch of other wiki-sites that copied from Wikipedia. It would appear that Wikipedia is actively spreading disinformation. It'd be good if more editors took a look at this. Thank you.TurboSuperA+_(connect)06:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is it aboutWP:FRINGE that you would like us to action. I mean, are you asserting that the mainstream opinion is that the organisation does not exist and it's a slam-dunk case? If not, I'm not sure that FRINGE applies, and also I'm not sure what changes do you propose to the article.

The current lead says this:Commentators have expressed doubts as to Ponomarev's claims about the group. Media coverage of Dugina's assassination stresses that there is no independent verification of the Russian NRA's existence or its role in the assassination. - is that not enough for you?

However, I did a Google search of Russian-, Ukrainian- and English-language media outlets with the after:2023-01-01 modifier to exclude any hits reporting on Dugina's murder (August 2022) to see if OP's right and maybe we ought to call it a hoax. There are in fact some later hits:Meduza, Mar 2023 - claiming responsibility for a bomb attack in St. Petersburg,The Times, Jun 2024 (rereported inKommersant) - an article length report about Russian resistance.

Al Jazeeraquoted an expert (Jan 2023),Sergey Radchenko, who said that it does not exist; The Times article said the organisation merely "aroused some suspicion," as dida Newsweek article from April 2023 when quotingAlec Bertina (I trust they truthfully reported what he said).

All in all, I'm not sure what change the OP tries to achieve but the lead seems adequate in light of the sources, and IMHO FRINGE here does not apply.Szmenderowiecki (talk)12:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what change the OP tries to achieve but the lead seems adequate in light of the sources

I wasn't talking about the lede, but about this section in particular:Darya Dugina#Killing. The section starts off with long paragraphs about the "NRA", which is probably due toWP:RECENTISM. We now know that the "NRA" had nothing to do with the killing and they probably do not exist, so I don't see why so much text should be spent on them. They certainly shouldn't be the first ones mentioned.

In the same vein, this sectionRussian partisan movement (2022–present)#Involved groups uses a lot of words to talk about a "purported manifesto" and also places the "NRA" in the beginning, i.e. prominently.

In the article about the groupNational Republican Army (Russia) the section on their non-existence is calledDebate over existence, while there isn't actually that much debate, with most WP:RS saying they probably don't exist. Presenting the issue as a debate makes it sound like their existence is just as likely as their non-existence, which isn't true. This is theWP:FRINGE part, there isn't a lot of evidence for them existing and as you pointed out experts doubt their existence. For example, there's no section in theUFO article titled "Debate about the existence" (and rightly so). It is againstWP:DUE andWP:FRINGE to say there is a debate regarding the existence of something when there isn't. So at the very least the three sections I linked should be rewritten in light of what we know now and RS.TurboSuperA+_(connect)12:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The UFO example is actually not relevant. We don't know if UFOs aka alien spacecraft exist, and most UFO sightings are explainable by other, more prosaic reasoning, but there are some folks who publish totally outlandish ideas about the subject, which is why it is a FRINGE topic.

Here, there is really no pseudoscience, esotericism or conspiratorial thinking involved. Instead, the only issue is whether the claimed organised movement exists. It's not exactly likeshadow government whose purported existence is by definition unverifiable. In this case, the organisation claims to exist but some say there are signs suggesting it is only a Ponomaryov's wet dream, so it's a falsifiable hypothesis. You are trying to stretch the application of FRINGE here, but I want other editors' confirmation on my opinion.

The article does not assert as fact that NRA doesn't exist for a good reason - there isn't consensus among sources that the organisation is definitely a one-man show (some do say that, but can you show that this is consensus?) There is, however, consensus that its real existence raises doubts ("most WP:RS saying they probably don't exist" is not my reading of the sources present in the article; but you can, and in fact, should, provide more if you can; just don't choose only those which confirm your suspicion). The issues you raise are more NPOV issues than FRINGE. I agree that Dugina's killing section may be shortened (WP:BALANCE); as for the partisan movement, you have the Newsweek article as a starting point to write up about other resistance groups.Do some research yourself and write up the relevant sections so that NRA's prominence is reduced (in this particular case, I believe it has more to do with incompleteness than deliberate promotion).

We now know that the "NRA" had nothing to do with the killing Ukraine never officially admitted to the assassination (see The Times). The source of that information was anonymous officials in the Ukrainian government - which is probably "almost there" butnot quite exactly there ("distrust anonymous sources").Szmenderowiecki (talk)13:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just gonna let others opine. I think my position on this is clear. I have other stuff to do.Szmenderowiecki (talk)13:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

conspiratorial thinking

Their very existence is a conspiracy theory that says there is a "mythical" and "mysterious" group working to overthrow the Russian government. No such group exists (outside of a Telegram channel).

The article does not assert as fact that NRA doesn't exist for a good reason

"Nobody says they don't exist with certainty" is a poor argument. We need at least one (preferably more) WP:RS to say, in their own voice, that they do exist. And there isn't one, they all use some form of "claims" and refuse to say they exist in their own voice. Wikipedia isn't (or shouldn't be) in the business of writing that "things exist until proven otherwise".TurboSuperA+_(connect)19:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

While FRINGE may not be the best tool to use here i think we should still try to be as helpful as possible.

• Peterson, Annabel (2025).The Enemy Within: Russians in Ukrainian Army Ranks and the Fracturing of Post-Soviet Identity (Report). International Centre for Defence and Security. [Estonian think tank]
• Kruglova, Anna (May 2, 2023)."The National Republican Army: A Potential Force of Resistance in Russia?".Royal United Services Institute. [Commentary]
• Black, J.L. (2024)."The Kremlin's Responses to Anti-War Voices in Russia".Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies.17 (1).
• Schmies, Oxana (March 2023).Building Up the Democratic Potential of the New Russian Emigrants(PDF) (Report).German Marshall Fund.

Academic analysis is seemingly sparse, tho there are more passing mentions elsewhere, and note three of the above sources three are think tanks. I don't know that there which can be done here, there is a complete failure on WP's part in finding a way to incorporate journalism reliably and neutrally into encyclopedia articles.fiveby(zero)17:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• The first link makes no mention of the "National Republican Army".
• The second link saysA mysterious group has claimed responsibility for recent attacks on pro-war figures in Russia. Whileit may not currently represent an organised opposition front, the Russian government faces a dilemma in how to respond.At the moment,there is very little information about the National Republican Army or mention of it in Russian media or social media.The group has an account on Telegram called ‘Rospartisan’, and it acts as a collective voice of all resistance movements that emerged after the beginning of the war.(emphasis mine)
• The third link mentions the "NRA" only once:They set up another Telegram channel called Russian Partisan (Rospartizan),which providedthem with a link to the secretive—and,some say, mythical—National Republican Army and also to the militant Freedom of Russia movement(Rospartizann.d.).(emphasis mine)

Again, the only "evidence" of their existence is a Telegram channel and even that source says that some consider it to be "mythical".

• The fourth source says:One group that has attracted attention is the National Republican Army (NRA). According to Ilya Ponomarev, a former Russian parliamentarian living in Ukraine, this is an underground association of 500 to 1,000 people mostly in their early 20s, with the goal of overthrowing the Putin regime mainly through armed subversive activity. However,many doubt the existence of such a group, or at least its scale.(emphasis mine)

There is no actual evidence this group exists and every mention of them is preceded or followed by the author saying they might not exist. This does not justify for the state of the Wikipedia article on them. There are two "alleged"s in the lede and then the rest of the article talks about them as if they are real. Thinking that the "NRA" is real is a fringe position, and Wikipedia should not be giving credence to conspiracy theories.

TurboSuperA+_(connect)19:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

For the first link you need follow the link to the PDFreport, which has one para page 10. I believe tho that you have misconstrued my response.fiveby(zero)22:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That report is outdated since it claims (falsely) that the "NRA" is responsible for Darya Dugina's death. It also claims Ponomarev is the leader of the group:Ponomarev is now leading his ownpartisan resistance movement called the National Republican Army (Национальная республиканская армия, NRA), which claims to represent the “collective voice of all resistance movements that emerged after the war.” 68 Not much is known about the group’s founding and Ponomarev’s exact relation to it prior to assuming political leadership through the Irpin Declaration. He was allegedly incontact with the group since April 2022 and became its top sponsor after the high-profile partisan assassination of Darya Dugina, the attribution of which brought the group into thespotlight for the first time.69 Besides the high-profile assassination...

I didn't mean to imply you believe in them, sorry if it came across that way. My comments were meant to be in general, addressed to anyone reading this thread and the community at large. I was commenting on the sources and what we can learn from them, I wasn't commenting on your personal stance.TurboSuperA+_(connect)22:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Stumbled acrossHydrogen therapy today. A new page created in January that has had little attention, and looks fringe to me. Anyone have more information? I'd take it to AfD if I were sure it were fringe, but would like some opinions on that first. I note from archibes that both molecular hydrogen therapy and hydrogen water were previously reported here and since deleted. Thanks.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)12:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogen water andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular hydrogen therapySirfurboy🏄 (talk)13:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That's 2017 and 2022, and none of the cited sources are more recent than that.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources seem like a clear fail ofWP:MEDPRIMARY.Hemiauchenia (talk)14:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified WT:MED. The first thing I notice is that it uses 2007 and 2014 sources (WP:MEDDATE) to make claims, when there are at least eight secondary reviews in the last year. This2023 review might be helpful.SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Benbest, are you familiar withWP:MEDRS andWP:MEDDATE? Why write an article in 2025, stringing together old primary sources, when recent secondary reviews are freely available? I'm unsure if this is a fringe topic; the content is just put together wrong.SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That 2023 review is ina decent, albeit MDPI journal. The bottom line is "potentially effective for some things, but kind of impractical".WhatamIdoing (talk)21:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing OK I have updated the article to include more recent reviews. As you can see from the TALK page the claim of quackery was based on the claim of no clinical trials, and at the time the only clinical trials I could find included ones from 2007 and 2014, although the citations from 2020 and 2022 are also not reviews. Reviews of clinical trials are harder to find than clinical trial reports. However, due to your prodding I have researched and found reviews covering recent clinical trials. You are welcome to delete the citations which are not up to Wikipedia standards.Ben Best:Talk22:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for updating the article, Ben. I've dropped a copy of{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} at the top of the article's talk page. That should give you some easy ways to search for other good sources. You also qualify forWikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which means you have access to a lot of journal articles and some medical books from Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, etc.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

There are possible fringe issues here. The alleged similarities of the image to the Turin shroud are presented in Wikipedia's voice, while the opposing view is framed as originating from "critics". Should the claim that the Codex shows the Turin shroud be treated as a fringe position?Brunton (talk)11:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The alleged similarities certainly shouldn't be presented as fact. There seems to have been legitimate academic discussion of the question however (see e.g.[25]), so I'm not sure it is 'fringe'. The section needs rewriting to present debate as debate.AndyTheGrump (talk)12:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch````

An editor is complaining Wikipedia is "defaming" this organisation. More eyes from fringe-aware editors could help.Bon courage (talk)18:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Update: the new editor is saying they are a Board members of ILADS (President in fact).Streisand effect may be relevant as pretty much nobody[26] pays any attention to this article anyway.Bon courage (talk)02:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

See[27]. I’ve advised Gibson to start an AfD.Doug Wellertalk18:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not surprised, but the details revealed are certainly worthy of explaining in relevant articles:[28]jps (talk)15:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Can't read source, is this aboutMajestic 12?Hemiauchenia (talk)15:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry you can't read it! I linked a gift article, but apparently that's not working for everyone?

It's in line with the Majestic 12 hoax, but these detail activities were largely unreported prior, as far as I can tell.

"The [AARO] mission fell into two buckets. One was to collect data on sightings, particularly around military installations, and assess whether they could be explained by earthly technology. Amid growing public attention, the number of such reports has skyrocketed in recent years, to 757 in the 12 months after May 2023 from 144 between 2004 to 2021. AARO linked most of the incidents to balloons, birds and the proliferation of drones cluttering the skies....

...The office found that some seemingly inexplicable events weren’t so strange after all....

...The office’s second mission proved to be more peculiar: to review the historical record going back to 1945 to assess the claims made by dozens of former military employees that Washington operated a secret program to harvest alien technology. Congress granted the office unprecedented access to America’s most highly classified programs to allow Kirkpatrick’s team to run the stories to ground....

...But Kirkpatrick soon discovered that some of the obsession with secrecy verged on the farcical. A former Air Force officer was visibly terrified when he told Kirkpatrick’s investigators that he had been briefed on a secret alien project decades earlier, and was warned that if he ever repeated the secret he could be jailed or executed. The claim would be repeated to investigators by other men who had never spoken of the matter, even with their spouses.

It turned out the witnesses had been victims of a bizarre hazing ritual....

...Kirkpatrick investigated another mystery that stretched back 60 years. In 1967,Robert Salas, now 84, was an Air Force captain sitting in a walk-in closet-sized bunker, manning the controls of 10 nuclear missiles in Montana.... Kirkpatrick’s team dug into the story and discovered a terrestrial explanation. The barriers of concrete and steel surrounding America’s nuclear missiles were thick enough to give them a chance if hit first by a Soviet strike. But scientists at the time feared the intense storm of electromagnetic waves generated by a nuclear detonation might render the hardware needed to launch a counterstrike unusable.... But any public leak of the tests at the time would have allowed Russia to know that America’s nuclear arsenal could be disabled in a first strike. The witnesses were kept in the dark."jps (talk)15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems to working for me now. Very interesting story. A cautionary tale on the power of conspiritorial thinking.Hemiauchenia (talk)16:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

A cautionary tale on the power of conspiritorial thinkingOr so the Germans would have us believe.JoJo Anthrax (talk)18:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've not seen this before. "Or so the Germans would have us believe".Sgerbic (talk)20:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the gift link. I see there is a second part. How should we as editors use this WSJ article? Do we wait for the second part? Do we wait for even more articles to come out from independent reliable sources? I remember when JAMA confirmed Havana Syndrome which was against the growing scientific skepticism consensus that it was most probably mass psychogenic illness and moral panic.Sgerbic (talk)20:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford Seems to have already used it in a number of articles including the Robert Salas article. I think thatAARO would benefit from having material added from this article. No need to wait for Part 2, which hopefully will help even more.jps (talk)21:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If someone is enterprising enough to combine it with the Paul Bennewitz stuff and Steven Greenstreet's recent parallel story which provides additional info inline with the WSJ story[29] (I starteda discussion at RSN about the potential of aWP:NEWYORKPOST carve-out for Greenstreet's fringe topics reporting, similar to the carve-out we have for their entertainment reporting, though it didn't really attract much attention), it might even serve as the basis for a standalone article on Pentagon UFO hoaxes. I haven't really been following the UFO space that closely for the last week, though, since the original WSJ story hit, so probably am not very helpful beyond this amorphous suggestion.Chetsford (talk)21:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh interesting. Thanks I'll check these links out.Sgerbic (talk)21:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Feoffer has alsoapplied it where needed.UFO conspiracy theories is another potential article. Oh wait,he's already got there.- LuckyLouie (talk)23:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The WSJ article's use of the phrase "UFO conspiracy industry" is also telling for a mainstream media outlet. Perhaps it is time for an encyclopedic article onthat business topic? It reminds me of arecent comment by Bob Sheaffer, within which he presents "industrial" bone fides of Elizondo, Mellon,et alia.JoJo Anthrax (talk)07:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Start it and let's see where it goes JoJo.Sgerbic (talk)00:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

UFO and psychic culture have recently begun merging[30] so there may be some topic overlap.- LuckyLouie (talk)16:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

From a folkloric perspective, it's hard to overstate the importance of the latest WSJ article, which documents a pattern of spreading false UFO lore going back to the 1950s. We've long known the practice occurred but we never knew the scale. It has the potential to help explain the claims of post-1950 recipients of supposed "insider info", from Keyhoe all the way to Mellon, Elizondo, Grusch, Malmgren and others.Feoffer (talk)10:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Gift link to Part 2, apparently. I wasn't quite as impressed with this one as I was with Part 1. Still, interesting information for certain articles.jps (talk)10:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  And many people on Twitter would agree with you, they were looking for more evidence of what was said in Part 1. Thanks for the gift article.Sgerbic (talk)20:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard might take an interest in the AfD forInner alignment.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I came here specifically to flag this one. I just cut several paragraphs from the article cited solely to blog posts, arXiv preprints, Medium posts, some guy's website, or nothing at all. Currently it has two RSes, one of which the topic is just a passing mention in the footnotes. Looking for more, if anyone can help -David Gerard (talk)00:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Some interesting edits about what counts as a source about anachronisms in the book of Mormon. Recently thousands of bits of original research have been added back to the article which have nothing to say about the matter.12.75.41.116 (talk)22:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this situation out, anon. Can I encourage you to get an account? It would make it easier to follow the progression of what is going on there.jps (talk)01:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

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

I just sawthis whereinRebecca Watson details a fascinating connection betweenLyndon LaRouche and BlueAnon. I noticed that the article could do with a little more care. @Chetsford seems to be laudably engaged, but I see a lot of sources out there which could help to expand the article.

Something to put on your watchlists, anyway.

jps (talk)12:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a COI edit request at the talk page. A volunteer has responded to my request. The funny thing is that the volunteer has less than 850 edits at this moment, in total (all Wikimedia servers).

Edits in the past 30 days: 817. That means they have 32 edits which are not from the past 30 days.

And no, mentioning objective facts does not mean being aggressive.tgeorgescu (talk)18:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tgeorgescu, I’m not sure what your complaint is. I started volunteering a month ago and have found I enjoy it.

I am not sure what you’re complaint is here?Dahawk04 (talk)18:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

30 days beyond 32 edits is an extremely short time for learning the ropes of Wikipedia. Are you a world-class genius, or just had another account before?tgeorgescu (talk)18:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

What's this got to to withWP:FRINGE? --Very Polite Person (talk)20:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

True, I should have posted atWP:ANI.tgeorgescu (talk)20:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

E.g. the Wikipedia Community had a Nobel prizewinner who could not learn theWP:RULES properly.tgeorgescu (talk)18:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. Unless you have a specific complaint to address with the content of my edit I don’t see the reason to engage here. @Malinaccier are you able to support here?Dahawk04 (talk)18:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Having another account before, and not disclosing it, runs afoul of theWP:RULES. If your present account is aWP:FRESHSTART, you had to disclose it to the admins.tgeorgescu (talk)18:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• In short, this is a pointless complaint post because yourCOI edit request was appropriately denied by Dahawk, because a non-journal published and non-peer reviewed paper is indeed not an RS. Do we need to do anything else here or can we wrap this up?Silverseren^C18:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• It's not their rejection which bothers me. It's whether they are a banned editor who has returned under a new account.tgeorgescu (talk)18:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  An accusation with no basis. And also irrelevant. If you want me to re-certify Dahawk's denial of your edit request, then I can do so. But the outcome will be the same.Silverseren^C18:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  There are past discussions wherein newbies were questioned by admins why they learned the rules so fast.tgeorgescu (talk)19:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Search all pages for "learned so quickly". You will see some precedents for my point.tgeorgescu (talk)19:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  To give you just one example,Daphne Lantier has learned the rules very fast, and could write very professional answers.tgeorgescu (talk)19:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Since I was asked to weigh in here, I will say that I agree with Dahawk04's assessment of your paper's suitability as a source right now. I bet when it is published that people will be happy to cite it on Wikipedia. This is frustrating in academic fields with working paper cultures where the publication process takes a long time and people cite working papers based on known reputation (I know from experience). Maybe a few others will weigh in, and there will be a consensus to cite the paper anyway. As for whether Dahawk04 is a sockpuppet or fresh-start account, I don't think it is likely. I recently reviewed Dahawk04's edits and found the typical number and type of mistakes I would expect to find in a new and well-meaning editor who is learning the ropes quickly. While I think people do throw this accusation around often and it is undoubtedly true in some cases, I doubt it is here.Malinaccier (talk)19:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

For the record: I didn't say that their judgment aboutWP:RS was wrong.tgeorgescu (talk)19:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Even if the user turned out to be a sockpuppet or undisclosed returning editor, this is not the place to complain about it.--Animalparty! (talk)01:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

A nee editor is.editing this on behalf of the author I told the author he couldn’t edit it himself. They are now complaining on the talk page about being reverte.Doug Wellertalk10:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I've initiated a discussion at RSN that editors more familiar with evaluating sources related to religion may be able to help out with. It ishere.꧁Zanahary꧂00:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

That would beWP:RSN#Islamic University of Gaza Journal of Islamic Studies. I'm not seeing how a minor point about Islamic mythological naming is relevant to this noticeboard.Bon courage (talk)02:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it’s hyperlinked to the word “here” in my post. The relevance is that I know this board is often where discussions on acceptable sources for religious topics take place, particularly when drawing the line of legitimate scholarship is concerned.꧁Zanahary꧂02:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No, this board is not for religious topics (except when claims obtrude into reality in a FRINGE way).WT:RELIGION would be an apt venue.Bon courage (talk)02:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

My concern is that use of this source would enable the obtrusion of claims into reality in a FRINGE way, because its text appears to take for granted the doctrine and mythic narratives of Islam as factual. I’ve seen similar discussions related to LDS sources at this noticeboard; hence my cross-posting.꧁Zanahary꧂02:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

We have definitely seen issues with Islam's mythic claims before.Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Miracles_can_happen. Maybe that helps?jps (talk)15:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Related:[31].jps (talk)15:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a paper from aprofessor atIslamic University of Gaza claiming present daymunafiq are a fifth column supporting the occupier, I don't know why it is even a question for here or RSN.fiveby(zero)16:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This thread inspired me to work on the subject of theIjaz movement which appears to be explicated in at least three different articles that are in moderate tension with each other:

• Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Science_and_the_Quran
• I'jaz#Scientific_I'jaz_Literature
• Islamic_view_of_miracles#Ijaz_movement

Anyone care to help fix this issue? I think it is fair to have mention of this in all three articles, and I think all three articles deserve to exist. One option might be to create a new stand alone article on the I'jaz movement, but I'm not sure that is deserving.

At the very least, we should agree on a place to put this material and then only include summaries of it with either main-article or see-also links in the other two sections.

jps (talk)14:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Tafsir#Scientific_claims

tafsīr ʿilmī (scientific exegesis), a broader concept,here's a useful overview.fiveby(zero)00:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Maurice Bucaille too. What should we do?jps (talk)02:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I think modelling content on other tertiary sources (but not citing them) is a useful thing to do, so will look for more sources when i get time.Islamic_attitudes_towards_science is that WP's top-level "Islam and Science" article?fiveby(zero)16:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I would agree with that.jps (talk)14:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Which in some ways is a followup on my post above on Dan Gibson as it turns out he publishes his own books.Doug Wellertalk14:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirectCryptid has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 6 § Cryptid until a consensus is reached.Note:Cryptids is also under discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk18:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There's a boisterous discussion about whether and how it should mention climate change, and what sourcing would be (in)adequate to do so.Geogene (talk)22:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The articleBruce Rind, of theRind et al. controversy, has been recreated. I have nominated it for deletion again:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Rind (2nd nomination).Crossroads^-talk-20:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

AE thread against Chess. 05:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byChess (talk •contribs)

There is anongoing discussion on whether to mergea list of "Grooming gang" incidents in the UK into themain article. It may be of interest to users of this board.Boynamedsue (talk)06:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the merge discussion (which had no heading nor proposal) toTalk:List of grooming gang incidents in the United Kingdom#Merge proposal.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

So I was answering anedit request from a user who proposed to add the following paragraph:

The movie, likeClimate: the Movie, has also been criticized^[1] for relying exclusively on the Hoyt and Schatten (1993)^[2] total solar irradiance (TSI) modeled reconstruction, which has since been unequivocally discredited due to methodological flaws^[3]. The apparent correlation between the Hoyt and Schatten (1993) TSI series and Earth's temperature record, as presented in the movie, is now recognized as a result of flawed methodology in the Hoyt and Schatten (1993) reconstruction^[3]. As a result, the movie's key claim, that TSI can account for the observed temperature rise on Earth in recent decades, is invalid^[3].

The text hinges on the YouTube lecture from a guy who clearly is an expert on the Sun specifically. Around 18:10, the guy does the criticism of the Hoyt and Schatten papers. He says that "there is one particular [total solar irradiation series] that received a lot of attention over the last decades" and shows four graphs: two presumably published in academic papers and two that are the work ofMartin Durkin, including one mentioned in the movie. The guy goes on to say how the flaws of Hoyt and Schatten's paper show under scrutiny. The researcher never actually talks about the movie nor discusses Durkin.

I declined, based on my understanding that it would be akin tocoatracking only based on a passing mention of the movie, and initially because I missed the actual graph - I was only focused on the audio. My second misgiving is that the "thoroughly debunked" part is only sourced to Chatzistergos himself. I mean, it is asecondary source, but the paper as recent as hismay not have formed scientific consensus yet. Google Scholar gives 10 citations, of which one is by the authors whom he criticises, but you can tell that's gonna probably be a load of bullshit since they published their findings with theHeritage Foundation.

So, long story short. Was I right to decline?Szmenderowiecki (talk)17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The text in question is present inMartin Durkin (director)#The Great Global Warming Swindle. While the movie has been criticized^[4] for its presentation of Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991)^[5] and there is some recent kerfuffle involving FCL91 and HS93^[6] i can't seem to close the loop between HS93 and the movie with refs.fiveby(zero)00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

fiveby The movie the great global warming swindle shows both the FCL91 and the HS93 series. However, they don't list the HS93 as such, but simply refer to Soon. The relevant figure shown in the movie (shown at 33.20 in the movie) is a variation of Figure 1 from Soon 2005http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2005GL023429 which shows the HS93 total solar irradiance series, but in the movie they simply call it "Sun". So they are even misleading with what the graph shows besides the criticism Dr. Chatzisergos did.Johnk89 (talk)12:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

A debunking is a secondary source on the original claims that are being debunked but (unless it's very egotistical in talking about itself) would generally be a primary source on how thorough or unequivocal the debunking is, as well as any other secondary statements about said debunking (as well as being non-independent even if it did make those egotistical claims). Additionally, unless the source itself (or another source) explicitly claims it to be thorough and unequivocal, those secondary claims would constitute original research.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for describing this in such a good way. I appreciate your effort.

I want to add the following 2 links about the support Dr. Chatzistergos' work has received, although it is recent.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/

https://factuel.afp.com/doc.afp.com.39GZ79D (see to which paper they refer in the statement"papiers scientifiquementcontestés")Johnk89 (talk)11:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

While this does show that their research is at the very least controversial, if not outright false, this still isn't totally OK for me because neither discusses the movie or Durkin. These sources would have been kosher for the articles about the scientists who made up the results.Szmenderowiecki (talk)16:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki I think the conversations get mixed. I posted this only about your concern whether Dr. Chatzistergos' paper has support from other scientists. Neither of those links mentions the great global warming swindle movie.

In the meantime I also noticed that Dr. Chatzistergos got an award about that paper , which I think also shows how this wrk of his is supported by experts in the field https://link.springer.com/journal/11207/updates/27783240Johnk89 (talk)18:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

We are in agreement that his paper is valid, no doubt.

But if you want it in that article specifically, the other question is important as well.Szmenderowiecki (talk)18:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The article has:The film highlights thesolar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. Looking around for other articles where this content might be appropriate i'm having some trouble following WP's content so adding a few links:

• Willie Soon(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch
• Solar activity and climate(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch (possible an under-watched and neglected article needing updates?)

• Solar activity and climate#Solar variation theory
• Solar activity and climate#Correlations to solar cycle length (mentions Chatzistergos)

• Solar variation(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch (redirected toSolar cycle in 2015)

My question i guess is if a reader were to stumble uponconcerning variants of "solar variation theory" elsewhere what WP article should they be directed to?fiveby(zero)17:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Climate change denial#Playing up the potential non-human causes,History of climate change science#Solar variation,History of climate change science#Solar activity?fiveby(zero)17:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the primary target would be solar activity and climate article. Climate change denial can be valid if we can demonstrate that their papers are being used to sow doubt/deny that global warming is there or that it's human-caused, and the AFP source is a good discussion of this phenomenon. Solar cycle is too general to include debates over shoddy science. Same for history of climate change science. It will be also OK to discuss these papers in the articles about the researchers themselves.Szmenderowiecki (talk)18:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I just wanted to make a note here that I decided to try and cut down the regurgitation of the film contents from something like 1600 words down to a more reasonable length, which I think it's close to now (still want to trim by maybe another 150 or 200 words, but honestly I'm tired of this article) however would still appreciate if there is any comments about what else might be cut or added.Alpha3031 (t •c)15:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Very unhappy Hancock fan. Getting boring now, repeating over and over we are violating NPOV.Doug Wellertalk15:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The responses are sounding more and more like a bot as time goes on. Repetitive overly agreeable and unable to actually understand what is going on.VdSV9•♫12:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is about[37]. Please chime in.tgeorgescu (talk)09:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify what the dispute is about? We have an article on a typicalIron Ageweather god ofEdom and theSinai Peninsula, who was part of apantheon of deities which includesEl,Asherah, andBaal. What does monotheism and similaranachronistic concepts have to do with old Yahweh?Dimadick (talk)09:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is about the claimThe earliest believers in Yahweh were monotheistic. I.e. the claim that Yahweh was from its very beginning a monotheistic god, rather than a polytheistic god.[38].tgeorgescu (talk)09:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

But to sum up, it's clear that the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs are not strict Yahwists, as we will come to understand that term. The P and the E sources preserve this insight; and they preserve it in their insistence that the Patriarchs worshiped God as El, but at the time of the Exodus, God revealed himself as Yahweh. There's an interesting passage in the book of Joshua, Joshua 24:14-15. Joshua was the successor to Moses. He presents the Israelites with the following choice: "Now therefore revere the Lord," using the word Yahweh, "revere Yahweh, and serve him with undivided loyalty. Put away the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt"--put away the gods your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt--"and serve Yahweh. / Choose this day which ones you are going to serve, but I in my household will serve Yahweh," serve the Lord. Only later would a Yahweh-only party polemicize against and seek to suppress certain… what came to be seen as undesirable elements of Israelite-Judean religion, and these elements would be labeled Canaanite, as a part of a process of Israelite differentiation. But what appears in the Bible as a battle between Israelites, pure Yahwists, and Canaanites, pure polytheists, is indeed better understood as a civil war between Yahweh-only Israelites, and Israelites who are participating in the cult of their ancestors.

— Christine Hayes,[39]

Quoted bytgeorgescu (talk)09:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

If we're talking about the earliest Yahweh cultists we cannot possibly use Biblical sources. The Hebrew Bible is unfit for illustrating early beliefs about Yahweh because it's an oft-revised text, the earliest extant versions of which are theDead Sea Scrolls ie very late. Earlier Jewish texts are well preserved in Elephantine for example the so-called (Elephantine papyri) there is both an absence of references to what would later become the Hebrew Bible and monotheism present in these texts documenting the religious life of a large and well-established Yahwist community. Archeology from Israel tells pretty much the same story. We can't know the exact origins of the Yahweh cult or what its first originators actually believed but we can look at the oldest sources and there we see Yahweh cultists behave like followers of any other near eastern deity, they merge him with other foreign creator gods likeKhnum, take readily from other cultic practices like Plutarch points out greatly from Dionysian ones and worship divine consorts and other gods readily beside Yahweh.Bari' bin Farangi (talk)12:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"What do you even mean? Ancient Judaism was monotheistic, polytheism was an addition to it" I mean, that clearly reveals the religious zealous bias. Of course all the recent religio-fashist propaganda will have some people genuinely believe that religious history is fact not fiction or "just another opinion". We cannot do "deconstruction" of kids and teens (partly even adults) being brainwashed. So best we can do is report them if they violate rules or guidlines frequently, such as missing proper citations or adding a protection to the article.VenusFeuerFalle (talk)10:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• The Age of Disclosure (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

We have a one-on-one disagreement as to whetherThe Age of Disclosure is correctly referred to in Wikivoice as a "documentary" or a "documentary-style film". I'm of the opinion it's the latter, however, the other editor does — admittedly — make a compelling argument for the former and is close (but not quite at) convincing me. Additional input for or against changing the genre would be welcome to break the impasse. Thediscussion is here.Chetsford (talk)02:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

If the film interviews real people who give honest testimony (say what they believe is true rather than it being scripted by the filmmakers), then it should be called a "documentary". I don't think the labelsmockumentary orpseudo-documentary fit the film either, because the filmmakers didn't set out to create a work of fiction. Just because people appearing in a documentary are wrong that doesn't make the film any less of a "documentary". For example,Grizzly Man thought he had a special relationship with the bears, and the film documents that, but we wouldn't label it "documentary-style". Same thing here, the film documents opinions of people who believe aliens are visiting Earth (or whatever, I haven't seen it), and therefore should be labeled a "documentary". That's just my $0.02, this isn't a hill I'd die on.TurboSuperA+_(connect)04:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"For example, Grizzly Man thought he had a special relationship with the bears, and the film documents that, but we wouldn't label it "documentary-style"." That's a great point. On the other hand, Herzog didn't [I don't think] approach the film from the premise that Treadwell had a special relationship. In this case, the filmmaker isn't merely documenting people who believe in space aliens but (according to the reviews) is presenting their belief as proof of alien visitation to Earth. I think (perhaps) a more apt comparison might be toAbove Majestic[40] a self-described "documentary" which presents itself as documenting the "fact" that Nazis escaped to the Moon with time travel technology in the 1940s and that anthropomorphic Reptiles are massing on Antarctica in preparation for an invasion. This is billed, not as mockumentary (a laA Mighty Wind), but as real-world fact that should be taken seriously by viewers.Chetsford (talk)05:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Advocacy is a common reason for creating a documentary, and doesn't prevent a film from being one. Turn on your favorite streaming website, go to the documentary section, and be prepared to learn the truth about why the new world order works closely with small town governments to hide the impact of the sudden bigfoot population boom.166.205.97.71 (talk)23:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Point taken, but testimonial-driven documentaries like this don't really "document" anything. I think the genre is being abused at this point. When this kind of thing happens in other disciplines (music, art, theatre, etc.) the rule of thumb is to avoid naming the genre in favor of a nuanced approach. I have seen a number of UFO "documentaries" within the last 25 years, and none of them managed to document anything. The only one I saw that seemed to meet the documentary genre category was the one about Bob Lazar, which did, in documentary style, follow him around and document his life. That's the only one that comes to mind that meets the categorical specification, IMO.Viriditas (talk)01:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Is the film about people who believe aliens are visiting Earth, or is it using their statements as evidence that aliens are visiting Earth?Brunton (talk)07:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the answer should be: how do RS refer to it, on balance? A quick search shows RS are AFAICT unanimous in referring to it as a "documentary". About the only source I found that says "documentary-style" at all isthis, which only uses the term once in a general sense encompassingother films, and through the rest of the article simply refers to AoD as a documentary.

Unless there's some compelling RS that trumps all this (and I have found none), there's no reason not to call it a documentary, whatever the subject matter.Void if removed (talk)10:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"I think the answer should be: how do RS refer to it" There are no RS. We really only have two or three sources that affirm its genre independent of RSOPINION. And of those, I'd positThe Hollywood Reporter is not RS to describe whether a movie is "documentary" or "documentary-style" if it's editorializing that there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and biology by the entirety of mainstream science.Chetsford (talk)13:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Whether a documentary is full of FRINGE nonsense or not doesn't mean we have to go out of our way to say it isn'treally a documentary in some way - it just means its claims have to be placed in the proper context. Honestly, I think film reviews are absolutely fine for establishing genre. Evenskeptical sources like this call it a documentary, I see no reason to do otherwise, especially absent any sense of a consensus of sources calling it anything else.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a load of unmitigated nonsense, for example, but it is still a documentary.Void if removed (talk)14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a documentary, as wasLoose change, since it documents people expressing a conspiracy belief. The category that is applicable is :conspiracist films.- LuckyLouie (talk)12:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Do RS call it a "conspiracist film"? --Very Polite Person (talk)13:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Go with what RS say,The Last Dragon (2004 film) springs to mind. Something can look like a documentary, and not be. But it will be called by RSDocufiction or some such.Slatersteven (talk)12:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In this case, we only haveWP:RSOPINION describing the film's genre. A movie reviewer forVariety is RS for the opinion of the movie reviewer. However, the premise of the film is that space aliens are visiting Earth, and I'm not sure a movie reviewer forVariety is RS for anything other than their attributed opinion. It's unlikely someone who writes cheeky send-ups of rom-cons is a reliable source to affirm whether the film's editorial premise -- that space aliens are rocketing to Earth to secretly watch humans -- is non-fiction ("documentary") or fiction ("documentary-style").Chetsford (talk)13:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Obviously we go with what RSes say. But also this is a solution in search of a problem, "documentary" is the media-analog of the print genre "non-fiction"; the term has never connoted "factual".Feoffer (talk)12:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Going by theTHR article, which compares it toUnsolved Mysteries andAncient Aliens, while we're notbound byother articles we can see that weird fringe stuff, we can see that something can both be a UFO film and a documentary.Alpha3031 (t •c)14:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the edits that removed the “documentary” category from Age of Disclosure because all 19 sources currently cited in the article refer to it as a documentary film.V138565954 (talk)13:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a great example of how reliable sources are wrong. In this example of 19 sources referring to the film as a documentary, these citations arenot using the academic sense of the term, they are using the commercial and marketing category for "documentary" film. Wikipedia needs to differentiate between these two definitions. This discrepancy between what reliable sources say and how a term is used comes up a lot. The most recent example that we've seen since 2015 is the term "populism", which is increasingly used by reliable sources to mislead the public in many different ways. Even though the media uses the term to argue that the policies of an autocratic leader are popular, it turns out that political scientists have analyzed the data in some depth and have found that their policies arenot popular at all. Rather, these leaderscreate the appearance of popular support for their ideas. The media never goes into this in any depth, hence the discrepancy. In the same way, the news media here uses the term "documentary" in a shallow, marketing sense, in that these UFO films aresold as documentaries to the public. However, reliable sources about film do not define the category of documentaries as including these. For example, in order for a film to meet the basic standard criterion for a documentary, it must present some aspect of the world that is factual and observational. 99% of these UFO films do not do this (with theBob Lazar film the only major example that can be classified as a real documentary). I can go on, but on Wikipedia, we should not be relying on marketing definitions but on academic ones. Most of these UFO films combine equal partsdocufiction and equal partsdocudrama. They arenot documentaries. In fact, quite contrary to the documentary format, most of these UFO films have substantial portions of their visual narrative dedicated torecreating an imaginary retelling of events using a flashback. This is contrary to how a documentary works, although people will inevitably point me to something like a Ken Burns documentary. Well, those flashbacks are based on reliable anecdotes of first person observers to historical events. UFO films are not. If anyone wants to see what a documentary film actually looks like, go watchBerkeley in the Sixties. The filmmakers were obsessive about creating a film that only portrayed real world events. If you watch the film, you will see that they combined the testimony of the participants with actual photographs and film clips of the events under discussion. This kind of detail-oriented, only the facts documentary is difficult for people to understand who have been erroneously led to believe that a documentary is amarketing style, not a cinematic form.Viriditas (talk)21:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Some attempts toedit-war fringe jargon into the article.- LuckyLouie (talk)13:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The claim that “non-human intelligence” is fringe jargon is misleading and inconsistent with Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality policies.

The term non-human intelligence (NHI) is widely used in mainstream, reliable sources when discussing Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), particularly in relation to U.S. government investigations. It has been used by current and former officials, including those testifying before Congress, and appears in publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, and official government documents (e.g., AARO's terminology explanations and whistleblower testimony summaries). The term is also used by the Department of Defense and referenced in legislative language, including in drafts of the UAP Disclosure Act.

Accusing editors of trying to “edit-war fringe jargon into the article” without policy-based justification may violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Disagreements over terminology should be resolved by discussing the sources, not by labeling good-faith edits as fringe or improper.

Wikipedia policy requires us to represent reliable secondary sources accurately and in proportion to their prominence (see WP:DUE). Since non-human intelligence is the exact terminology used in the film, cited sources, and government-related discourse, excluding or replacing it based on a personal interpretation of what’s fringe would itself be a neutrality violation.V138565954 (talk)13:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

V138565954 - in the remaining time you're with us, it would be helpful — if you're going to use AI assisted responses in Talk page discussions — if you could first edit them slightly so they don't just throw every policy against the wall. Thank you!Chetsford (talk)13:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Your comment violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF by dismissing my post as AI-generated and implying I won’t “be around much longer.” This is needlessly hostile and unproductive.V138565954 (talk)14:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not "dismiss" your comment as AI-generated, I merely made the factual observation it was AI-assisted and requested you edit future AI-assisted comments for readability prior to positing; a request you can action or ignore at your leisure. I also never said you won't "be around much longer". Perhaps you confused my comment with someone else's?Chetsford (talk)14:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

V13, the term "non-human intelligence" is used in a lot of our articles! We don't ban the phrase, but, for now, we do have to attribute it the person claiming its existence, until the RSes report its relationship to UAPs as a fact. Philosophically speaking, the term has merit, broader than "alien/extraterrestrial", including everything from a superintelligent AI to some natural phenomenon with intelligence on the order of single-celled life or even mere proteins. Just needs attribution.Feoffer (talk)12:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I would say that the "term has merit" in the contexts you are describing. Superintelligent AI, for example, is arguably still "human" intelligence. There is no consensus definition for what makes something "non-human"... and "intelligence", well, that's even more fraught as a concept.

SETI as a scientific endeavor, in fact, has been moving away from the attribution of intelligence. There is some argument that we should be focusing more on "Technosignature detection" and leave the whole question of intelligence behind.

Of course, none of this is even on the minds of the UFOlogists who are going around pretending to be serious scientists. They don't engage with the mainstream discourse at all.

jps (talk)15:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"Non-human intelligence" is not "mainstream" in a documentary context referring to extraterrestrials. The only context in which non-human intelligence is mainstream is when referring to animal intelligence. I have written extensively about extraterrestrials on Wikipedia, but I know BS when I see it.Viriditas (talk)23:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The section "Scientific commentary" does not really contain any scientific commentary. --Hob Gadling (talk)14:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I note that the topically-similar films produced bySteven M. Greer, and evenChariots of the Gods, are described on WP as documentaries. That a film presents utter bollocks seems, for good or bad, independent of cinematic categorization.JoJo Anthrax (talk)16:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

A documentary is a documentary, however wrong it is is irrelevant. It is not a mockumentary.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The term "documentary" means something dealing in facts and information about a subject.[41] There is rise in a kind of "fake" documentary as a vehicle for propaganda / misinformation / nonsense. Prime examples areVaxxed andDied Suddenly, and PROFRINGE editos understand well the value of referring to such as a "documentary".[42][43] I don't know about this particular UFO case, but a Theresa May-style "a documentary is a documentary" approach ill-serves the Project's need to be clear aboutWP:FRINGESUBJECTS if it unduly dignifies the fringe.Bon courage (talk)03:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The descriptors on both films you linked are situationally extremely poor as it is structured in a way that implies they are narrative films. Both are also poorly written leads not compliant withWP:LEAD! Not what I'd use for good examples. The OED defines a documentary film as one intended to "document reality, primarily for instruction, education or maintaining a historical record" - that the creators are wrong does not make it not a documentary.PARAKANYAA (talk)13:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

When quotes are taken out of context and other thoroughly dishonest tactics used, as with Vaxxed and Died Suddenly, a film is clearly not "intended to document reality". But we leave that sort of judgment to reliable sources anyway, instead of deducing them ourselves from dictionary definitions. --Hob Gadling (talk)06:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Books on topics like this appear in the non-fiction section of bookshops. That doesn't imply they are true, only that they assert their truth. Same here, being full of bullshit doesn't stop it being a documentary. There have been films advertised as "documentary-style" but that's the film makers' description of the stylistic techniques used in the film and we shouldn't use it without source support.Zero^talk04:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not certain I've ever been in a bookstore with a "non-fiction section", though perhaps I'm not patroning the correct bookstores. I've been in bookstores with sections like Biography, History, Self-Help, Astronomy, etc., but I don't think I've ever been in one that has a section labeled non-fiction. When I've seen UFO books in bookstores they're usually segregated into a UFO section or a paranormal section and not in the Astronomy or Biology section, even though they are asserting what they perceive to be the truth about astronomy or biology.Chetsford (talk)04:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've seen it many times, so I guess we don't go to the same bookshops. It's also a common classification for online bookshops, seeBarnes & Noble for example and note that "alternative beliefs" (cute name) is listed under nonfiction.Zero^talk11:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, lots of bookstores have nonfiction sections. Even better, think of your classic library: You have fiction books ordered by author, you have nonfiction ordered by the now-archaic Dewey Decimal.Feoffer (talk)11:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• Some activity at the article appears due to off-wiki instigation[44] and[45].- LuckyLouie (talk)12:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

• I realize I may be in the minority here, but I am sick and tired of these UFO films pretending to be documentaries. I spent the late 1980s studying documentary film, and except for the more recent film about Bob Lazar, which indeed, is a true documentary film that follows him around and documents his everyday life, none of these UFO films are documentaries in any way and should not be named under that category. Except for the Lazar documentary, which meets the criteria for the genre, almost every UFO "documentary" is staged and scripted, employs darkened, poorly lit interview rooms, and simply recounts strange stories bordering on campfire ghost stories in hushed tones and bad CGI recreations. We need to stop calling them documentaries. Reliable sources are wrong.Viriditas (talk)01:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure"proposes" a conspiracy theory is the right word here. According to our sources, the film takes a much stronger stance and commitment to its extraordinary claims.- LuckyLouie (talk)11:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

My impetus for this question actually concealed an ulterior motive, in that I'd been working offline on an article forAbove Majestic and was struggling whether it would really be appropriate to call it a "documentary film" in Wikivoice given the subject-matter. For better discursive facilitation, I've moved the in-progress article intoa draft here (it's not ready for mainspace yet, as I need to add a few more sources). Based on my read of the consensus that's evolved, wehave concluded that use of "documentary film" in Wikivoice is appropriate versus "documentary-style film" in extreme fringe cases such as this provided that is the terminology used by movie reviewers?Chetsford (talk)05:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Above Majestic as described in your draft appears to be a documentary, but I'm not sure I concur with the precise rationale. In general, authors / filmmakers / publishers get to declare their own work's genre, not reviewers. The "non-fiction" science fiction is an entire literary genre, but we still report their genre as non-fiction despite all the RSes that debunk them as obvious hoaxes. Also, "Documentary-style" doesn't mean FRINGE, much less "extreme fringe"; the term is used for works that mix documentary content with non-documentary content such as musical shows or extensive staged fictional re-enactments.Feoffer (talk)10:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon has an edit war about this topic now.107.119.53.38 (talk)15:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

"Colonialists burned so many Maya books that their historical record has become highly fragmented to the point that you can't rule out that our colonialist theological narrativemight be true." Wow. Is this what passes for archaeology at BYU?Simonm223 (talk)16:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It's continuing today as well. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah thats an interesting take and yes BYU's standards for scholarship when it comes to anything related to the Church go completely out of the window. Its frustrating because they're good for so many things.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Another editor has taken it to AfD, seeWP:Articles for deletion/Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (2nd nomination). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the AfD from a procedural perspective. It seems like the nominator wants a merge or a redirect rather than deletion - which might actually be the best course of action - but I'm asking them why they went the AfD route to accomplish this.Simonm223 (talk)12:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Any ideas about the "Centro de la Cultura Popular Canaria" which is being used here? I can't see how it can be called an RS. I could go to RSN I guess but though I'd asked first, the whole article is a bit odd.Doug Wellertalk10:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be a publisher of books on the history of Canary Islands. They have been publishing books since the 90s. In addition tothe book cited in the article, they havepublished a bunch of others. I don't see a reason why the book or the publisher wouldn't be an RS. Why do you think it isn't? What concerns do you have?TurboSuperA+_(talk)10:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ Sorry, meant to come back here and say I've established it's a reliable source. It was the comment about Freemasonry that got me worried. Thanks anyway.Doug Wellertalk12:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah… the masonic symbolism claims are fringe BS… but I think it is presented as theopinion of the authors, and not as fact.Blueboar (talk)18:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually not quite. The Myth and Reality piece is an article in a Springer book edited byClive Ruggles. The man who bought the land in 1854 became a Freemason in 1873, and that could be behind the orientation. I’ll rework the article tomorrow.Doug Wellertalk18:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Noah Carl (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

This BLP from the race & intelligence topic area is a perennial flashpoint, especially regarding how to weigh the inclusion of primary opinion pieces versus journalism (including student journalism). The disagreements have descended into edit warring. Experienced editors are invited to contribute to the discussion.Generalrelative (talk)22:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it controversial to lead with a summary of mainstream sources? An edit war is happening here.107.119.53.130 (talk)02:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

nominated it for deletion. the article is complete nonsense as is, andWP:OR of sourcing that either talks about mormonism or about genetics of native americans.

there is no mainstream scientific article that talks about both.Bluethricecreamman (talk)02:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

it also appearsHistoricity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Official_LDS_Church_position is plagued with similar issues.Bluethricecreamman (talk)02:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Good call.Generalrelative (talk)03:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Also agree with the nomination. Not going to pile up voting in the discussion because it seems unnecessary. I looked at the interwikis and noticed there is an article in Spanish. Anyone here active there? Could go the same way.VdSV9•♫15:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI -- IPs trying to sustained edit war inWP:FRINGE radical anti-transgender language here. --Very Polite Person (talk)15:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected but I'm watching the page.Simonm223 (talk)16:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Chandra Wickramasinghe (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Oh no. This page has obviously been whitewashed.WP:PROFRINGE content about wacky panspermia without a hint of indication that it is wacky. I tagged it, but I may need some help with threading theWP:FRINGEBLP needle.jps (talk)11:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• I started some cleanup[46]. More needed in the body.jps (talk)11:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

• Steven Hassan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

I just stumbled on this article, and find the contents and reference list to be very concerning. Much appears to be written in-world (most of the references are). I thought it could use outside help from editors that understand the fringe nature of the topic of cults and what goes with it (fear-mongering, credulity, and promotion). I've no intention of adding it to my watchlist after my experiences with similar BLP articles, but thought someone might have more time and determination. --Hipal (talk)21:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal: Please explain what you mean by "in-world" as that term is usually used with regards to fictional or constructed universe fantasy and gaming worlds, not a real life person and real life activities.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀01:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

This article, like all articles related to people in the "cult" topic area, has been the subject of a years long battle, with half of the editors saying that we are writing it in a way that whitewashes him and the other half saying we are whitewashing the groups he has accused of being cults. This happens with literally all of them. I personally don't have any feelings on the matter, besides a feeling that his belief on what constitutes a cult may not always be due weight (the British royal family... sports businesses... everything... he once said trans activism was, which is more concerning, but no RS has ever commented on that) I don't know which side the original poster is complaining about, but I would assume it is that we are whitewashing Hassan, based on your comment over "fear-mongering". IMO it seems sourced fine though written weirdly (marks of the long war this article has undergone), and perhaps nicer to him than similar figures who are better regarded in the scholarly field but have much harsher articles.PARAKANYAA (talk)13:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Re "In-world" - the books. Is even one of them published by a high-quality publisher?

I think adhering stronger to BLP's requirement for high-quality sources would be helpful in general.

I'm not concerned with white-washing, rather relying on in-world (often self-promoting) perspectives and a credulous press. --Hipal (talk)16:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

"In-world"? What books aren't in world? What world are the sources in that we aren't?

The publishers used are:

Fortress Press - Christian press

Transaction Publishers - academic social science press

Oxford University Press, academic press

Greenwood - Academic press

W. W. Norton - reliable standard press

And books he himself wrote used to say what he thinks, which there is perhaps too much of. These are high quality sources, academic publishers are usually considered the best sources. The only problematic one is maybe Fortress, but this is used exclusively to give what seems to be his self-reported background.

I still don't know what exactly you want changed, there has been complaints of both natures as of late. If you don't clarify what you want changed we can't assume either way, when the sources are fine and people have been arguing about this page for years.PARAKANYAA (talk)16:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't spot the Oxford book, nor knew who Transaction and Greenwood are. Thank you.

The problem with fringe theories is the echo chamber that the self-proclaimed experts work in and nurture, the appeals to ignorance and emotions that they rely upon, and the credulous reporting that often results when reporters are focused on attracting readers. If the article is written around the highest-quality sources that don't fall into those typical problems, then my mistake. Thanks for the work on such a difficult topic. --Hipal (talk)17:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of hypnosis cruft in the article but the academic material, including the Oxford book, is generally very high quality from what I can see.Simonm223 (talk)11:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

There is amerge discussion here.Chetsford (talk)18:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Gift Article from NYTimes

Diana Walsh Pasulka (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) was interviewed byRoss Douthat who seems attracted to her claims about there being more to the world than those nasty skeptical scientists would have us believe, but he pushed back against her somewhat mealy-mouthed defense of her "believership" in UFOs (which is much more pronounced than she lets on, much the same asLeslie Kean pretended when she appeared onEzra Klein's podcast a few years back).

What is interesting is that Pasulka argues that thisreally is a religious movement of a sort, but her opinion is that we probably ought to accept that things like angels are probably real and that can explain it.

Anyway, there is a bit of pushback and mention of the Wall Street Journal takedown which Pasulka seems particularly aggrieved by. Good to keep track, anyway. Have fun!

jps (talk)11:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and for good measure, Pasulka makes vague comments about Wikipedia and complains about her own biography... implying that there is some sort of nefarious conspiracy against the true-blue UFO crusaders and that, I guess, we Wikipedians are maybe even witting participants in it.jps (talk)12:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I just skimmed it and note she claims that "counterintelligence" was behind the nomination of the Sol Foundation for deletion. Since I was the one who, in fact, nominated the Sol Foundation for deletion, I took this opportunity to write a letter to the Times averring that I'm not a "counterintelligence" agent. I've copied it here[47] for anyone who may be interested to read it. (Though, I suppose, if I were a "counterintelligence" agent this is probably the sort-of denial I'd make to protect my cover.)Chetsford (talk)02:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Well said Chetsford (in your letter) and thank you jps for keeping an eye on this. I have no idea who these people are until I start getting tagged on Twitter accused of being the person who edited (or ordering the edit). Someone pointed out this comment by Pasulka and this Sol Foundation which I vaguely remember seeing posted in the Fringe Noticeboard I think. I am thinking of leaning into all these accusations and when they claim I'm responsible, maybe I should come in and start rearranging things or something, I mean if they are going to blame me anyway. But I see others are doing a good job and I'll keep slogging along rewriting stubs and creating articles that never seem to be about UFO's. For some reason they never seem to get upset about all the edits I really do, only the edits they think I do. I don't understand it either. But if you find yourselves with too much to do and want me to come in and alphabetize a list or something, please give me a tag. I'm still waiting on all that DoD monies they say I'm being paid, and of course I need the money to pay for all the cute outfits I've selected for when I'm forced to testify to Congress, or my day in court with the RICO case they say will happen any day now.Sgerbic (talk)03:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"I'll keep slogging along rewriting stubs and creating articles that never seem to be about UFO's" Your loss — this is where the action happens!Chetsford (talk)07:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I only looked at the transcript so I might have missed som context, but I thought the "Exactly. And then you see pushback against him, public pushback. You see, even on Wikipedia, Dr. Garry Nolan. He’s at Stanford University. He studies this and he has a foundation called the Sol Foundation. And their Wikipedia page was taken down. My own Wikipedia page was changed a bit." was a bitmeh asthese things go. But being in/on the NYT, it gets a little more interesting, sure.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)05:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Anybody kno if Chetsford's letter got published? It is the perfect antithesis to the ravings of ufologismsology. -Roxy thedog13:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I only became aware of theTimes' video yesterday, when I readjps' note, and sent it after-hours so it may be a few days.Chetsford (talk)15:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Interested editors should see the discussion atTalk:Creation Museum#Updated lead section. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Center for Countering Digital Hate (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)User:Valjean has been engaging withSayerji (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) who has aWP:COI with respect to the page and has been, as far as I can tell, following the rules for such. However, I think that the idea that Wikipedia is "setting the record straight" which has been floated around on various social networks about this discussion may indicate that more eyes and consideration of how exactly to handle this might be appreciated. I pared down to one sentence a discussion of Meta's stated position on the disinformation dozen.jps (talk)16:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The current phrasing—"Meta... acknowledged that the twelve individuals had promoted vaccine disinformation..."—substantially misrepresents the cited source. Meta’s August 2021 blog post does not affirm that these individuals were spreading disinformation; in fact, Meta explicitly challenged the methodology and conclusions of CCDH’s report, stating that:

“There isn’t any evidence to support this claim... the report’s methodology is flawed.”

Meta acknowledged that some of the content from the named individuals may have violated platform policies and been removed, but it strongly rejected the core claim that they were responsible for a majority of vaccine misinformation. The company emphasized that the 12 people accounted for only about0.05% of views on vaccine-related content.

Given this context, the current Wikipedia wording constitutes amischaracterization of the source andviolates Wikipedia’s core policy on verifiability (WP:V) and the requirement to represent sources accurately (WP:RS and WP:NPOV).

Moreover, the broader issue at stake here is not simply one of phrasing. TheCenter for Countering Digital Hate’s campaign has had profound reputational, legal, and economic consequences for those named. The Wikipedia article risks amplifying defamatory narratives if it adopts or paraphrases contested assertions without due skepticism and balance, especially when such claims have been publicly rebutted by the platform they purport to analyze.

A more accurate revision would be:

“The Center published a report naming twelve individuals it labeled the ‘Disinformation Dozen,’ alleging they were responsible for the majority of vaccine misinformation on social media. Meta, however, disputed the claim, stating that the report’s methodology was flawed and that the named individuals accounted for only about 0.05% of views of vaccine-related content on Facebook.”

This revision adheres more closely to source material and preserves the neutrality required in contentious topics.Sayerji (talk)08:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The report explicitly says that disinformation from the individuals was removed from the site. There is no controversy that these people’s positions are consistent with antivax propaganda. It’s wild to me that you contend otherwise.jps (talk)12:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, be very careful withWP:NLT policy.jps (talk)12:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean, there are some issues with the report's claims about its findings. Assuming that a proportion of links shared in these 30 antivax groups (the selection of which, as Meta pointed out, is not explained), presumably all in English, can be generalized not just to English antivax posts containing links but to all of Facebook (including antivax content without links, and non-English antivax content) is not ideal. The concrete findings (we opportunistically examined 30 popular antivax groups and it seems like a ton of content is sourced from these few people) are valuable, but less headline friendly. All of this is to say, while I don't trust Meta's reporting, either, it seems like a case when their response is worth including. To be clear, though, while they dispute the headline numbers and basically say "it's a lot more complicated", they do not actually rebut that these twelve people spread a lot of vaccine misinformation and don't offer a direct rebuttal on the numbers. Thethese 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook claim probably reflects the multilingual/international nature of Facebook, and also lumps in other vaccine information (not just antivax), making it incomparable. —Rhododendrites^talk \\14:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

TheCCDH Disinformation Dozen report states the Facebook analysis was based on 483 posts between 1 February and 16 March 2021. Facebook criticized the methodology, as noted byNPR,The Guardian, and others (and note that NPR's story mentioning Facebook's criticism predates Meta's own post on August 18). So I think it's certainlyWP:DUE to include Facebook's response, not a case ofWP:MANDY. Otherwise, we risk implicitly claiming that the CCDH report is 100% correct and undisputed.--Animalparty! (talk)20:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you think we should include more than the current sentence?jps (talk)21:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note that we now have two sentences about Meta's rejoinder to the CCDH report. My opinion that we should not state in WPVoice that Meta "disputed" the CCDH report's "methodology" is discussed on the talkpage. More input is always appreciated.jps (talk)13:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed that an article has been created for theSage Wall, Montana, which is a natural feature promoted by the Sage Mountain Foundation as being an artificial wall. They also charge admission for tours of this feature. This raises the following questions.

1. Is this feature does notable enough to diserve a Wikipedia artcile?

2. Does this article promote / provide undue attention to fringe claims lacking any mainstrean approach?

3. Since Sage Mountain Foundation makes money off of this feature, is Wikipedia being used for commercial promotion of this Feature?

Also finding any reliable sources to create a proper article is going to be difficult, if currently impossible, as only fringe Youtubers and bloggers are interested in it.

All of this make its a cnadidate for ADF?Paul H. (talk)18:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

1, probably not at the moment. 2, not really. 3, not really relevant in context. It's basically a random little known local oddity, it seems. --Very Polite Person (talk)18:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with Very Polite Person because of the weak sourcing plus the obvious promotion of the Sage Mountain Foundation's tours. I haveprodded the article. Thank you for posting,Paul H..Bishonen |tålk20:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC).

SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sage wall. Surprised to see this pop up again, and who created it.Fram (talk)20:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it was Dennis. He'll get a notification of the prod, so maybe he'll comment. But what I don't understand is why there was nothing about the AfD on article talk.Bishonen |tålk21:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC).

Different capitalization of "Wall"?Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)21:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Of course, yes.Bishonen |tålk21:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC).

• I didn't notice the previous AFD, or I would have went through the proper ways to get it published. Yes, it is kind of borderline, I agree, but it isn't "artificial". It's 75 million years old, so unless aliens built it, humans could not have. That is what makes it noteworthy. I did remove the PROD, and found a few other worthwhile mentions[48] and[49] and others, which I think satisfy WP:N, if barely. To be clear, I have no COI with it, I just accidentally ran across it and started looking for more info, and lacking a WP article, started a stub. I will happy go along with the consensus, but I think it (barely) passes as a unique structure that isn't talked about a lot, but is talked about in some RS. There are other scholarly references, I'm just short on time. Will put these on the talk page and look deeper when time allows, assuming it doesn't get punted.Dennis Brown -2¢04:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  Your two links go to the same page, which lists "Sage Wall" as an author, but doesn´t seem to be about the geological structure.Fram (talk)06:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  I simply don't have time to research it in the next week or so, I just just CSD'ed it under G4, which qualifies although I wasn't aware of the previous AFD on the article. Problem solved.Dennis Brown -2¢06:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  I managed to make a few edits (weirdest thing I've seen sinceArmored mud balls), but if it was "substantially identical to the deleted version", I guess that's fine.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)07:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Bad deletion, IMHO.

The Sage Wall is obviously a very real thing, of current interest and of no shortage of sourcing. The question is one of interpretation: geology or magic aliens? As an encyclopedia, that question simply doesn't affect our notability-based criteria for inclusion, although it obviously changes the article we write. But WP is just as important to debunk the nonsense as it is to record the reality. On that basis we should be working to cover this.Andy Dingley (talk)06:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a cool thing, but I haven't seen any obviouslyWP:GNG-good refs.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)07:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

We should be easily able to source two of the three things here: the local geology, the recent press coverage of this announcement of Ancient Secret Woo-Woo. Comment on the woo itself always being a bit harder, admittedly.Andy Dingley (talk)14:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It's in popular podcasts because it is alien woo. Verifiability isn't enough for an article to exist. When reliable sources cover it, we should.107.115.5.23 (talk)17:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources needed for this article currently do not exist. Information about local geology consists onlyof regional geologic maps. There is a lack of any published reliable sources about the specific details of the geology and geomorphology of the Sage Wall, its formation, and local geology.Explaining it as an example of ruiniform relief involves original research, which is not allowed for Wikipedia. Also, there is really nothing useful that I found so far in local press coverage that discuss the Sage Wall. The closest to a scientific explanation specific to the Sage Wall is in a Youtube video,"Montana Megaliths and the Stone Nubs: Natural or Man Made? - Episode 1" which cannot be considered reliable enough to be used in Wikipedia. As in case of many fringe claims of natural ruiniform relief being manmade structures, there are just not any currently available reliable and / or verifiable sources that specifically document and explains it.Paul H. (talk)18:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• My CSD of an article I started falls what most admins would have done if they ran across it in the wild, thus not violating the spirit ofWP:INVOLVED. Anyone can ask for it to be userfied or create a new draft, which I would support. CSD#G4 (by any admin) was the proper policy solution, and addresses all the concerns brought here, which are reasonable in nature. I stay pretty busy in real life, I just don't have time to rehab the article myself any time soon.Dennis Brown -2¢23:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço

For your information and discretion; sharing here as I believe some individuals who are regulars here have been faced with similar legal matters as under discussion there. --Very Polite Person (talk)03:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That was an interesting read. Thanks for pointing it out to us.VdSV9•♫12:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

A recent edit toWhite genocide conspiracy theory[50] added the claim that "the birth rate of non-whites tend to exceed an average of 6" sourced toMultiple Origins and Multiple Destinations: The Fertility of Immigrant Women in Europe.doi:10.1007/s12134-024-01121-4, but I can't find anything in that paper to back up the claim. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what "tend to" means here, but it cannot be true. For example, if you look at theList of countries by total fertility rate, the highest total fertility rate in any country is under 6, including countries that are almost exclusively non-white (e.g., the Central African Republic). Then there are countries like China and India, also primarily non-white, which account for ~1/3 the total global population and have much lower birth rates. So there's simply no way for the average to be above 6.

Related but not as extreme: non-whites likely have a higher birth rate globally than whites, as the global distribution of poverty is not constant across races, and women in poor countries are more likely to give birth to more children, in part because: children are more likely to die (seeList of countries by infant and under-five mortality rates), and women are less likely to have access to birth control.FactOrOpinion (talk)00:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

In any case this is a glaring example ofWP:SYNTH. The article doesn't mention "white genocide", so why are we even discussing including it on the page?Generalrelative (talk)00:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

agreed. it appears the person, @TruthfulSpeech who is introducing this is a relatively new editor with less than 150 edits. about half are reverted. some of the most recent edits are pushing culture war ideas i.e. great replacement theory.

seems they were summoned to ANI back inoctober last year, but no admin ever really took a look.Bluethricecreamman (talk)04:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

An account called TruthfulSpeech advancing racist fringe nonsense? I'm shocked.Guy(help! -typo?)16:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

They have been editwarring on Polish politics it seems more. This stuff on great replacement theory is more recent and they haven’t done much around it yet.Bluethricecreamman (talk)16:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The article aboutpolitical ponerology is very messy and it's unclear whether the theory is even notable enough to be discussed. It's clearly a fringe theory and the article doesn't reflect this so at the very least, it needs someone with knowledge of the field to find better sources and contextualise the theory, but I'm not convinced it has a place on Wikipedia at all. I would appreciate it if editors took a look at this article, particularly anyone who knows about the crossover between politics and psychology. Thanks2A02:8084:4F43:8E00:8B4:28C7:D1A8:E25 (talk)09:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it 'fringe'. It is however obscure, and dare I say it, not very original. People have been coming up with similar cyclical views of historical development at least sinceIbn Khaldun wrote hisMuqaddimah in 1377 CE. If evidence can be found in independent sources that the theory has been the subject of serious discussion, they need to be cited, in some sort of reception section or similar. Otherwise, it needs to be deleted.AndyTheGrump (talk)10:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I have half a mind to send it to AfD anyway. Theory sounds incredibly half-baked, but more importantly the article is based on a single source and doesn't even seem to understand that source enough to describe it clearly ("congenital instinctive infrastructure in the vast majority of the population"...huh?). Basically a book report, and not a very good one.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)12:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I honestly would call it a little bit fringe. At the very least it seems yet another alternative all-encompassing political theory that never caught on. Based on lack of supporting sources to demonstrate any pickup of the theory suggest AfD is appropriate.Simonm223 (talk)16:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Largely agreed but there are a lot of political theories that get into fringe territory if you take them super literally... The giants of political theory seem particularly fond of pop/fringe psychology but in almost a more metaphorical way than literal.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I was skimming thisWP:VPP discussion about political userboxes, and it led me to a user's page where one of the userboxes says "This user ... believes the 2020 [U.S. presidential] election was rigged and erroneous," a fringe theory. It made me wonder whetherWP:UBCR should include "fringe theories" in the parenthetic list "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise)." Does anyone else have thoughts about this? Asking here becauseWT:UBX has very few page watchers; I may take it toWP:VPP depending on the discussion here. Thanks,FactOrOpinion (talk)14:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Honest question, how much policing is too much? Should religious userboxes be removed next?--Animalparty! (talk)15:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any content guideline entirely devoted to how religion is treated in WP articles, as we have with FTs. The editor also had a bunch of "I support Trump" userboxes, and I'm not raising those either. My question is specifically about the promotion of FTs, and it's only because we have a guideline about it. As for the comment below that "Some people think basic belief in a supernal divine, 'god', is fringe," yes, but that's not how we determine whether something is an FT; we look whether it's treated as fringe by scholarship in its field. It's fine with me if people think that this is not worth addressing, I just wanted others' input.FactOrOpinion (talk)16:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Most userboxes I see appear to me for the purpose of propaganda or advocacy. Some people wear their religious, sexual, political, etc. identities on their sleeve and feel the need to broadcast it to the world.

At least with editors who advertise that they believe certain fringe theories, you know what you're dealing with in discussions with them. In that sense, the userboxes provide a form of transparency. ~Anachronist(talk)15:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This. Every editor has biases. Userboxes give you a sense of what kind of editor you're dealing with.WP:SOAPBOX shouldn't be an excuse to get rid of a tool that helps the project.Apfelmaische (talk)15:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's not fight on general principles about this matter. If a specific userbox is a problem, you can MfD it. But trying to make a rule is fraught and there is no rule that says that Wikipedians cannot hold to fringe theories.WP:NOTHERE,WP:PROFRINGE, andWP:POVPUSH are the rules that work for figuring out what to do when a user is acting problematically in regards to such matters.jps (talk)15:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Some people think basic belief in a supernal divine, 'god', is fringe (and seem to unironically believe it is fringe). If I had a user box that says "I'm going home to Jesus in Heaven after I die" or "equivalent for X religion" problematic and disruptive to articles and the project? --Very Polite Person (talk)16:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we have bigger fish to fry. Thank you for bringing this to our attention because being informed is always a good thing. But policing userboxes is not a great idea, it's a can of worms that will become an unending battle. I assume that most people believe in some kind of fringe topic, if they want to announce it on their user page then at least I know what area of fringe I'm dealing with. I say that not to divide us, but to know that we are more alike than we expect, and hopefully we can find common ground and work together to have the strongest articles possible. Thanks.Sgerbic (talk)16:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It's ironic thatLa Gerbic is herself the subject of many rather creative conspiracy theories, because she is mighty correct: there’s a conspiracy theory for everyone, and hence very few people are immune. Policing userboxes for FRINGE isn't a thing we want to start doing.- LuckyLouie (talk)19:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the widespread humorous/ironic use of userboxes I don't really see how this is enforceable without some sort of witch hunt... "User 14786, immediately explain the meaning of the third and fifth userboxes on you talk page" etc... A userbox that says "This user was on thegrassy knoll" for example is clearly straddling the line between humor and FT.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• WP:MALVOLIO, what are you doing here? (relax, it's just a joke) I'd rather someone have their userpage festooned with userboxes supporting the wildest (or even the most vile) fringe beliefs than go out of our way to block users from doing anything to express themselves. Permitting expression not only makes the project more fun for the countless hobbyists who make up this community, it also provides a handy way to get a loose grasp of what an editor's priorities and POV will be.

I know a lot of folks will look at that as a polite way of saying "it tells us whose editing we should object to at every stage", but that's not it at all. The important part is recognizing whenever our fellow editors are arguingagainst their own POVs, because that's when we need to really listen to them and understand what they're saying.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This editor reads theFinancial Times_signed,Rosguill^talk17:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a discussion on political userboxes atWikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are political userboxes now allowed in Templatespace?Doug Wellertalk14:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, it was that discussion (and the user page of one of the participants) that made me wonder about this. But I think the consensus here is that it's not something to be concerned about, and has some potential value.FactOrOpinion (talk)15:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

[51]. Thanks.Doug Wellertalk06:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not think so, I agree with Hypnôs that it was undue in any case.Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋09:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Undue, and seemingly slapped in at random in the middle of the description.AndyTheGrump (talk)09:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• List of organizations opposing mainstream science (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Please seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations opposing mainstream science.Guy(help! -typo?)16:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I am rather surprised that the US Republican party isn't listed there, given their opposition to climate science, a high proportion of evangelical members who deny evolution, and state party platforms that openly advocate creationism. ~Anachronist(talk)23:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Also a high proportion of lawyers and wikilawyers, which is probably a reason why it will be difficult to add that. --Hob Gadling (talk)10:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hiya, im trying to make a list of paranormal events and stories from my local county, which has a history of UFO sightings and Ghost stories (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paranormal_events_reported_in_Wiltshire,_England)

however a lot of the direct sources are questionable, for example a public police report mentions a person claiming to have seen an Alien in their living room, and many others have possible logical explanations, so im wondering what is the best way to address such sources?The Spodel (talk)15:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Use RS, and repeat what they say.Slatersteven (talk)15:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

To repeat Slatersteven, start with completely independent reliable sources. Maybe two or three of them. Summarize what they say, while citing the books. Do not try to analyze police reports about real people and try to guess at whether it was a medical issue, a prank, or a person reporting something they actually saw.166.205.97.37 (talk)02:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Such lists are generally dubious. Methodically, "paranormal" just means "I do not understand it". People try to explain things, and if they fail, they put that label on it. So, because the label is subjective, depending on the labeler's competence, the choice of sources is critically important. --Hob Gadling (talk)06:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry couldn’t add end ]] stupid iPadDoug WellertalkDoug Wellertalk10:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

ForgivenBlueboar (talk)10:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

[52]Not sure where else to take this or what is going on. At least they aren’t trying to whitewash it.Doug Wellertalk17:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they are socks, but they fit the definition ofWP:MEATPUPPETS.Doug Wellertalk18:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like they bolstered the reputation of RANS by listing people who are actually associated with RAS. I could not find any RANS mention in any of the linked articles - exceptSergey Kapitsa. I doubt that the sources given are reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk)20:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

For your consideration:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)01:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

• List_of_unexplained_sounds (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

All of the items on the list have explanations. Should the article title be changed toList of ocean sounds and the few likeThe Hum simply remain at their own articles? Discussion atTalk:List_of_unexplained_sounds#Title_of_article.- LuckyLouie (talk)14:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure which noticeboard is the best fit for this topic, but if anyone here has experience sifting out software-company hype and checking which arXiv preprints actually made it through peer review,Mechanistic interpretability could use your help.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the accepted way of doing things in this case? If an arXiv paper hasn't been accepted/gone through peer review, does that mean we can just delete the citation and the associated claim?TurboSuperA+_[talk]15:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Eh. Sometimes. As a general principle that's probably okay, but there are entire fields which let the crowd do the peer review first (math) while sometimes never bothering to submit to a journal. Adopting a hard-and-fast rule is not advisable. Hell, some of the best sources in my field were posted on the arxiv and never went through peer review because, why bother? E.g.[53],[54]jps (talk)17:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

There will inevitably be the occasional exception, but for the most part, we need some indication of quality control. That typically means looking for whether a preprint got accepted at a not-fake journal or a serious conference with an equivalently high standard of review. Part of the hassle with theMechanistic interpretability is that some of the arXiv items cited may have later survived peer review, but because they're all just cited by arXiv number, one has to check each item manually.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)21:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Forgive a dummy queston, but what all here is exactlyWP:FRINGE and how...? —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)21:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

As the OP indicated, difficult to know which board is exactly right for this notice. PerhapsWP:NORN would have been a better fit, but hard to say.jps (talk)21:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

After attempting to follow the process atWP:AFD for IPs, a user removed the AFD tag and added an apologetics section with a single non independent source, getting rid of any semblance of balance with mainstream science and archeology.166.205.97.96 (talk)03:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is a conversation about the sources atWikipedia Talk:AFD166.205.97.96 (talk)04:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Deep in the weeds, for sure, but I think the best thing to do rather than try to delete it is includeWP:Independent sources and remove those sources which are completely unnoticed by anyone but apologetics.jps (talk)16:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The article is getting filled up with BYU as a source now. Editors are arguing BYU is independent, and that the quorum of the 12 is a secondary source...166.205.97.96 (talk)20:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Without intending to comment on the merit, I have completed the AFD nomination requested by the IP; please seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curelom and cumom.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)20:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There is now quite the dispute atTalk:Curelom and cumom. Seems a lot of people are taken in by the pseudoscholarship of Mormon believers who are basically talking amongst themselves about these fantasies.jps (talk)22:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• See alsoWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#166.205.97.96 and Religion as Fringe.jps (talk)23:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss an Arxiv.org preprint that's being used in articles related to philosophy of consciousness, grabby aliens, animal consciousness, and AI superintelligence. Some editors watching this page might be interested in those subjects[55].Geogene (talk)18:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how easy it will be to fix this. The second source, Woods, is a Creationist. Smyth is useless of course. Huber isStack Exchange, so also not an RS. Not sure what the economical center has to do with it and that will change over time. Isenberg, Holger (2003). "Giza, Centre of Earth". mars-news.de. looks self published by the creator of the article.Doug Wellertalk11:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing a creationist from doing actual science; and I wouldn't have a problem with it if Woods had published in a legitimate journal rather than an ICR publication. Smyth is useful as a historical footnote, and appears to be cited independently unlike Woods. I removed the things cited to Woods and Huber. ~Anachronist(talk)14:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed some seemingly coatrack prose about the prime meridian and a source about Atlantis. I can't find much online about this topic and wonder if it should be merged to Smyth's page12.75.41.70 (talk)18:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having doubts that this is a notable thing.Mangoe (talk)23:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

A quick Google Scholar search (using the exact phrase and also variations with "center" and "geographic") indicates that researchers periodically use this phrase in their articles. In some cases, it's scientists (looks like it's often in the context of the displacement of the center of the Earth's magnetic field from its "geographical center", which makes me think that they're actually using the term to refer to the geologic center), and in other cases, it's social scientists (e.g., the historical or contemporary beliefs of a given ethnic group or nation or religious group that the geographic center of the earth is within the land they control, or at some religiously significant location, so few if any of these likely involve any actual calculations).FactOrOpinion (talk)00:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

As of now, I'm not sure the article fully explains it?

Doesn't the "geographical center" depend entirely on how you rotate and frame the map?ApLundell (talk)02:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

No. My guess is that you're thinking in terms of a flat map, like the maps of the Earth in thisList of map projections. Instead, work with the 3-D planet (an oblate spheroidwith mountains and valleysCorrection: this calculation doesn't take height into account). The distance between two land-mass points on the planet doesn't depend on how you rotate the planet, and there is no framing, because you're not working with a projection. In actuality, the geographical center wouldn't be fixed in time, as the tectonic plates are moving slowly, glaciers calve, volcanoes erupt, sea levels rise, ..., but you can get a picture in time.FactOrOpinion (talk)03:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Aargh. I recall we actually have an article on this but I don't remember what it is. Something about the smallest circle that encloses all the land. I remember running across it a few months ago.

Edit: I guess it was just the parent articlegeographical centre, orpole of inaccessibility. At the time I was trying to determine the center of Africa. ~Anachronist(talk)07:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I had started writing this earlier, but got sidetracked. One of the problems with the article is that it suffers from thecoastline paradox. To do the game, one has to define a scale and smoothing kernel for the boundaries between land masses and the sea. Given that, it is possible to havea huge variety of "geographical centers" since one could adopta huge variety of scales and smoothing kernels as there is no objective means to decide which one is correct.

Almost certainly, the crank who came up with this was hoping to get the Pyramid of Giza as the result and backed out the measurement choices necessary to get there. Pretty classic game in these spaces, in fact (seeOrion correlation theory).

jps (talk)13:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. AfD?Doug Wellertalk15:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Or redirect. We need to do one or the other I think.Doug Wellertalk16:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Who is we? I'm not we and you should not do one or the other. Today Lisa Seitz Gruwell asked my for money to pay the servers. Currently not planning to pay.Isenberg (talk)15:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to. I thought it obvious that "we" included the people I was responding to. I see you reverted the redirect .Doug Wellertalk16:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

In addition, different times during the day correspond to different land-sea edges as the tides go in and out. But these issues almost certainly result in varied "centers" that all fall within a fairly small region, don't they? Or am I missing something?FactOrOpinion (talk)16:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd say merge and redirect toCharles Piazzi Smyth. The article is short enough that not much content would be moved. ~Anachronist(talk)21:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed we have other similar articles, purely about amateur conjecture with poor sources at places likeGeographical centre of Scotland. A few others exist.107.115.5.23 (talk)21:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographical centre of Earth.Doug Wellertalk16:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I should amend my previous comment a bit: a small map can have a geographical center determined through finding a superficialbarycenter of the shapes. Onecould do this even with fractal boundaries, and so this is a method by which one could calculate the superficial barycenter of larger and larger assemblages of land if one could adopt an approximate weighting by land area (more or less doable through assumed convergence and probably smoothing kernel independent). But as you get to larger and larger areas, there are additional problems of the spherical rather than Euclidean distribution of the land making the "barycenter" necessarily ambiguous (and almost certainly somewhere beneath the surface of the Earth). One could find that location in the Earth's interior and then ask which point is closest to the surface.I think you get somewhere in Turkey if you play that game, if I'm not mistaken.

But TO WHAT END? This is all very silly trivia.

jps (talk)17:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I personally like thepole of inaccessibility and have used it in some CAD modeling experiments, although that applies to a single land mass of arbitrary shape, not unconnected continents (I discovered Africa's pole of inaccessibility can vary widely depending on the accuracy and resolution of the coastline). I can invent other mathematically rigorous ways to find a "geographical center" also, such as the pole of a hemisphere that covers more land area than any other hemisphere, or the center of mass of all land assuming uniform thickness, projected back onto the nearest point on the sphere's surface. I can come up with other purely mathematical approaches without the Creationist bias present this article. But that's still original research. ~Anachronist(talk)19:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The deletion discussion as closed, and the article is now a redirect, but a hanger-on IP address can't let it go, trying to edit the closed discussion and continuing to comment on the talk page. It's unfortunate that the creator of this article, who cited himself in the article, never actually learned what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia in spite of many opportunities to do so during the discussions. ~Anachronist(talk)14:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

seeWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather#RFC_regarding_adding_relations_to_climate_change_on_specific_severe_meteorological_event_articles,

Think folks who follow this noticeboard would also be interested as well.Bluethricecreamman (talk)00:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that here. As a spin-off,Talk:Hurricane Ian#Climate change influence discusses sourcing. . .dave souza,talk06:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Just looked at the sources for this. Most seem to be from him, mainly via his old website, then there's also Hancock and Bauval. I'm not sure what's left if those are removed.Doug Wellertalk09:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I've added a few tags to the article header and left a comment on the talk page. ~Anachronist(talk)00:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.Doug Wellertalk07:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Knight himself as turned up asking for a change in the article.Doug Wellertalk13:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's a sucky BLP and it has no cite for "pseudoscientific conspiracy theories".Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)13:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I was able to cite 'pseudohistory' rather than pseudoscience. Still not sure this is notable, though. I see a fair amount of passing mentions in Academic literature (apparently some of his ideas have influencedDavid Icke), but nothing you could hang notability on.MrOllie (talk)13:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Found[56] on ProQuest, more than a passing mention.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)13:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing there.Doug Wellertalk19:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Try opening ProQuest via the WP:LIBRARY in a tab first. If that doesn't work, it's: Have the academics buried their heads in the sand?: [3 Edition]

Gibb, Eddie.  Sunday Herald; Glasgow (UK). 27 Feb 2000: 4.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)19:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.Doug Wellertalk19:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Honestly I think his objection to the quote is valid. It's pulled from an interview in a clear effort to give the reader the impression that his views are out-there. Maybe theyare, but we shouldn't go through an interview (with an obviously non-WP:RS, at that) and pull out a random quote that no secondary source has highlighted in order to imply something obviouslyWP:BLP-sensitive like that. This isn't the sort of thingWP:ABOUTSELF is for, and I don't see how the interview could be an RS otherwise. Also it's obviously an exceptional claim but that's not really the main issue here. --Aquillion (talk)03:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Fringe subject with one poor source. Is it notable?Doug Wellertalk19:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

There are some Google scholar results, but including them would rely on bending the criteria for an RS. I think it should be merged intoEgyptian chronology#Alternative chronologies where it is already mentioned.TurboSuperA+_[talk]03:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks likethis conversation is trying to push the idea that the fringe medical practice of gender exploration therapy is somehow not conversion therapy... again...Simonm223 (talk)17:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Already replied. I'm a little bit impressed by the audacity to casually insist that the Cass review and the Trump HHS report are MEDRS sources. It's like rolling up to a biker bar on a kid's bicycle and insisting you've got the fastest bike of them all.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm just so tired of this debate.Simonm223 (talk)18:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

For a moment I you meant comparing a Triumph to a1952 Vincent Black Lightning. My bad, carry on. . .dave souza,talk08:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

In defense of Gitz, my understanding is that they are neither American or British. Their understanding of the issue may be critically misinformed in part because of this, or otherwise it is still good to AGF.Relm (talk)06:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Of note gitz was permabanned fromImane Khelif for his behavior in that space about a year ago. And he was involved in theYasuke style culture war stuff there. There is a pattern of culture war editing here.Bluethricecreamman (talk)22:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

They also copped a topic ban from Eastern Europe for trying to "both sides" the Russian invasion of Ukraine.208.87.236.180 (talk)18:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

• FWIW theRSN on the Cass review was never closed, though I think a rough eyeball would clearly suggest no consensus. A proper RFC could be run if someone thinks there's a consensus to be found, but I suspect it would just reaffirm the lack of consensus... it might still be worth it if it keepscoming up just so we can have the lack of consensus clearly written down somewhere, which would at least let people know that they're likely to run into disputes when discussing it; if possible, though, resolving at least one of the recurring questions that keeps consuming time and energy in the topic area would be nice. We could also ask about the Trump HHS report if people are actually trying to cite it as a RS for something other than the administration's opinions; in that case I'd expect that a consensus that it's not a RS for statements of medical fact would be easy to obtain. But an actual RFC atTalk:Conversion therapy for the question at hand might be more productive than both, if it hasn't been run already - obviously this is a controversial subject but wehave mechanisms to avoid repeatedly re-hashing questions like this, so we ought to be using them, especially when people aren't making any new points anymore. --Aquillion (talk)03:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)