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]
An IP user (Do we still call them IP's now?} has been removing criticism and claims of spreading pseudoscience fromGaia, Inc. I sadly am not in the position to do full research on the veracity of these edits, however they seem like whitewashing of conspiratorial anti-establisment medical claims. I thought it better to leave it here for someone to look at than to just ignore it. If this isn't the place, feel free to just remove it, sorry if I waste anyones time.
Talking about someone whitewashing a fringe topic is never a waste of time. We will have to keep dealing with this problem as long as there is money to be made from stopping those mean old Wikipedia editors from saying bad things about someone's Snake Oil business.
Re-evaluation counseling andCo-counselling are both currently in a rather poor state and have been for probably a decade or more now. While there was some attention given to both by fairly experienced editors (and thank both of them for the attempt honestly), I'm considering a more drastic stubification or possibly even noming an AFD. Some other opinions on what could be excised and what might be salvageable would be welcome though.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AfD is right. There's coverage in reliable sources, but much is old and not readily accessible online. I'd favour mergingRe-evaluation counseling intoCo-counselling, and further merging inHarvey Jackins andTim Jackins, while trimming away the primary and self-published sources.
There is an ongoing RfC atNPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment.TarnishedPathtalk05:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really baffling comment! There is actually nothing wrong with discussing political groups who aspouse pseudoscience here, as can be seen going back 18 years in the archives.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk12:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mouse's comment has confused me. My takeaway fromGuy Macon's comment was not that the political groups who espouse pseudoscience should not be discussed here. The groups themselves, to the extent that we are discussing their promotion of pseudoscience are fair game, and always have been. Right, Guy?VdSV9•♫12:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. Talk about the pseudoscience. Name the politicians and political groups that promote it. Stay away from all theother things you dislike or like about those politicians or political groups. --Guy Macon (talk)13:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zulfiqar (the sword ofAli) has been repeatedly edited to insert fantastic claims using unreliable sources. For example, one citation claims that: the one true sword of Ali from the 7th century has been found. According to the CIA, the Shah of Iran sent a "sacred artifact" (ie. the sword) to Kuwait. Thereal reason that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was to retrieve the holy relic. (The sword is claimed to be worth 27X more than the Mona Lisa. But, they are taking offers for 4.3 billion Swiss Francs.)[2] This reference was used to support the authenticity of the claim that this sword was possessed by Ali.
See contributions from:
User:Меч Пророка (Google translate from Russian: "Sword of the Prophet")
User:Sword Nr.1 (myself and another editor left messages on the talk page)
This has been going on since April. Project Sword just reinserted the section two days after I removed it and left a note on the talk page. --mikeutalk15:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate some oversight from experienced contributors regardingDraft:Allatra, recently "draftified" article about a pseudo-scientific Ukrainian cult.
The article was created in early November 2025 and expanded substantially by a small number of editors. A brief summary of key edits:8 November 2025 – The article was created in mainspace byUser:Noospherix, with a substantial initial draft.9 November 2025 – Major expansions were added byUser:Time4Tinfoil, including new sections and additional sourcing.16–18 November 2025 – Further refinements, cleanup, and additional content byUser:Noospherix andUser:Federhalter.19 November 2025 –User:Deriannt applied several serious maintenance tags: undue weight, unreliable sources, undisclosed paid, submitted the page for speedy deletion (A7/G10), and then moved the article from mainspace to draftspace with the edit summary:
“Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): Possible UPE and socking concerns; vet through AfC for proper review.”
These are significant actions, but when asked on the talk page to identify specific issues in the article text that justify SD, tagging or draftification, only broad or general concerns have been raised (e.g., alleging UPE, LLM-generation, or coordinated editing). Concrete examples—such as specific claims lacking citations, demonstrably unreliable sources, or points of undue weight—have not yet been provided.
To be clear, I am not suggesting the article is perfect; there is room for improvement in sourcing and balance. However, based on reviewing the content, the issues do not appear to rise to the level that would normally justify draftification, and the related concerns have not been substantiated with diffs or policy-grounded examples.
Before considering whether the article should be restored to mainspace, I would appreciate input from editors experienced with fringe-adjacent topics, Eastern European sources, and contentious-topic vetting. Guidance on whether the article warrants remaining in draftspace, or whether normal mainspace editing would be more appropriate, would be very helpful.Salimfadhley (talk)20:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I did not create the article. I became aware of it after it had been created and made several relatively minor edits. Thank you very much for your attention to this.Noospherix (talk)20:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
God the lede is too long and the article appears incredibly unfocused.
Be more specific. One challenge is that the group itself is operating a sprawling web of influence on multiple continents, which doesn't lend itself to simplicity.Noospherix (talk)21:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the updates. I fixed a couple of typos and we can move some of the information that had been in the lede into other sections later.Noospherix (talk)22:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SalimfadhleyThese are significant actions, but when asked on the talk page to identify specific issues in the article text that justify SD, tagging or draftification, only broad or general concerns have been raised (e.g., alleging UPE, LLM-generation, or coordinated editing) – I didn’t expect such a loose comment, because any experienced editor can clearly see that the article is problematic. I hope you’ve seen this:[4]. I also marked a few unreliable sources onMark Burns (pastor)’s page:[5]. The whole article functions as an attack page in its current form and would require a full rewrite.Deriannt (talk)04:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From reviewing the earlier non-NPOV version of the article[6], it appears that the draft may have been structured in a way that uses Wikipedia to advance an anti-Allatra narrative, potentially involving coordinated editing by narrowly focused accounts. The inclusion of sections such asDraft talk:Allatra#Potential for future vandalism by Allatra also appears pre-emptively framed in a manner that could deflect scrutiny or accountability.Deriannt (talk)15:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coordination between the people editing this. The flurry of activity is because there is interest in this topic. The burden is on you to prove coordination. You asserted UPE and use of sock puppets, which is a clear sign of bad faith engagement.Noospherix (talk)15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coordination is evident and easily verifiable; there is nothing further to prove here. If you have any other accounts, please disclose them.Deriannt (talk)15:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are definitely operating in bad faith: I do not know any of the other people editing this account. I do not have any other accounts. You assert coordination is 'easily verifiable.' Verify it, then. I'll wait. In the meantime, I hope other editors observe your baseless accusations.Noospherix (talk)15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know for certain you are making a baseless accusation against me, at least. And, yes, I will pursue the appropriate remedies if that doesn't stop. Thanks.Noospherix (talk)15:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Salimfadhley The evidence of coordination has already been sent to a CheckUser administrator. I am currently gathering additional information related to potential UPE, which will also be provided by email. You may request the relevant details from the appropriate Wikipedia functionaries if needed.Deriannt (talk)08:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Please let me know where you are posting all this so I can finally meet the people I'm colluding with. The reason I can assert that you are acting in bad faith (at least with regards to any charges you are making about me) is that I have first hand knowledge that I am not connected to any other editor. It is unusual that you are making such an extensive effort to pursue something I know to be spurious, which only raises more questions.
@Salimfadhley I am ready to move forward with either gutting this article to a barebones skeleton, or starting a new one. We can perhaps continue that discussion on the Talk page. Thanks.Noospherix (talk)15:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful ofWP:NPA and ensure that comments remain focused on content rather than contributors. Given the previous policy issues raised regarding your edits on theMark Burns (pastor) article, it would be advisable to review the relevant policies again to avoid repeating similar violations[7][8].Deriannt (talk)15:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a list, but I don't see some of those in the draft. Where does it talk about medical misinformation or hoax technologies? --Guy Macon (talk)01:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the article does not yet coverall of these cases, but the referenced sources certainly do. If it would make sense to break each of those out into their own sections, that's something to consider doing.Noospherix (talk)02:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon There are many instances of misinformation in the article, especially where LLM-provided references([9],[10],[11] etc.) were inserted and now require manual verification. I’m relieved that experienced editors are reviewing it, and once the issues are properly addressed, I’ll be happy to move it to mainspace myself.Deriannt (talk)04:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However one wants to frame it, it is indisputable that Allatra has made multiple claims of Mark Burns' involvement. It is also undisputed that he has traveled with and been photographed with AllatRa leader Ovytsnova. This is something that Burns himself haspublicized.Noospherix (talk)01:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, I understand the concern. We are likely ahead of such coverage, despite the obvious facts of the situation. I will report back with links to any such coverage. I understand also the desire to avoid primary sources, but when two primary sources each independently confirm their involvement with each other, that seems like something that should be taken more seriously than if one source claimed it unilaterally.Noospherix (talk)01:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I advise that you start with reading the following pages.WP:PRIMARY,WP:RS. Print them out and study them. If there is anything you don't understand, ask a question atWP:HELPDESK, quoting the exact wording you are having trouble with. Note that the policy does not say that you can't use a primary source, but rather explains when you can and can not us one. --Guy Macon (talk)02:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a trained historian, I am familiar with such concerns. I think this section applies to the interlock between these two explicit primary sources. "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Noted.Noospherix (talk)03:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is clear. However, if two primary sources are both making reciprocal endorsements about the other, then those claims should be able to be cited factually without significant concern. Any issue would come from excess interpretation of those primary source assertions.Noospherix (talk)04:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a clear violation ofWP:BLP, so it was removed entirely. I’d like to request again that primary sources not be used to support synthesis or serious allegations. Also, please keep in mind the guidance atWP:NOTNEWS.Deriannt (talk)08:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used look fine and it's OK to present fringe views so long as they're not in wikivoice. Some more of the scientific response reported in those sources might be included.Fences&Windows19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included.
(Came here from the Reform Uk page to comment hope that is allowed).It's not propaganda it is including the views of a deputy of Reform.Some opposing views have been included but I would support more being included.GothicGolem29(Talk)18:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the way to go. Remember that climate change denial is based onkettle logic: those people do not care about which arguments they use for or against what exactly. The only goal is that the energy market is not regulated. --Hob Gadling (talk)09:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a short summary about the fact that they deny environmental considerations like climate change for policy decisions be enough? Indeed, WP shouldn't just be a quote farm of their arguments. If there's no secondary RS for that, then it's usually UNDUE.~2025-35304-53 (talk)09:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it would not be enough we should be including quotes too and refutations of the views from those quotes. Tices views have been covered by reliable sources and thats whats in the climate change section.GothicGolem29(Talk)10:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Haidt's views on intelligence, race, and evolution
A non-ECR editor added some content criticizing Haidt's viewpoints. I moved it to the talk page and found an additional reference that might be used. Any help would be appreciated, but especially editors that are familiar with the general consensus around race and intelligence content. --Hipal (talk)22:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for genetic differences in intelligence between "races" and indeed only evidence against it. This was determined at a 2021 RfC[13] that reaffirmed a 2020 RfC that "the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory", but there have been more sources each year since then that go to establish this.Katzrockso (talk)22:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question there is really one ofdue weight. It's clear that Haidt has parroted uninformed, fringe positions on race and intelligence as part of a largerJeremiad against "woke" or whatever. But this aspect of his argument appears to be rather minor, given that only two glancing mentions in mainstream news sources have been provided. I'd say unless someone can find more substantial coverage, the R&I stuff is probably not encyclopedic content for a BLP.Generalrelative (talk)01:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment on the substance of including the content in the article, just clarifying the consensus. I don't think Haidt really directly professes an opinion on race & IQ, I think he's criticizing what he perceives as politicization of the subject, see e.g.[14] (on page 6 of this pdf or 60 of the original source).Katzrockso (talk)02:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone clarify what what we are meant to put under a section about "political views"? Like under most biographies in wikipedia, the written under "political views"are just a list of their political views with an independent reliable source confirming it.Maxandruby123 (talk)03:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to see such a fawning bio for a figure who has proposed sketchy/fringe or at least fringe-adjacent views. Also surprised to see the Nature review[15] of his social media book is not included.Bon courage (talk)03:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From a scholarly source: "claims that genes play a role in producing differences in cognitive traits that bring success in the modern world—such as intelligence and impulse control—are often greeted with embarrassed silence or harsh denunciation, independent of their scientific merit (Haidt 2009). ... Jonathan Haidt recounts that after the publication of E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology, which proposed among other things that gene–culture co-evolution might explain some behavioural differences between groups, Wilson was harassed and excoriated, in print and in public. He was called a fascist, which justified (for some) the charge that he was a racist, which justified (for some) the attempt to stop him from speaking in public (2012, 38)."[16]Fences&Windows14:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fyi the "rightly" there is confusing - He is saying that Haidt is correct in saying that the idea is offensive - but not that Haidt personally is morally opposed to it.Maxandruby123 (talk)15:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article:The Age of Disclosure -- a documentary that claims that information regarding the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has been subject to a decades-long government cover-up.
This article seems to promote aWP:FALSEBALANCE between that claim that a secret government program that has investigated and concealed evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence for more than 80 years and the mainstream view about such conspiracy theories.
The critics section mixes anti-fringe reviews reviews from well known sources (The Guardian, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, the New York Times) with neutral reviews from lesser sources, some of which are misleading. For example the article lists Collider as saying
"Nate Richard wrote that the film "delivers some fascinating information" but was "executed in the most bland way possible" and that "the pacing makes the movie feel like you're watching a college PowerPoint presentation". Nonetheless, Richard stated that there have "been far worse docs on the subject of UFOs".
but the actual review says things like
"But as we get further into the movie, the more ridiculous it gets" and "the movie felt like it was made to be an echo chamber for those who already believe in UFOs. If the job of The Age of Disclosure was to convert skeptics, it failed".
Then for some strange reason, there is a "review" from the Motion Picture Association. The MPA doesn't actually review films. It promotes upcoming films from its members with gushing articles about how great they are going to be.
Then there is the section about the reception by scientists. Seriously?Avi Loeb?
Seriously? Good point. /s Please seeWP:NPOV. The first quote has already been changed and you already removed the part about a review from a person at the MPA. I suggest you discuss this on the talk page instead of more threads and posts here complaining about Loeb and/or this article.Prototyperspective (talk)18:48, 25 November 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]
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[19] 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]
Y alright.Flower (she/her;User talk:IPOfAFlower)18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]