We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately andimpartially. Our purpose isnot to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly.Never present fringe theories as fact.
If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use{{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy{{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevantWikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Sure, we can call an area which has a, to quote the HRP,small body of scholarship but that the rest of the field hasn't really studied in detail FRINGE/ALT. As the section header implies, those sections more typically and appropriately apply to specificformulations and theories, andPlurality (identity) seems like it may be broad enough to have multiple theories on it.Alpha3031 (t •c)10:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the basic center of this the proposal (medical or otherwise) that people so completely disassociate as to seeminglyactually comparmentalize their selves, to where they can interact (I guess?) as separate entities? And anything else then hangs off that central core topic? So basically, I suppose, how theHulk is depicted as an analogy? —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)17:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I’m happy with this statement in Otherkin: “ Because of the neurodivergence, transgender people who identify as otherkin are common.”. That only has one source.Doug Wellertalk18:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there? The lead of the plurality (identity) article explicitly mentionstulpas, which are an entirely religious concept.Hemiauchenia (talk)18:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Mobile, at nkd protest) Sources for plurality make Tulpamancy out to be all intentionally/unintentionally non disorded created system.s
there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there?
The way I see it, one can have a strong belief about anything, while a religion is usually organised, has canonical texts and a community of believers.TurboSuperA+[talk]19:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This VICE article is cited 8 times in the article. It is written by Tori Telfer, a freelance writer, who doesn't seem to have any relevant credentials in psychology/psychiatry and hasn't been published in the discipline. She writes true crime/non fiction novels. I think the use of that source should be evaluated, as I don't think it passes the BESTRS (MEDRS?) muster.TurboSuperA+[talk]19:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a split. One issue I can see is that the glossary consists of terms that are sourced to peer-reviewed scientific journals and the aforementioned VICE article, resulting in false equivalence. I also wonder if other editors think there areWP:FALSEBALANCE issues with the article.TurboSuperA+[talk]20:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching the article for a month or so now and yeah, I would say my main concern with it is related toWP:FALSEBALANCE. The problem with this topic is kind of the classicWP:FRINGE problem where it just doesn't get much attention from mainstream figures in the relevant field, even if it's notable enough for an article. There's also the fact that analyzed through one lens it's medical but there are other frameworks for analysis that definitely aren't--there's the subcultural/internet phenomenon aspect, there's philosophical claims about personality, and those can and should be covered without using MEDRS sourcing. I think the internet subculture aspect is being reasonably well-covered in the article, but I think some of the existing sourcing could be used to make it more clear that the claims about non-disordered plurality are controversial (and controversial in a way that's distinct from the "doesDID even exist" conversation).CarringtonMist (talk)15:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
essentially "But since tulpagenic plurals do not meet the diagnostic criterion for DID (nor perhaps for any mental disorder), they may show that being multiple, and even having a plural identity, is not in and of itself unhealthy.⁹" -Flower (she/her;Accounts))15:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know a handful of people who identify this way, and while I'm not suggesting citing my anecdotal claims for any article use, I can say with absolute certainty that not one of them identifies this as a mental illness.
As it was explained to me by the first person I met who identified this way (who got pestered with questions because I'm a giant, curious nerd), "It's more a matter of different moods having different identities, and sometimes, there's not a lot of communication between them."
My experiences may be an outlier, but I would say that, absent any reliable sources which show that most people who identify this way claim to have DID, the claim that they're 'pretending' to have a mental illness isn't worth the pixels it displays on.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's theWP:COMMONNAME at the moment. As I said, I want to split to Multiplicity (phenomenon) and Plurality (identity) when the article has enough content to warrent a split. Previous attempts to split the article failed as they where merged back into it. -Flower (she/her;Accounts)15:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. There is no real reason we need to declare whether a topic is one type of fringe or another. It is fine for us to pay attention to the fringe guideline and work to put our best foot forward in terms of the principles of encyclopedia writing, but falling into categorical traps as though this is goingright great wrongs in the world is a mistake. Talkpage notes are best used to put a stop to perpetual arguing, and, right now, there is little conflict that I see about article writing even among those who have differing opinions on the topics discussed in the article. This article is very much about adeveloping topic. As of a decade ago, there was basically zero literature talking about those who self-identified as as plural (this is partially why so much is inherited from theVice article. For better or worse, they were one of the first outfits to notice this community). We are fortunate that we have a handful of sources from various publications documenting the community existence. As long as the trend continues where more usable sources are created about this, I think we'll be fine and we don't need to try to paste labels on talkpages.jps (talk)20:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "aggressive fringe lobbying" looks to be justified and definitely not be fringe. In fact the "lobbyist" was correct, and you were lobbying to block correction of verifiably false information.~2025-37306-20 (talk)21:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very obviously based on facts. There has been an unreasonable amount of resistance to correcting one small falsehood introduced previously (that the NASA panel was a classified panel, which is verifiably false, see sources below). In the talk linked, LuckyLouie, justified keeping the false information in the page, because it counteracts a fringe narrative he supposed is present on Reddit. A group of editors teamed up to fight fixing the error, putting up road block after road block. It's disheartening, and the complaint on this noticeboard by LuckyLouie is preposterous, since LuckyLouie and others were the ones aggressively promoting the fringe and incorrect claim that the NASA panel was classified.
NASA was very clear and deliberate about not doing classified research, in order to maintain trust and transparency and open science. Lying about their panel being classified amounts to promoting a false conspiracy, and potentially defamation.~2025-37919-82 (talk)05:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up a few times. A professor somesuch, with legitimate academic publications,also has fringe views within their area of expertise; these fringe views have never been legitimately published in a reputable source, but people argue that we can cite them via EXPERTSPS. I feel that this should be specifically and unambiguously forbidden - it's a misuse of EXPERTSPS, in that the views they're being cited for aren't actually the ones that were published; and it falsely creates an appearance of academic support for the fringe position they're taking. I'm unsure whether this would better be added toWP:FRINGE orWP:EXPERTSPS, but it feels like it should be clearly spelled-out somewhere. (We do currently sayEfforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable; but the entire point of EXPERTSPS is to be an exception to self-publication, so I feel that if that is meant to bar expert self-published sources then it needs to be more clear so there's an obvious part of policy to point to.) --Aquillion (talk)13:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1in that the views they're being cited for aren't actually the ones that were published what matters is whether it's the same topic/field/area. Then that doesn't guarantee inclusion, but it makes it very possible to include the info.Prototyperspective (talk)17:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One important stumbling block here is thatinterest in a subject by someone with expertise in the field of that subject is easy to confuse for anendorsement of that subject. I know a number of mathematicians who can talk aboutnumerology for hours without ever saying anything cross about it, for example. In my own case, I'm rather fond of all sorts ofconspiracy theories,cryptids and esoterica such astarot andceremonial magic. I have had countless conversations about those subjects that didn't involve disclaiming my complete lack of belief in them.
I once had a rather long and detailed conversation with a fellowskeptic who had an MD and a PhD about the sorts of biochemistry one might see in a zombie, and I don't think we ever discussed our lack of belief in the reality of zombies because we both already knew it would be silly to assume the other believed this nonsense. And indeed, she later put up a lot of our thoughts and conclusions on her blog, still absent any expression of the skepticism we both held. I remember going so far as to joke with her that some Wikipedian might cite her blog perWP:EXPERTSPS some time later, a possibility we both found amusing. (Fortunately, zombies remain one of those few cryptids which get little attention from the pro-fringe crowd here.)ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ok cite fringe conclusions by EXPERTSPSes when there's sufficient rebuttal in actual RSes, but probably not something to just drop on the reader uncontextualized. Not all fringe claims are created equal: if a "surgeon" gets press for saying he saw a strange animal in Loch Ness, that's pretty harmless. But if a doctor tells patients to take untested medications, that's very dangerous.Feoffer (talk)18:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A conversation on this noticeboard a long time ago, combined with having participated in three discussions atTalk:Muhammad about a fringe source being published by a university press, prompted me to write the essayWP:UPRESS. Basically, just because someone is an expert, or a source has been peer-reviewed, doesn't mean it isn't fringe. There's a whole walled garden of peer-reviewed scholarly sources devoted to creationism, for example. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)18:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a certain point ofthat fine a line, I would insist myself that "editor opinion" has to be forcibly shoved into the backseat unless we have widely used mainstreamWP:RS that calls the claimed fringe thing as fringe. Which, if it's fringe, should be trivial to do. If not, don't presume fringe if it's that close to call on overall context. Our job is verifiability, even if unpleasant or uncomfortable or against our ethos. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)19:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these remind of the importance of secondary sources, or WP could be an indiscriminate collection of "verified" material to primary sources, about topics and claims that may have little traction or merit.~2025-35304-53 (talk)09:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific discussion that prompted this washere, although I wasn't really asking for a conclusion onthat specifically - I feel we should update at least some policy page to be more clear about the general case. --Aquillion (talk)14:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EXPERTSPSallows us to cite self published material written by experts… but does not mean that wemust cite that expert. EXPERTSPS is balanced by several other policy statements - especially WP:DUE and WP:VNOT.Blueboar (talk)15:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this excerpt fromW:EXPERTSPS fits this situation to some degree. It already says, "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose workin the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." ("in the relevant field" is already in bold, I added the underline). But I guess it could be worded more clearly/definitively.BetsyRogers (talk)08:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with this quite a bit. I find the NPOV policyWP:FALSEBALANCE as very helpful guide when editors push an "expert" to promote a fringe theory. It says"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Ramos1990 (talk)08:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we merely omit this informationwhere including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwiseinclude and describe these ideas in their proper context concerningestablished scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.Prototyperspective (talk)10:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, soif any fringe view is included, it must be contextualized by the non-fringe mainstream perspective, for NPOV (which is not negotiable). Without such context the view would be unduly legitimized..Bon courage (talk)10:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plant-based cat food was redirected atAFD due to being a fringe/pov-fork. The same issues are now coming to thecat food article where a secondary source written by experts and published by Wiley-Blackwell[4] is being removed, with a claim that the author of a chapter, a professor at the veterinary school at the University of Utrecht is unreliable.Traumnovelle (talk)20:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I purposely chose to not include any source based upon a survey asking people who chose to feed their cat a vegan diet how healthy the cat is. If that's the sort of thing you consider scientific evidence there are plenty of examples of it on the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk)15:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion (after lots of reverts) about the article about the MormonBook of Mosiah. I want to mention the author, others think that is not necessary. The article has in the lead things like " The title refers to Mosiah II, a king of the Nephites at Zarahemla. The book covers the time period between c. 130 BC and 91 BC, except for when the book has a flashback into the Record of Zeniff, which starts at c. 200 BC, according to footnotes. " without making it clear in any way that this is fictional or completely unscientific pseudohistory or whatever you want to call it. Counterargument is that authorship isn't given in many other articles about religious books or chapters either. All input is welcome atTalk:Book of Mosiah#Authorship in the lead section.Fram (talk)08:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I am the author ofWP:YWAB. You can figure out my position from that page.
Over atTalk:The Age of Disclosure we have so far had the happy result of a good-faith editor who believes that the US government has been covering up evidence of alien visitors working well with more skeptical editors to improve the article. As the film has gained public notice, we have gathered more voices -- most of them skeptical -- and things are getting a bit testy. I can see why the lone true believer is feeling a bit ganged up on. Could I ask that some more calming voices go there and participate? There is zero change that the article will become pro-fringe, and to my way of thinking a mob with torches and pitchforks is not needed here. --Guy Macon (talk)17:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long discredited theory that probably holds some record foriatrogenic injury. "Sure, you're THINK you're 'normal' cause you're so attracted to your wife, but you're actually 'unconsciously gay'". Very important in the American 1950s in general, also big in Scientology and NXIVM.— Precedingunsigned comment added byFeoffer (talk •contribs)01:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes: a terrible article sourced (where it is at all) largely to weak primary sources. What is the source for the "discredited" POV? From a quick search I doubt there's a viable topic here: might be an idea to AfD it ...Bon courage (talk)02:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I'll fix this one. It's a super important topic. I've argued you can't understandPride if you don't understand latent homosexuality. Latent homosexuality transformed homosexuality from a behavior to a "condition" of being.Feoffer (talk)02:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be very little in-depth sourcing, the concept in RS (it is also termedunconscious homosexuality) just seems to be the mundane one that people may not comprehend their 'true' homosexuality. Don't want to let weak sourcing about something odd that might have happened in America obscure that mainstream meaning. Here's something fromdoi:10.1080/00918369.2020.1851957, a recent-ish (2021) secondary source:
"Latent homosexuality," a term "used interchangeably with unconscious homosexuality," has been a persistent theme in clinical, biographical, and autobiographical accounts of same-sex attraction (Campbell, [ 7], p. 463; Ellis & Symonds, [29], p. 124; West, [101], pp. 207–209). Logically, the closet of latent homosexuality can be discerned only from the outside—either by onlookers peering in or by oneself after quitting it ...
or from[5] (which is in the references, though not cited honestly):
a form of homosexuality that is not recognized as such by the person concerned but is repressed and manifested indirectly through various defence mechanisms, generally including projection
I'd expect the article to align with this, as a basis. What we have at the moment is apparently made-up. So yeah - the article does have a FRINGE problem, in its current state.Bon courage (talk)02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best belongs in this history section ofHomosexuality and psychology. 21st century sources use the term in the most neutral sense, but it was highly pathologized in the 1950s. We don't need article on the concept as it's limited used in modern research, just the historic usage in clinical practice.Feoffer (talk)03:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd need secondary sources discussing that. If the article must exist, it should represent mainstream up-to-date quality sourcing on the topic as a basis. "Historic usage in clinical practice" (presumably you mean in the USA) could be covered if good sourcing exists, which seems doubtful. What we don't want is something like the current article, which reads like an off-topic OR fantasy based on interpreting primary sources.Bon courage (talk)03:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[6] I restored the longstanding well-sourced text, adding specific quote: "When word came that Grandison Newell had secureda warrant for his arrest on a charge of banking fraud, Joseph knew that this was the finish and fled in the night" (emphasis mine)
Again deleted the well-sourced material with summary: "From the JSP's Introduction to Joseph Smith’s Ohio Legal Cases: "Although the vast majority of JS’s nearly fifty cases in Ohio were civil in nature, he was involved in four criminal prosecutions" (three as defendant and one as compliant. None of which were related to banking).If you disagree, I invite you to produce the specific warrant and issuing judge, as neither Brodie nor Bushman do." (emphasis mine)
Epachamo is repeatedly re-inserting off-topic material about civil lawsuits Joseph filed against others:
I removed with summary rv bold addition of Smith's table purporting to chart every single encounter with a court -- it implies a level of historical precision and consensus that just isn't there. We would need RSes citing those numbers as accepted, not just one author putting them out there.
re-added without attempting to generate consensus.
I could use help explaining why we don't need to "produce a warrant" or contextualize a history of convictions by adding in lots of information about lawsuits. And at the same time I'm want to be very mindful ofWP:OWN -- I started the article, I reverted the two indiviuals. Perhaps I'm myopic and missing something.Feoffer (talk)02:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me of being a single purpose account? One look at my edit history should disabuse you of that notion. I edit on a broad array of topics. You accuse me of collaborating with Gottagitgud? I've never met or collaborated with him in my entire Wikipedia career, on or off Wikipedia. Our edits were to different sections! You accuse me on the talk page of doing OR/SYNTH. These are serious accusations with no evidence. I would very much appreciate followingWP:NPA, or at the very least not making baseless accusations.Epachamo (talk)18:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I did work with Gottagitgud on a page a number of years ago, but to accuse me of collaboratively working with him is absurd. To accuse me of a single purpose account? Absurd. What would you say my purpose is?Epachamo (talk)20:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to apologize for what might have appeared to be some very serious personal attacks. In both cases, I spoke imprecisely and should have chosen words better. I did not mean to imply any acting in bad faith like some off-wiki "collaborations" or SPA in some "bad-faith" sense. I've struck both.Feoffer (talk)23:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to resolve this conflict on the article talk page, but I fear that my usual Autistic Editor style isn't a good fit here. If anyone has advice for ways I could do a better job. please open up a discussion on my talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk)00:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the main question seems to be whether Joseph Smith's arrests should be presented alongside172 unrelated events ranging from civil lawsuits he filed, ordinance violations he issued as mayor, and even times he was an "interested third party" in a lawsuit. To my eyes, this is all off-topic for an article about Smith's crimes and alleged crimes.Feoffer (talk)11:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to @Feoffer allegation that I am deleting "well-sourced material." The specific claim he is defending is that a criminal warrant was issued in January 1838 for "banking fraud".
This claim only survives in Brodie (1971). The other sources he cited either contradict or fail to support this fact, meaning the factual chain of custody breaks down immediately after Brodie. That's why I asked for more support, which he failed to produce.
Unlike what @Feoffer claims, Brodie is not considered a reliable source.WP:LDS/RS specifically advises that Brodie shouldnot be used unless corroborated by modern sources. @Feoffer's reliance on this source is therefore an immediate violation of WP policy.
We might find an example in the 1826 trial, also in the article, that has disputedconclusions among scholars, but yet it is rich inprimary source documentation. This 1838 warrant claim has nothing going for it—not a single source, docket, warrant, article, letter, or affidavit.Zero. Nada.
Furthermore, Feoffer's position contains a profound irony: he champions the removal of Epachamo's table because of "contested numbers", while simultaneously fighting to preserve a textual claim that is factually bankrupt when measured against modern sources. The claim must be removed immediately as it fails the bar forWP:V.
Someone infrequently active user with only a few dozen edits is edit warring atAlex Epstein (American writer) to remove material from the lead relating to his views on climate change using nonsensical edit summaries. Outside scrutiny would be appreciated. Thanks.Hemiauchenia (talk)17:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That page says "Epstein denies parts of the scientific consensus on climate change. He agrees that climate change is largely human caused but does not believe that widespread use of fossil fuels is an existential threat to humanity." So there is a scientific consensus that we know for sure thatClimate change mitigation,Climate change adaptation andCarbon sequestration cannot possibly work and that eliminating fossil fuels is theonly possible solution?CitationNeeded. Because our page atGlobal catastrophe scenarios#Climate change says
"Some have proposed climate change could cause total human extinction. Carl Sagan and others have raised the prospect of extreme runaway global warming turning Earth into an uninhabitable Venus-like planet. Some scholars argue that much of the world would become uninhabitable under severe global warming, but even these scholars do not tend to argue that it would lead to complete human extinction, according to Kelsey Piper of Vox. All the IPCC scenarios, including the most pessimistic ones, predict temperatures compatible with human survival in at least some locations. The question of human extinction under "unlikely" outlier models is not generally addressed by the scientific literature. Factcheck.org judged (2020) that climate change does not pose an "existential risk", stating: "Scientists agree climate change does pose a threat to humans and ecosystems, but they do not envision that climate change will obliterate all people from the planet."
None of the above justifies the heavy-handed edit warring and POV pushing by the new editor. I am just saying that after the disruption is dealt with we might want to take a good look at what is mainstream and clearly supported by scientific consensus, what is controversial, and what is fringe. --Guy Macon (talk)01:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do what links here, filter for Article space, expand to full screen, eyeball for plants and such? May not be an easier way than manually hunting. I'd suggest dumping that output into a tool like AI/GPT to have it sort out "biology" pages for you, to speed things up, but someone would chide me. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)18:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hey folks - took a look at the journal articles and they all seemed fairly reputable (i.e. none of those three popped red flags on predatory journals, but they're surely not the best of the best). I changed language to better reflect findings - as sometimes it can be difficult to read through the science and understand the magnitude of the conclusion.Abs145 (talk)03:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just stumbled on the article about the fine-tuning hypothesis, and it looks quite concerning to me. The hypothesis is presented as stemming from an observation widely accepted by the scientific community and as such a phenomenon to be explained one way or another. There is almost zero criticism of its underlying logic, which feels wildly undue. Among the possible "explanations", there is an enormous weight given to the creationist one compared to all others. The more I look at the article the less I like it. I would like more opinions here as I am unsure which way to go.Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅📬⋅📜19:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the high level it seems to passWP:GNG so the article is fine to exist to whatever ends.
There is almost zero criticism of its underlying logic, which feels wildly undue.
There is no doubt about its notability as it is a pretty old concept that gets somewhat cyclical attention. In general it is a rejection of any kind of flavor of theanthropic principle, which as a whole is the more mainstream approach to the "problem" fine-tuning claims to address. It is not a generally accepted, uncontroversial observation of the cosmos like the article presents it, but instead a very contentious claim that more often than not serves as a springboard for creationist arguments. I find the fact that theGod of the gaps concept only gets a mention in the See also section pretty telling personally.Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅📬⋅📜20:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get it (I had a chance to read through after). Yeah, it needs the counter-weight if it exists inWP:RS from relevant domain/professional credentialed experts, discussing the topics on the article. Do we have them? —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)20:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have them at hand, it is unfortunately the kind of scientific-adjacent stuff that is popular enough that convinced academics get some visibility talking about it, but that most of the rest just ignore and therefore do not bother to spend time refuting... So the false balance happens somewhat naturally in the media landscape because of it.Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅📬⋅📜20:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment: multiverse theories is the first section in the explanations section and the prior sections don't seem to give weight to any creationist ones…or did I over-read something? If you don't know much about a subject, I don't think you should jump to conclusions as to whether an article is biased. Nevertheless, I would support the addition of brief info on the main naturalistic explanation of the fine-tuned universe cosmological problem to the lead but this is best discussed on the talk page, not here. I think bothmultiverse andanthropic principle should be mentioned and linked to in the lead.Prototyperspective (talk)10:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually thinking about this further, there is a major concern with the article outside of the lead I'd agree with:the page title and subsequent framing (also in the lead). In my prior comment I used the term "fine-tuned universe cosmological problem" which would have been better and could be improved further. A better framing and title would basically describe this as acosmological problem of natural constants unexpectedly precisely fitting what's required for life. The current title may also be what made you think the article is about the hypothesis that these values have been fine-tuned while the actual content is about the cosmological problem. It needs rescoping/reframing to the broader and more accurate subject which is the subject of a lot of studies and other sources, which usually refer to the problem, not (only) the specific idea that it has been fine-tuned. The German Wikipedia article is called (properly translated) "fine-tunedness of natural constants" and has this explanation:In cosmology, the fine-tunedness of natural constants (also known as the fine-tunedness of the universe) refers to the surprisingly precise alignment of the physical constants of nature and the initial state of the universe. […] There are various explanations for this fine-tunedness: external control in connection with a theistic concept of God, chance, or inadequate physical theories. It is also argued that there is no fine-tuning because there are a multitude of other combinations of natural constants that would also produce a habitable universe. The latter part could be adopted in similar shape in the lead and a proposal for page moving be made on its talk page (ideally with multiple target title options) which I'd support.Prototyperspective (talk)14:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very idea that there is a "cosmological problem" to figure out because of "unexpected" observations is a POV, so embracing in title, lead and framing of the article is the exact opposite of what I am trying to achieve...Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅📬⋅📜16:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that the existence of this challenge would be a POV is a fringe POV backed by nothing – it's an objective and well-established question/challenge/problem. Maybe you want to overstep the extensive scientific literature in fields of cosmology and astrophysics as well as philosophical sources and more to try to enforce your view that are supported by nothing and in direct contradiction to hundreds of high-quality sources – that wouldn't be okay perWP:NPOV. And in regards to your comment below, I did not make an assumption about you and it's now even less clear what issue you see with the article. In any case, the talk page is the place to discuss this, not some external board.Prototyperspective (talk)17:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This apparently deliberate misreading of my words, as well as blatant assumption of bad faith are good signs that there is clearly no point in engaging with you, so I am certainly not going to discuss any of this further with you either here or on the talk page of the article. A potentially helpful reminder as well: you do not get to tell other people whether they are allowed to use a noticeboard or not.Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅📬⋅📜17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescending assumption that I am unfamiliar with the topic and "jump[ing] to conclusions" is both incorrect and unwelcome. Besides, that is not the point I was trying to make, as my issue is not intrinsically with bias or what people believe, but about framing. The fine-tuned universe theory is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. As such the page needs to be clear that it is showcasing various perspectives on the matter, but not competing scientific theories. This is where my concerns lie.Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅📬⋅📜16:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fine-tuned universe theory is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.
"Wildly undue" seems like a bit of an extreme characterization. Theists have written a lot about the subject. So we include that. But it's not as if a theistic perspective is the majority of the article.GMGtalk14:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That one is a real train wreck. The sources have titles likeA general theory of love,The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness,The Wise Heart: A Guide to the Universal Teachings of Buddhist Psychology, andMindfully Green: A Personal and Spiritual Guide to Whole Earth Thinking.
The article claims that sleep and awake periods of a mother and infant are somehow magically entwined, and somehow this helps the neurological development of the infant and... prevents Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)??
Agree with both Bob and Guy. The concept of limbic resonance is stated to come from the bookA General Theory of Love, which we also have a very dubious article on - extremely dubiously sourced. Both articles need to be AfD'd in my opinion. For instance,A General Theory of Love states that the book has been compared, apparently by nobody in particular, to the work ofSteven Pinker andOliver Sacks. It also claims, under "Critical reception", that it "received generally positive reviews, including Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, the Washington Post, and the San Francisco Examiner." The source offered for this broad and impressive claim isan Amazon.com page said to 'list review blurbs'. Maybe that page listed some such in 2009, when the page was accessed; it doesn't now, and I guess Amazon was actually never a proper way of sourcing mentions of greats such asWashington Post. The Amazon page as it is now contains only a rather long and extravagantly positive review by nobody knows who - no guarantee it isn't, for instance, by the publisher (it reads exactly like a very long publisher's blurb). Perhaps these sourcing misfortunes are due to the article being so old - as mentioned, the sources were accessed in 2009. Anyway, unless somebody is up for a complete update, AfD is the place forA General Theory of Love as well.Bishonen |tålk22:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I haven't found a Pinker comparison yet (other than "if you like this book, you may also like these other books," including one by Pinker), but a Sacks comparison is appears in a San Francisco Chroniclebook review by David Kipen.FactOrOpinion (talk)23:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y alright.Flower (she/her;User talk:IPOfAFlower)18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
