Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not 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.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Did you know

• 26 Apr 2024 – The Skeptical Environmentalist (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Arcahaeoindris (t · c); see discussion

Categories for discussion

• 15 May 2024 – Category:Roswell incident in fiction (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 15 May 2024 – Category:Alien abduction in novels (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 15 May 2024 – Category:Alien abduction films (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion
• 09 May 2024 – Category:Conspiracist media (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Coddlebean (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 18 Apr 2024 – Mental gymnastics (talk · edit · hist) →Cognitive dissonance was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 10 Mar 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 05 Apr 2024 – Havana syndrome (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Noleander (t · c); see discussion

Peer reviews

• 25 Apr 2024 – Ethics (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 03 Mar 2024 – Superstitions in Muslim societies (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Islam and magic by VenusFeuerFalle (t · c); see discussion
• 27 Jan 2024 – Barber and Calverley (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Theodore X. Barber by Animalparty (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 30 Dec 2023 – Scholarly approaches to mysticism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
• 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion

Havana syndrome again

• Havana syndrome (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Just taken a look at this after a while, and ...

My view

... am troubled to see what appears to me to be a rambling mess, including a huge "chronology" section which seems to be a collection of every possible WP:NEWSPRIMARY source airing speculation. Needless to say there's a now a clamour to include the latest "it's the Ruksies!" news tidbit that's doing the rounds. Meanwhile the most authoriative sources haven't switched from their position of Havana Syndrome probably not being a real thing caused by external factors outside the imagination of those who have it. More eyes probably could help. (Update: Now the article says "The March 2024 60 Minutes installment [sic] offered the first direct proof of the Russians' culpability ...") Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC); 18:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems some editors are taking the 60 Minutes report [1] as ultimate vindication for their own long held beliefs. The fact that the show made claims appears to be well sourced and deserves a mention, but representing its conclusions as compelling, authoritative, or the new mainstream position...is not justified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Did anyone tell those journalists that a weak correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation? It all seems very circumstantial. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You're correct to revert edits alleging the 60 minutes report is definitive but you shouldn't keep reverting edits that simply quote the claims in the report and the responses from a WP:NPOV using WP:SECONDARY. The development clearly belongs in the article given that it was significant enough that both the Director of National Intelligence and the Russian Government responded to it. ChaseK (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My edit never made out the 60 Minutes report to be absolute truth, I detailed that it contained allegations by fairly reliable sources, but did not claim it as authoritative or the mainstream position. The article already contained content of similar substance and it wasn't challenged. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long article about something I've never heard of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Just glancing at the reports in question, asserting a cause of a medical condition would definitely need secondary WP:MEDRS sources. I'm seeing a lot of common misconceptions trying to zero on on the news reports being secondary sources and entirely missing that point. Definitely good to hold back attempts to insert those sources from a weight perspective, and especially WP:NOTNEWS policy. KoA (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

News reports as secondary sources for attributed claims, in the absence of high quality medical sources is entirely acceptable. No causes for this disputed medical condition were "asserted" as fact. FailedMusician (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

News reports as secondary sources for attributed claims ← huh? primary sources do not magically become secondary (or usable) by attribution. The last editor who tried this line of argument (about another fringe subject: lab leak) ended up blocked. We can't allow fringe material into Wikipedia just by trick of putting "Dr X says ..." in front of it. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not claim primary sources become secondary sources. Only that they are usable for attributed claims, in the absence of high quality medical sources, in which is a part medical and political subject. FailedMusician (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

They may be useful for occasional careful use to touch in details, but the basis of the article must be secondary sourcing, particularly to establish any themes which are discussed. Bon courage (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, through a combination of recency and the involvement of the notoriously non-forthcoming US intelligence apparatus, there is a dearth of WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the best solution is likely to stubify the article. Because right now a lot of people are calling for one standard for journalists stories of magic Russian guns and another standard for people saying, "the subjects of this condition don't appear to have any sort of injuries." Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What magic guns? I don't remember either magic or guns from any of the reporting on this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The alleged radio frequency weapons that don't exist. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Radio frequency and microwave weapons do exist, lets not get ahead of ourselves and exaggerate here. To use a different example I see on that page there is a difference between saying that crickets likely weren't the cause and that crickets are fictional creatures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Source that radio frequency weapons have been used to cause nonlethal Havana Syndrome like effects? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Either you are responding to someone else or you are being disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no reliable source to suggest that radio frequency weapons have been seen to cause a symptom cluster that matches Havana Syndrome. That's what makes this science fiction. Just like Quantum Teleportation being a thing doesn't mean that Transporter (Star Trek) is a real technology. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If its existing or close to existing technology isn't that just fiction? Why isn't saying its fiction enough? Why is using hyperbole like magic or science fiction appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It isn't close to existing technology. Microwave/radio weapons are vehicle mounted affairs that have large power requirements and don't cause effects that are anything like the symptoms being reported here. Not just in terms of scale and range (neither of which fit) but in terms of the type of effect. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone has alleged hand-held gun like weapons to exist but perhaps I missed something, where was this reported? My understanding is that the idea is more that this was just a modern version of the Moscow Signal (complete with a lack of real medical conclusions because those human studies just can't be performed effectively in an ethical manner). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Moscow Signal was very low power. That is not what is being alleged here. And I think that the embassy workers would have noticed a big truck parked nearby running a diesel generator with a large dish antenna pointed at them, or even such a thing installed on a nearby building. MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there allegation that there is a handheld weapon, an allegation that there is a truck mounted weapon, or are these some sort of hypothetical or thought experiment? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's all a thought experiment. There's no evidence of any weapon. Which is the whole point. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't care about evidence, we don't do original research. We do care about allegations or unknowns which have been reported extensively in reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A number of sources have commented on the physics involved and how much power would be required (a few are already cited in the article). The main point of those sources was that doing such a thing covertly is impossible. What's currently going on on the article is that claims in lower-quality media sources are being placed in false equivalence with these scientific sources. (as well as the medical sourcing about plausibility of the symptoms being caused by RF at all). MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The claim being discussed here is Simon223's claim that there are magic guns involved. They have presented no sources which suggest that this is a theory, fringe or otherwise, held by anyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

'magic guns' is a fair summary of what has been showing up in the lower-quality media sources. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

My apologies then, I had not (and still have not) seen that reporting in lower-quality media sources. It is not part of the 60 Minutes piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

My complaint with the 60 minutes piece is that it contains almost no detail about causes beyond a vague allusion to "acoustic weapons" but it's being used like some sort of silver bullet that "it really was the russkies all along" as opposed to the more likely causes: stress, ptsd, alcohol, etc. I don't want to include the 60 minutes causal claims in part because of their extreme vagueness and in part because they do nothing to establish any sort of reason why we should believe "acoustic weapons" to be the cause.

However I do also, occasionally, get somewhat sarcastic when I'm frustrated by obvious woo invading journalism to move copy and fan neo-cold-war paranoia. And thus, rather than writing out, "secret weapons with no clear functional mechanism for covert deployment depending on technologies that are not known to produce the expected symptom set" every time, I shortened it to "magic guns on occasion."

If you see me refer to "magic guns," in this context, you can assume I mean, "secret weapons with no clear functional mechanism for covert deployment depending on technologies that are not known to produce the expected symptom set." Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be putting a lot of your personal POV and bias into this. I agree with @Horse Eye's Back: let's stick to reliable sources and what they say, which is the only thing that matters. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not invalidate my critique - which I put in clear, non-sarcastic, terms repeatedly in this comment. I do think it is non-neutral to treat journalistic fanning of neo-cold-war claims as appropriate information for an encyclopedia article on a medical condition.

I also think it's most likely that the AHIs represent a cluster of PTSD and stress related cases. However you will note I have not argued against the inclusion of the review that disagrees with that position at article talk and, in fact, clearly said both were appropriate and reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "no clear functional mechanism for covert deployment" mean in this context? I can't parse it even though its a field which I understand, would Unit 29155 be the functional mechanism? Or by functional mechanism are we talking like backpack vs crate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

How is Russia hiding a van with a diesel generator in it rolling down the streets of Washington DC and many other hostile venues? For that matter how are they managing it in China which, despite being less hostile to Russia, is generally down on foreign spies from any country driving around with large experimental weapons. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Who said that Russia needed a van with a diesel generator? That doesn't answer what functional mechanism means though, thats not a term generally associated with either military or intel... I've literally never seen it used in this context. As best I understand the allegation is that the GRU was the functional mechanism for covert deployment[2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

OK so we've got a few possibilities: either it's an RF weapon that follows what we know about such weapons as they exist: large and requiring a lot of power. Or it's a miniature portable RF weapon - which is science fictional. Circling back to the source in question again, such vagaries are the problem. How is the GRU hiding this secret weapon? Because, generally, if something can be explained either by a condition that we understand well, fits the symptomology, and is a likely thing to be experienced by people in a stressful line of work, that is more likely than a secret weapon that nobody has ever seen and that seems to have properties that defy what we know about that kind of weaponry. Let's leave aside hair splitting about word choice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are at this point dozens if not hundreds of miniature portable RF weapons (DRAKE for example). The allegation is not that the GRU succeeded in hiding this "secret weapon," the allegation is the opposite... That they failed and now we're talking about it. There are a lot of weapons out there that nobody (in the public at least) has seen, take for example the Yun Feng... Is it fringe to assert that it exists without any actual evidence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And to my understanding not a single one of them would do anything like the symptoms of Havana Syndrome. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well thats a rather large difference in understanding in just ten minutes... At 17:03 you weren't aware of their existence and by 17:13 you're speaking authoritatively on them. Some of them would do something like the symptoms of Havana Syndrome, just generally with other symptoms as well (that is the primary argument against it). Name and presentation aside I don't think you're a weapons expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry to interrupt, but this has been of some interest to me as not only a non-weapons expert, but I think it is fair that I claim the title of a weapons dum-dum. That said, HEB, can you point me to reports of 'known' weapons that are sort of closest to the hypothesized Havana Syndrome weapon? I would very much appreciate it. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Well then let me hopelessly confuse you... Nobody can decide what sort of weapon we're talking about here... You will notice that in this discussion we've bounced around between RF weapons, microwave weapons (which in some systems are a subtype of RF weapons and in others are treated as a distinct category), and acoustic weapons (which I believe is the 60 Minutes/Insider/Der Speigel allegation). There also isn't in general agreement on which set of symptoms actually constitutes Havana Syndrome, but a large number of the minor ones (the major ones are alleged to only present in the long term) are replicable with something like a LRAD or better still the related consumer products [3] (these are examples of the "acoustic" claims which are the ones I think we're primarily discussing vis-a-vis 60 Minutes). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Very cool, now you are doing WP:OR to say that Russia is able to secretly use... *checks notes* huge LRAD type systems covertly and citing a 600 view Youtube video of a speaker. This is why these claims should not be in the article, because they encourage this exact type of speculative behavior. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They make small LRAD systems... They do not make huge ones. An acoustic weapon is for all intents and purposes a speaker. This is not "my" theory, this is advanced by the reliable sources under discussion here (personally I'm agnostic as to cause, not enough science yet done to support anything conclusively). I would appreciate it if you could dial back the aggression a bit, we don't need to hyperbole, sarcasm, and personal attacks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I see LRAD systems mounted on military transports, ships, and facilities, all of which have the capacity to use high-power. What you are proposing is a covert LRAD type system which can also highly target individuals - again, no evidence for that. I am not being aggressive or hyperbolic, I am stating my observations of your commentary on this matter. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There are handheld LRAD models[4], the technology is not limited by size. I'm not proposing anything. Please do not misrepresent me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This type of comment is just WP:BATTLEGROUND vibes - what are you even trying to accomplish with this conversation? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe this discussion serves to remind editors to avoid hyperbolic language to push a POV, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. FailedMusician (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

FailedMusician, like I advised you at ANI, you need to step back from the battleground attitude, even back-handed ones like this. KoA (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Calling that a personal attack is absurd. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I said. The sniping/battleground attitude is an issue though, and lashing out at those trying to get others to knock it off isn't helpful. KoA (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be an antic for your ANI performance. I don't think administrators respond well to this kind of open lobbying. FailedMusician (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What lobbying? Calling out your behavior is not lobbying, nor is the ANI post a "performance" - try to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you or @KoA have any comments on content? Isn't that what this noticeboard is for? FailedMusician (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not how MEDRS works at all. News sources are generally unreliable for medical topics. You might use a news sources as a supplement lay description when secondary medical sources are already used for a specific piece of content. It's a common misconception that news sources satisfy the secondary source requirement for MEDRS content. KoA (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally agree with you. My concern is what has emerged at the article talk is to treat WP:MEDRS as strictly enforced for medical claims but as irrelevant for political / espionage related claims. This is creating an undue focus on journalistic speculation as to possible causes excluding what academics and doctors might have to say about them. For instance: the recent collaboration between three media outlets that led to increased attention on this page includes claims that Russian assassins! are responsible for Havana Syndrome on the basis, largely, of flight logs, and the speculation that a microwave weapon might be possible. The general consensus of the studies of people who have suffered Havana Syndrome is that any microwave weapon that would be sufficiently powerful to cause the indicated symptoms would also cause other symptons but because these are primary sources they're being disregarded for medical evidence while the other story is being highlighted as non-medical / political content. I simply want consistent standards for the article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I suggested leading with a draft of just a MEDRS summary of the subject at the article talk page. Hopefully that would ground and anything that would come in from the political aspect. If something from those news sources contradicted or wasn't covered by MEDRS sources, it wouldn't matter if they also had a political angle because it's still (usually) focusing on claims about a medical condition. There could be brief mention of those latter aspects, but MEDRS would be determining weight for that periphery as well. Basically, develop a MEDRS core, then let that anchor all other content discussion, and you wouldn't need to stubify for that either.

Edit warring is part of the issue there too though. I'm seeing a lot of restoring content in violation of WP:ONUS policy that's hampering content development. I would have been a bit more prone to help out there more when I have some spare time, but it looks like it would take significant effort to get the article improved with that compounding factor. KoA (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• The general consensus of the studies of people who have suffered Havana Syndrome is that any microwave weapon that would be sufficiently powerful to cause the indicated symptoms would also cause other symptons but because these are primary sources they're being disregarded for medical evidence while the other story is being highlighted as non-medical / political content. I think that this is a situation where WP:PARITY would apply, allowing us to cite sources we usually wouldn't use for medical claims (but which are still better than the news sources in question) in order to establish that the perspective in the news sources is medically fringe. --Aquillion (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  That would be a good case-by-case approach for parity, though I'd be wary about feeling the need to debunk something through parity (not necessarily commenting on microwave weapons here) compared to just not mentioning the subject at all from a weight perspective. The latter is often a better option to avoid some rabbit holes when possible. I think that's why the focus there needs to be shifted to the MEDRS sources that grounds conversations to determine where cases like you mention should be included. That's opposed to including something just because a lot of news agencies picked up stories and trying to weight that without letting the MEDRS content lead development instead. Obviously easier said than done, but doable with time at least. KoA (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as a MEDRS issue if all theories about causes are properly attributed. The problem only arises when editors latch onto one theory and start claiming in wikivoice that the problem has been solved. This can be addressed by editing properly, with every claim that isn't accepted by expert consensus being attributed to whoever is making the claim. Zero^talk 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This presents another problem though as such an action would be giving equal weight to the primary-source medical reports put out by a variety of neurologists, epidemiologists, specialists and even the CDC and... journalists who don't know that correlation != causation. Because this is the thing. WP:MEDRS prefers secondary academic sources, not journalism. And what we have is a preponderance of primary academic sources, which are still more reliable than newsmedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If something isn't covered in MEDRS sources or is covered differently in non-MEDRS sources, then that becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue. In cases like you mention, that's a likely case for not including the content at all. KoA (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

How's this for a start? Proposed draft Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In general I would leave specific discussion on the article content to the article page. No point in separately discussing it here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagree as it raises wider questions about WP:MEDRS and interpretation/inclusion of media theories that require acceptance of fringe medical theories. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Those points are fine but already well established (although not all editors are aware). This noticeboard can’t and shouldn’t modify WP:MEDRS. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 04:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If any editor is having qualms about MEDRS they can raise a query at WT:MED. I won't as I am confident enough in its application and don't want to waste their time. I get the impression from some of the discussion (like incredulous questions about how NYT can possibly be called unreliable) that some of the editors taking issue with MEDRS have not actually read it. Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• some editors are taking the 60 Minutes report as ultimate vindication for their own long held beliefs is not a policy-based argument to remove sourced content. The "syndrome" here does not mean any real (scientifically proven) medical condition; one can not even properly describe what that condition is. This is not really a medical subject, but rather a political controversy. Yes, there were also some scientific studies that did not convincingly prove anything, and they can or should also be cited on the page per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  We should not be weighting journalists the same as doctors on a page about a purported medical condition. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like the same situation as COVID-19 lab leak theory. Top medical sources say one thing, but there's a vocal minority or even majority of journalists saying another thing. That really confuses Wikipedians that don't specialize in MEDRS or FRINGE. We of course need to write the article around the medical sources, and not give UNDUE weight to circumstantial evidence and non-expert medical opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not really surprising that most journalists, especially in the US, prefer the conspiracy theories about the Havana Syndrome to what MEDRS sources say. Over 2500 years ago Aeschylus said, "In war, truth is the first casualty". That was certainly true in the Cold War as well. Now we have a new Cold War, with the same enemies (Russia and China). So the fringe theories about the origins of Covid and the Havana Syndrome make good copy in the US press. NightHeron (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

gotta get those clicks! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

After reading about it, I have no doubts that many people became sick. If this is a specific disease with specific cause(s) was not scientifically established. I do not see any theory, even "fringe" behind it. This is just something that needs to be studied more to clarify the issue, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There are several medical condition (like Electromagnetic hypersensitivity) which are "real", but aren't caused by what proponents say. In this case the fringe notion is a new kind of exotic energy weapon with a hitherto unknown biological mechanism/effect. Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The report in 60 Minutes is significant to the topic and should be covered. It was obvious from the start that Havana Syndrome wasn't real but its significance lay in the fact some people believed it to be true and it was used as political propaganda. Many of the claims that have driven world events have turned out to be false but are significant because of their consequences. There were for example no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we don't remove the claim from the history of the war just because the claims failed MEDRS. TFD (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WMDs in Iraq had nothing to do with medical claims - we also explicitly note that the claim was erroneous in the WMD/Iraq article, as should be done here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The report in 60 minutes should not be used as a source to establish a cause of Havana Syndrome. And the information put up on government responses seemed rote and mundane. But I'm not opposed to its mention; so long as the mention focuses on the social significance of the report rather than the factual significance of it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows the factual significance of it. Just stick to the reliable sources and report what they say. We don’t need to figure it out ourselves WP:OR. At the moment: nobody knows what is going on. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If no one knows what going on, over reporting potential misinformation is WP:UNDUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. And also reliability isn't a blanket Yes / No switch. This is part of the problem with a lot of the discussion on that page. There is a small group of editors who think that if the 60 minutes source is due any inclusion at all then we have to go into exhaustive detail about their claims. But the journalists who wrote that report are not reliable sources to speak to the cause of an illness. We should not be using the report as a reliable source for discussing the cause of the illness. Which means we should not be discussing Russian radio blasters from the basis of the 60 minutes report. However it's pretty clear it was a notable report in that it stirred up a bunch of controversy and, apparently (pending provision of a reliable source for this) got a bunch of gullible US senators all riled up. That's how we should be positioning this report. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but biological weapons have a lot to do with medical claims. So do chemical and to a lesser degree nuclear weapons because they have medical effects on people exposed to them. The reason MEDRS did not apply was that the issue was whether or not Iraq had them and whether or not they would use them, which is exactly the situation with the sonar guns Russia supposedly had.

MEDRS btw is an elastic policy. TFD (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are there so many religious topics here?

With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard. FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts. Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked. I would encourage experienced editors and patrolling admins to close discussions that are not within the intended purpose of this noticeboard, and direct the OP and any involved parties to the correct forum. Very often that would be the article talk page, WP:RSN. or WP:NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There ARE religious (Theological) fringe topics. Fringe beliefs within broader religions. As an example, the Arian heresy is fringe within modern Christianity. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly true, within Christianity. But this is not a religious noticeboard. We deal with objective facts, recognizable and provable within the framework of science, history and current events. This is not a forum for dealing with the supernatural or debates over fictional topics such as The Lord of the Rings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously this needs to be brought up elsewhere, but I think we need a firm guideline on how to handle this at this point. Removing in-universe statements presented as fact? Sure, absolutely put FTN on the case and maybe ping the religion wikiproject so we bring in some expertise, but more than once I’ve seen statements from “editors belonging to ______ faith will always lie to misrepresent their faith and put it in a better light” (Falun Gong) to “this entire religious belief is a fringe theory we should excise from Wikipedia except in the most mocking of tones” (much of New Age). Also MASSIVE WP:BITE issues. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's probably time to clarify this issue. I've considered putting up an edit notice but would prefer some consensus on wording. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, my take, which I cannot imagine will go over well here, is we need to hard-limit chatting by having somewhat constant oversight and threads locked as soon as the fringe issue is dealt with, and an iron fist on WP:BITE behaviour. FTN is both extremely valuable and is one of the most WP:CABAL-esque places I'm aware of on Wikipedia, and the easiest way I can think of to address this is to not allow it to become a forum as it has. FTN also has historically had issues with either overweighting fringe topic or understandings of topics as somehow more important than they are, or mission creep (see: theology). There was an ANI about 8 or so months ago with a lot of admins chiming in that they've noticed some of these issues as well, so it's perhaps well past time that we get some admin input or oversight outside of when things get extra, well, spicy. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I am posting a few requests for input on relevant wiki-project talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to simply reiterate that I have, too, noticed the cabal (I hate that word, but it's wikiparlance) behavior that often originates or magnifies through posts to FTN. It sometimes seems to function as an expedient workaround to canvassing in certain subject areas. I believe that the issue has become so acute in terms of canvassing and biting that sanctions should be more readily administered. I've been involved in recent discussions unreasonably escalated by FTN-posting, namely at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents (which ultimately saw at least one behavioral block). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that there have been extensive documented cases of Falun Gong attempting to manipulate Wikipedia articles about them (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong), and that New Age movements are not infrequently referred to as fringe in peer-reviewed literature, the choice of examples here does not suggest to me that there's much of a problem. If there's an issue of actual BITE behavior (including behavior that excessively promotes we should excise [coverage of a given belief] from Wikipedia except in the most mocking of tones) that's valid to criticize, but the general complaint that these topics are out of scope for FTN seems off the mark. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that there have been instances of obviously inappropriate editing going on. To my mind the issue is whether they belong here or at another forum. Someone trying to hijack an article or pushing POV edits based on obviously bad sourcing would belong either at ANI or RSN. Religion is not, per se, a fringe subject as we customarily understand the term. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

'"the choice of examples here does not suggest to me that there's much of a problem."'

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that Falun Gong and New Age are frequent sources of explicit POV editing and have caused problems in the past, and I've done my fair share of cleaning up New Age articles. My concern here, and what was brought up by admins last time, was this fairly vocal demand that Falun Gong editors writ large, regardless of individual behaviour, be banned from editing FG articles without disclosing their religious affiliation. When I said "hey, this seems not very okay" I was accused of being crypto-Falun Gong bu some of the other regulars here which... considering I'm a regular here as well feels quite odd. With New Age, it's mainly WP:BITE issues where an editor doesn't really understand the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. I've seen power users here openly talk about driving those people away on the basis of one or two bad edits, rather than attempting to engage with them on how to edit appropriately. I'm not saying that the end result may not actually be the same, but rather it seems much of FTN has decided to shortcut the usual routes to address bad edits and assume a single WP:PROFRINGE edit instantly equals WP:NOTHERE and act accordingly to drive people away as fast as they can. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

True, until it makes claims in those areas. Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Which all religions do, which is what makes all religions fringe, within the meaning of WP:FRINGE: an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think part of what makes the Falun Gong, in specific, a sore spot is the number of times many long term editors who haunt this board have had to deal with tedious, sometimes paid, pro-FLG editors. And as FLG is a new religious movement that actively spreads misinformation on politics, biology, history and medicine it is very much an org that runs afoul of the Fringe noticeboard almost as often as it does the people who do WP:NONAZI cleanup. That said I do agree that these edge cases do lead to the risk of mission creep once people start getting into questions of wiki-voice representation of biography of biblical figures and such - which is not the same thing as dealing with the pseudoscience and political extremism of a contemporary new religious movement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

To borrow the words of another editor, Warrenmck, fringe would be more an attempt to explain that type of long lifespan using a naturalistic approach of some kind. Just mere religious belief is religious belief. Editors summarizing that in the plot of the Bible Joshua miraculously makes Jericho's walls fall, or even summarizing reliable scholarship that assesses the meaning and reception of this story for the book as a text or for believers as religion, even if editors disagree about how best to summarize it or what elements are due or how to represent or not divergent academic assessments/interpretations of narrative/philosophical/literary/religious meaning, doesn't seem WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense. Meanwhile, editors trying to make wikivoice say that archaeology has definitely found the ruins of Jericho and proven the story scientifically true (which archaeology hasn't), that would be a matter of circulating WP:FRINGE. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Religions are the cause of a lot of fringe views, so it isn't unusual to see them here. Ayurvedic medicine, intelligent design, UFO religions, lost tribes of Israel populating random places, etc all overlap with our understanding of history and the natural world. Some articles are clear and objective, others have been written by true believers in various types of woo.

Big Money Threepwood (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked".

I believe I am 234 foot tall leprechaun that was birthed in the core of Jupiter and traveled to Earth through my leprechauncy powers. This is at once a supernatural claim and a core matter of faith of all Headbomb-Leprechaunists.

But it is also clearly a claim that can be examined and debunked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If and when your religion reaches the point of being notable, we can discuss this. Until then I am not seeing the relevance of your comment, unless it was intended to ridicule persons of religious faith. In which case, I would advise you to tread carefully. There is no shortage of places on the internet where you are free to do that. Wikipedia, is not one of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Far be it from me to speak on behalf of another, but I read this as standing for the proposition that we do not privilege ideas or claims merely because they proceed from a religious context. That said, I also agree with you below that belief in the resurrection is not a fringe belief. I honestly think this is fairly easy conceptually: the resurrection is not fringe because it is believed by just about every Christian in the world. That said, Methuselah's age probably is fringe, in my experience (though I am certainly open to evidence to the contrary), because to the extent people think about it at all, few of them seem to take it literally. All subject to sourcing, of course, but thought I would briefly chime in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Far be it from me to speak on behalf of another, but I read this as standing for the proposition that we do not privilege ideas or claims merely because they proceed from a religious context."

I'm not the person in question so I can't speak to their intent, but I do think this is what I and @Horse Eye's Back were talking about with a certain brand of (r/)atheism being present here at times. I don't want to speak for either them or @Headbomb, but it's worth pointing out to Headbomb that several of us are perceiving it this way, even if your read here is accurate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument appears internally inconsistent to me... If we don't privilege ideas or claims merely because they proceed from a religious context how do we arrive at Lazarus or Jesus's resurrections being literal and not figurative events not being fringe? I know this sounds like the users I was just criticizing... But why don't we treat them the same as the other zombies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Religions aren't inherently fringe, but that doesn't mean they can't be presented in a way that is fringe. Saying in wikivoice that Jesus rose from the dead would be fringe, it would need to be made clear that Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead (and in fact this is exactly what the article on Jesus says). For this specific question saying someone lived for more than 900 years is an exceptional claim, and to say it in wikivoice would require exceptional sources not just biblical sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Really the problem here is that infoboxes are poor at presenting details that are not easily simplified. As with other such situations the best way to deal with the issue would be to leave it out of the infobox and correctly contextualised in the text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Presenting the Resurrection as a fact in wiki-voice would not be fringe insofar as the term applies to this board. It is neither provable nor disprovable. Again, we are dealing with the supernatural as a subject matter. That said, it would unquestionably be a serious breach of NPOV and should be addressed on that basis. Claims that someone lived for 900 years would fall under the heading WP:REDFLAG. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. I can't imagine something like that being presentable as an undisputed claim of fact in wiki-voice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion seems to have stemmed from the one above (#Methuselah), giving his age as 962 in the infobox with nonother context is stating tbe fact in wikivoice. That an individual can live for 900+ years is definitely fringe. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• This feels like begging the question... Are there are so many religious topics here or is the amount proportionate? Note that matters of faith do not belong here, but anything which purports to deal with the supernatural does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Until fairly recently, religion was not a subject that popped up here with any frequency. I'd say it was rare. On those occasions when I saw one, assuming it wasn't too far along, I usually closed it with a polite note pointing all concerned to the correct forum. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  And what was done when this was the correct forum? For example for anything involving the supernatural whether part of a major religion or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• There can definitely be an undercurrent of r/atheism here, the board definitely turns into a forum on occasion (see the UFO threads from earlier this year...), posts can definitely operate as canvassing, regulars are definitely BITIER here than at the other noticeboards due at least in part to some degree of righteousness and the (often accurate) assumption that any newcomers with not-rabidly-anti-fringe opinions are socks... Those are a few of the problems I see with this page; a small number of posts addressing religious topics is not among them. Like others have said, religion can easily swerve into fringe territory, and I think the recent uptick in that content here just reflects the discovery of several walled gardens in the area that strongly resemble the pseudoscience walled gardens we're all familiar with re: in-universe descriptions and over-reliance on sources from adherents. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to briefly appreciate the fact that two of us now have explicitly called this behaviour "r/atheism"-esque Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  With the "r" standing for Reddit? Doug Weller talk 07:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  In this case, yes, the subreddit. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard My fact-checking instinct kicked in, and I checked the first 10 archives and this page for the percentage of religious topics (including creationism and theosophy, excluding channeling and New Age as well as this thread. Yes, that is a subjective borderline).

1 14%

2 3%

3 19%

4 19%

5 17%

6 23%

7 14%

8 26%

9 13%

10 20%

Current 19% --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are there so many religious topics here? Asked and answered. Because lots of religious topics are fringe. Biblical literalism is religion and is fringe. Creationism, by any of its names, is religion and is fringe. As well the Flat Earth. Ghosts, seances, mediumship, remembering past lives etc., all have been claimed by believers to have been "scientifically proven", so refuting those pseudoscientific claims falls withing the purview of this noticeboard, even if they are religious beliefs. Same goes for rotating tables, haunted houses and every other spiritualist superstition. Any particular claim by believers of divine intervention is fringe, and investigation made by people who actually try to understand whatever happened in Fatima, for example, falls within the purview of this noticeboard. Transcendent meditators claiming that their humming and chanting prevented world war III, or whatever, is fringe. The statement With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard. is simply false. Some separate issues have been brought up here, but they are beside the point. This sounds, to me, like just one more case of people standing up for fringe topics. VdSV9•♫ 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard does not hold up in practical terms. It just amounts to saying that "Religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard except when it isn't". FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts. And some of the topics within the broad and fuzzily-bounded area called "religion" do involve empirically testable claims that contradict medicine, science, and/or history. Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked. Turn that around: when religion does not deal with matters purely of faith, it can be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories. By and large, those are the cases that show up at FTN. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Fringe: STEM Vs Humanities?

I tried to read good number of initial comments in the main section above but with WP:TLDR so I couldn't read them all. Here I would like to extend umbrella to cover all humanities topics and compare with STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Additionally may be we would need to discuss where to put topics like Law.

The thumb rule to my understanding is what mainstream academic STEM Reliable sources say in majority voice is not fringe and rest may be need to be cross verified for fringe-ness.

I am asking this question in Humanities side since I had seen approach by few editors to literally count number academic sources and define what is majority is mainstream and refute as many minority academic views as possible with help of WP:Fringe.

How far it is accurate to apply what is applicable to STEM area as is to Humanities topic areas? i.e. whether WP needs to have same level of rigidity as of STEM areas in Humanities topics too? whether Humanities can have a little more scope for accommodation for more views if academic RS is available? or Any scope to discuss WP:Fringe separately for Humanities topics than STEM?

Bookku (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The same, as humanities is an academic topic area, and we would go by what the majority of scholars say. As wp:undue also comes into it, if an expert does not say it why do we even care? Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You get fringe in humanities too (e.g. Shakespeare authorship 'theories'), and the same 'rules' apply as set out in core policy: WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. For different discipline the types of WP:BESTSOURCES will be different. Bon courage (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Drawing the line between the two can be hard... For example is reincarnation a STEM claim, a humanities claim, or both? (thats actually a trick question, depending on the tradition it can be any of those three) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean my participation is principally social sciences and humanities related topics. I would concur with Slatersteven - there is an academic mainstream in the academy for social sciences and humanities just like for STEM fields and things outside of that (an easy example being the Shakespeare authorship 'theories') falls within this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Another example of fringe would be things like eugenicist applications of utilitarianism. They are generally rejected within the humanities and, as such, go against an academic consensus to the extent of being fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

For religion and academia in particular I would say that religious studies is the mainstream while theology is the fringe. Theology does not operate by the same rules or standards as the other humanities, even if ironically they are all descended from theology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:FRINGE. To quote: the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. When I read that, it strikes me that theology is a field unto itself. To compare theology to other more objective endeavours is, I think, a category error, just as we would not say poetry is a fringe application of statistics. Millions of people believe or claim to believe in theology (even if I am not one of them) and it has, as you note, an incredibly long intellectual history. There are certainly fringe theories within theology (historically Christians tended to call them 'heresies'). In short, I think for purposes of assessing 'fringeness' (fringeality? fringitude?), I think we have to consider theology as a theologian would, not as a physicist would. As ever, just some idle thoughts and reasonable minds can definitely differ on this one! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We've never had such a narrow reading of field, otherwise cryptozoology wouldn't be fringe as its not fringe within its own narrowly defined field but is within the broadly defined field. For a specific example within LDS theology the idea that some Native Americans are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel is not fringe, within religious studies, archaeology and genetics etc it is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, and we're definitely dealing with malleable levels of abstraction here, so I take your point--but I think theology is more susceptible to being a field than is cryptozoology, which by its very name is an offshoot of an existing field. There are definitely fringe ideas within theology, and especially where theology makes testable claims. My contention is that we cannot label all of theology 'fringe,' else you wind up with things like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin being fringe theorists, which feels very wrong to me (again, despite the fact that I don't buy much of what either was selling). Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Theology is basically just a form of religious studies where you suspend objective truth and the scientific method. Not really seeing how thats different from zoology vs cryptozoology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is where CONTEXT comes in. The idea that a god (or the gods) created the earth is not a fringe view in Theology… but it is a fringe view in Astro-Physics. It is appropriate to outline and discuss the various creation stories in articles focused on religious belief, it is not appropriate to mention them in an article focused on modern scientific understanding of the cosmos. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

People aren't WP:FRINGE; ideas are WP:FRINGE. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I feel like I am still not doing a good job conveying my thoughts. I absolutely agree that there are places where religion and other fields intersect where it is entirely appropriate to use the fringe label. But imagine I were to say "the trinity is not a fringe concept!" To back up this proposition, I point out that it is a belief (nominally) endorsed by over 2 billion people, and it is regularly discussed in academic journals from esteemed institutions of higher education. The argument that it is fringe would be....'religion,' I guess? Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing fringe with something that few people believe... If you take LGBTQ issues for example the medical consensus (and therefore the mainstream within the field) is not held by way more than 2 billion people. What non-experts believe has no bearing at all on whether something is fringe or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So would you consider the trinity to be a fringe concept? Dumuzid (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

In what sense? That it exists as a belief or that a triune deity exists? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The latter. Dumuzid (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly a fringe theory. The theory that any such thing (triune deity, unitary deity, minor deity, demigod, angel, unicorn, dragon, giant, bigfoot, etc is fringe) actually exists or existed as a real being is fringe. It falls completely outside of mainstream academia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's stick to theism writ broadly. Where can you point me to back up that theism is a fringe concept? Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory here folks. I would suggest the Fringe Theory noticeboard shouldn't be commenting on the Trinity until somebody tries to market holy ghost boner pills. Or suggests that Jesus wants people to inbreed because he is his own father and it worked great for him. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough google says that both of those things have happened... Its just not on wikipedia. I broadly agree though, this is not the place for broad speculation about the compatibility of modern academic science and theism (oceans of ink have already been spilled on the topic by generations). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"I would suggest the Fringe Theory noticeboard shouldn't be commenting on the Trinity...." this is a better summation of my position than I have managed! Dumuzid (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "stick to" we haven't talked about theism writ broadly at all before now and when nobody but you is talking about concepts... Everyone else seems to be talking about theories, lets limit any discussion on this noticeboard to theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, by "stick to" I meant to sort of de-sectarianize my point. And I was responding to your claim that "The theory that any such thing (triune deity, unitary deity, minor deity, demigod, angel, unicorn, dragon, giant, bigfoot, etc is fringe) actually exists or existed as a real being is fringe." Ontologically I agree with you entirely. But I am also a fan of epistemic humility, and I see no actual backup for that position in terms of Wikipedia usage. But I will let it go with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If I can sneak a last word in here I think its largely a non-issue, we don't have a ton of problems with long term users pushing theism or similar issues into wiki voice... Almost everyone seems to understand that whatever they personally believe (whether it be about the Kennedy assasination or the immaculate conception) they need to take a NPOV approach. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Theism -- that there exists a God -- is WP:FRINGE because it's "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Open up any kind of science book and none of them will say there exists a God. Hence, it's an idea that departs significantly from mainstream views in any scientific field. Similarly, the idea that God created the universe is WP:FRINGE, because it departs significantly from the mainstream views of all scientific fields. The idea that there exists three Gods, also WP:FRINGE. The idea that there is an afterlife: WP:FRINGE. The idea that somebody was resurrected, WP:FRINGE, and that's true whether that idea comes from Frankenstein or World War Z or Gospel of Matthew. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

How many science books will say affirmatively either that there is no god or that a god could not exist? Dumuzid (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works, though. In order for a view to be fringe, it doesn't mean that the negation of that view needs to be the mainstream view.

For example, "Levivich is God" is clearly not the mainstream view, it's fringe. That doesn't mean that the mainstream view affirmatively says "Levivich is not God," it just means that the mainstream view is not that "Levivich is God."

For any idea X, either X is the mainstream view (consensus of sources), or it's a significant minority view (not the consensus of all sources but a significant minority), or it's fringe (insignificant minority). In order for X to be fringe, it doesn't mean that not-X must be the mainstream view, it just means that X is not the mainstream view or a significant minority view.

If zero science books say X, then X is not the mainstream view or a significant minority view. If zero science books say God exists, then "God exists" is not the mainstream view or a significant minority view, and hence it's fringe.

I hope that makes sense (or better sense than my first reverted attempt)? Levivich (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So, as far as I know, zero science books say that Harold Godwinson's victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge so soon before Hastings was a significant disadvantage in the latter. It must therefore be a fringe view? Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Might I suggest trying a history book? History is after all a science... A social science. See Branches of science (note that you will not find theology within science). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

History is a humanity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is, what does that have to do with whether or not its a social science? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there non-science ideas that are not fringe? Dumuzid (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. And making sure to remind STEM types that academic consensus exists in the humanities is critical to keep this whole page on-mission lest somebody decide that ancient alien hypotheses aren't fringe because History is a humanity rather than a science and thus fringe doesn't apply. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I kinda thought you wanted to have a real discussion, and took my time to engage in it. But if you want to f around and talk about looking in a science book about a history thing, well, I'm sorry I wasted my time. Levivich (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point (though a bit snarkily, I admit) that there are fields which do not entirely overlap, and you're assuming that science and ontology have a 1-to-1 match, with which I would certainly disagree. If you and HEB replaced your mentions of "fringe" earlier with "nonsense" or "woo," then I would agree entirely. But not all bad ideas are fringe and not all fringe ideas are bad. I think that is a distinction worth preserving. Dumuzid (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

OK sorry I missed that point entirely. And I agree with you that not all fringe is bad. In fact, a lot of mainstream views started out as fringe, a famous example is heliocentrism.

But whether God exists is a matter of science not ontology. And I mean whether God actually exists, not "what if God existed" or "what might God be" but is there, in fact, a God. That's what separates science (as in "hard science") from philosophy, right? Science deals with reality, philosophy deals with ideas, like the idea of reality.

So the idea of a God is not WP:FRINGE, of course. The idea that, to take one example, God might be a single God, or God might be omniscient, or might be omnipotent... none of those are WP:FRINGE.

But the claim that God does, in fact, exist, is WP:FRINGE, by virtue of it not being the view of mainstream reliable sources.

Or to pick maybe a better example: the idea that God, or a God, created the universe, is WP:FRINGE because it's not the mainstream view or a significant minority view of the reliable sources in the particular fields (astronomy, cosmology). I agree that doesn't make it a bad idea, or even an untrue idea -- and I agree with everyone else about how Wikipedia can get too "r/Atheism" in persecuting or even ridiculing fringe ideas -- but God-created-the-universe is still, by definition, WP:FRINGE, and will be until such time as some significant minority of scientists say that God created the universe.

So to bring it back to the OP, if there is a concern at some article about editors trying to have Wikipedia say in its own voice that God created the universe, that would be a proper matter for this noticeboard. Levivich (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

But this is where I get my hackles up. Most science--in fact I would say the vast majority thereof--does not concern itself with whether or not there is a god. And why should it? It's basically entirely irrelevant to scientific inquiry. The works with which I am familiar tend to be appropriately cautious in their conclusions--like Dawkins in The God Delusion. The works that do go there represent (to me) where science ceases being about classification of observable phenomena and becomes philosophy. Again, let's take "theism" as entirely bland and, admittedly, favorable to my argument. There are billions of theists in the world, philosophers and scientists among them. There are academic journals that take theism as axiomatic. Theology is taught at any number of respected institutions, and not only sectarian institutions. None of this is to say 'theism' is a good or persuasive argument, and it is not one I personally endorse. But to say the entire concept is fringe strikes me as just obviously wrong. Everyone points out cases where there are religious ideas that are clearly fringe, and that is fair enough. But when you get down to the more philosophical/axiomatic inquiries (for me, theism, or even creation ex nihilo), I just don't think they are as susceptible to the same sort of classification. Are there lots of fringe ideas in religion? Oh god yes (pun intended). But again, I think there is value in applying the term rigorously as written, which means that some woo is not actually fringe. I am not overly concerned about this as a practical matter, but intellectually curious. As ever, I am happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So is mathematics a philosophy or a science? Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

At its purest, it's a communal world-building game where participants try to invent or extend rules that "work" within their system. So you can prove something to be true within that particular world-game, with the potential that it may also be generalizable or relevant to other world-games that have rules based on empirical real-life data (more applied math) -- though doing the latter isn't necessary and may even be disappointing to some. Meanwhile philosophy I believe is still concerned with discussing questions originating from, or contextualized by, the real world, just not necessarily in ways that are applicable to the real world. But I do think it is a spectrum in that abstract philosophical arguments can be reduced to what amounts to arbitrary rules-creation, resembling pure math. JoelleJay (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking largely about a lot of work of people like Badiou, Deleuze or Meillassoux that, while largely metaphysical, is heavily informed by mathematics. I find a weakness of the Fringe Theory noticeboard is to treat philsophy as non-real in some way. Meanwhile, notwithstanding these abstract metaphysics, things like epistemology are rather critical for understanding even what science does and why. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"But not all bad ideas are fringe and not all fringe ideas are bad." we don't care whether an idea is bad or not, it literally doesn't matter. That is not a distinction that currently exists so it can not be preserved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is my point exactly. But I fear sometimes the line gets blurred. Dumuzid (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, with the caveat the those lines get blurred a lot of places (MEDRS, BLP, RS, etc) and that I think in general those doing the blurring have good intentions and are largely unaware that they are doing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(Outdent) Worse… I was just reviewing the academic scholarship about those battles… not one discusses Einstein’s theory of relativity. Must be Fringe to have so many eminent historians ignore it. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As others say, for different topics there are different WP:BESTSOURCES. While I can see why someone might "count" sources, I'm not entirely sure that's the best way to assess, or at least it shouldn't be the only way; there are cases in which WP:AGEMATTERS would be relevant. That said, I'm not entirely sure "fringe" is the right language to use to talk about this except in narrow, conspiratorial contexts. For instance, WP:FRINGE gives as an example of a "fringe" theory in the humanities something like conspiracy theories contending that [John Wilkes] Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped. Wikipedia parlance might call that a "fringe" view in history since it's very decidedly outside the mainstream consensus that John Wilkes Booth died.

Where I think WP:FRINGE gets misapplied is when I've seen it used to undermine the citation of textual humanities scholarship. e. g. Wikipedia does not say in Wikivoice that Jesus was resurrected because that entails a biological claim about human bodies and there's no consensus in biology for human resurrection via a deity's magical divine powers. However, citing (as a hypothetical example) a Journal of Biblical Literature paper to have Gospel of John, for instance, say that the raising of Lazarus foreshadows the resurrection of Jesus in the plot of the Gospel of John—that shouldn't, I think, be considered "fringe". The raising of Lazarus and resurrection of Jesus in history are unverifiable claims that contradict mainstream consensus about biology and anatomy; the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus as plot points in the New Testament are verifiable (other scholars can read the New Testament and confirm whether or not those are part of the plot), and the former foreshadowing the latter is an academic interpretive claim that can be cited and attributed.

Personal anecdotal evidence isn't robust enough to make any sweeping claim, of course, so I'll leave it at saying I've been party/witness talk page interactions where citations to sources about the plot content of religious texts have been called "fringe" in what I think was a misapplication of the term and policy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE was indeed mis-invoked, used to argue that the Resurrection, or raising of Lazarus, are not "plot points" in the NT. Where did this happen? Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The resurrection/Lazarus/New Testament scenario was a hypothetical example in my comment; pardon if that hypotheticalness got muddled nearer the end. My experience was with with a different topic, though the scenario was similar: an editor at Talk:Ammonihah characterized descriptions of a religious text's plot content as "fringe"/"fringe sourcing" and on that basis removed descriptions and citations en masse. Concerns about level of detail and due inclusion might have had some place in the discussion, but I didn't and don't think it's in our guideline to apply "fringe" to plot summaries or textual studies that don't impinge on reality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In context it might have been as if we (in effect) say it is a fact and not (for example) a religious belief it might violate fringe, after all people can't walk across water. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at the page's revision history and searched the talk page. I see a lot of removal of unsourced content, but I cannot see any denial of "plot points". Where are the diffs of these removals or denials? I know the editor concerned can't answer back so this makes it especially important the case is clear. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I see a lot of removal of unsourced content: Before the editor removed sources that he called fringe sourcing, there were in-line citations at the end of every paragraph (and at the end of nearly every sentence as well). As for diffs, see the difference here: every edit in that span except for one was by the same editor, JPS. Only one edit in that span was made by a different editor, when I removed JPS's addition of "???" into the body text. Compare this result to the version of the article that passed reviews at Did You Know). On the talk page, JPS called the article WP:PROFRINGE advocacy and accused editors of using fringe sourcing to support pet theories. These "fringe" claims and "pet theories" seemingly included that religious studies scholars say a book produced by Christians to spread a Christian religion depicts Christian characters (non-Mormon academics cited to verify that summarization of the book's plot were implied, and then confirmed, to be considered lunatic charlatans by JPS; see the thread that ends Whachagonnado), or that one of the characters says his god forbids him from invoking a miracle to rescue suffering people (the "Suffering" section that is gone), or that stories written to be set in the past can be set in the past; and the "fringe sourcing" seemingly included an article published by the European Mormon Studies Association that treated the Book of Mormon as a product of the nineteenth century (Stott's "Martyrdoms at Ammonihah") and another article published in the journal Dialogue that was cited to state that the story about a city kicking a bunch of people out and making them refugees has a plot beat about people getting kicked out of a city and becoming refugees (Kim, Warnick, & Johnson, "Hospitality in the Book of Mormon").

The points about clarity of word choice land well enough; discussion about excessive details and due inclusion in the plot summary from a different editor were good points. But the impression and effect of the talk page comments went beyond 'this is phrased oddly' or 'is this claim due?' and well into a territory that seemed to result in most claims about the book and its contents being "fringe" unless they matched JPS's personal research agenda and his apparent interest in Nephite ecclesiology, a background element of the setting (see his What is the Nephite Christian Church? on the talk page and his addition to the article of an unsourced section about that). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The article body text had been written specifically to never describe the contents of the relevant religious text as if they were external factual reality. It's the difference between, to use your example:

• Jesus walked across water circa 30 C. E. (This is "fringe", in Wikipedia's parlance, as there's no consensus in the fields of physics or fluid dynamics for a person walking on water via divine magic)
• Many Christians believe that Jesus walked across water circa 30 C. E. (This is not "fringe", as it's a consensus in the field of religious studies that there are lots of Christians who believe the miracles attributed to a person named Jesus happened)
• In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus walks on water. (This is not "fringe", as it's consensus in the field of New Testament scholarship that the plot of this chapter involves Jesus walking on water)

On the last example, the difference between Jesus as a consensus historical person versus the consensus of how the New Testament describes Jesus (effectively a character in the text) matters. It's like how it wouldn't do to say in Wikivoice that FDR met and got along with an orphan named Annie, but it's entirely accurate to say that in the musical Annie, FDR meets Annie, and they get along well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing disagreements about weight, sourcing and wording but not this denial of major 'plot points' akin to the Resurrection, as was complained about. And if an editor is over-interested in the "Nephite Christian Church" that is not really an issue with WP:FRINGE. The wording "In the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus walks on water" is poor; for texts which combine fact and fiction it is good to be clear which is which. Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure; walking on water is fiction. It's analogous to wanting to say "In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward doctors discover the local peasants cure cancer using chaga mushrooms". Bon courage (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is what I suspected, religious people claiming its true, noi that is Fringe. I do not get to say that "Flashman won the VC" but I say the "fictional character Flashman won the VC". Unless of croused we make it clear it is a work of fiction, "plots" can't be used as RS for "facts". Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

One shouldn't say "Flashman won the VC"; using the past tense implies the historical past tense, implying reality. Saying "In [novel], Flashman wins the VC" is the use of the literary present tense. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So it would then be OK to say "in the bible" or "according to the bible, Jesus walked on water". So yes, I agree that would be fine. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

texts which combine fact and fiction: It was my impression that there is no mainstream consensus for the Book of Mormon combining fact and fiction because the mainstream consensus is that no element of it is factual. Any wikivoice reference to material internal to the Book of Mormon is necessarily reference to textual material, not historical material.

Well, I'm seeing disagreements about weight, sourcing and wording but not this denial of major 'plot points': I suppose we disagree about that; JPS articulated his comments in terms of "fringe", and his rejection of the notion, generally agreed upon by scholars writing about Mormonism, that Jesus-believing characters written by Christians are meant to be read as Christians, seemed like a denial of a major element of the plot. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The examples given were the Resurrection, Lazarus and Jesus walking on water, with concerns WP:FRINGE could be used to suppress such major plot elements with vast amounts of secondary coverage. Presumably anything Mormon-related is much more, well, fringe and there's a danger of walled-garden sourcing, undue weight and privileging primary texts. Is no element of the book of Mormon factual? If so, then yes, it can be treated explicitly like fiction. Bon courage (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Is no element of the book of Mormon factual? However it does make falsifiable assertions about history and other religious texts that run into the same issues as '"In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward doctors discover the local peasants cure cancer using chaga mushrooms"'. JoelleJay (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Does anybody actually believe that Mormon stuff about prophets in America, or claim that it's real? If so, I suppose such claims obtrude into the realm of reality and do need to be presented neutrally (i.e. as fiction). It boils down to judgement; nobody is going to claim that because it's in Harry Potter, Kings Cross Station actually has a "Platform 9 and ¾"!! (Oh ...[5]) Bon courage (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Mormons (and their theologians) believe it. I'm sure that like any other religion not everyone is on the same page, but the Church doctrine is the BoM is an accurate historical record of events which actually occurred. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

the same issues as '"In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward doctors discover the local peasants cure cancer using chaga mushrooms"': I'm not sure I'm really clear on why that example is an issue. If one is summarizing the novel, and if that aspect of the plot is somehow useful context for other analysis or reception, then saying that in a plot summary section seems like simply a matter of summarizing relevant plot. One doesn't worry too much that someone reading Annie will come away with the impression that a young orphan was the real inspiration for the New Deal because of sentences like Warbucks brings Annie to Washington, D.C., where she meets President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt and his Cabinet are inspired by her optimism and decide to make it a cornerstone of their administration. If there is a concern about the effects of chaga being taken as too real, one could add an explanatory footnote saying Chaga mushrooms do not actually have this effect on cancer or something, or a section providing more thorough explanation of what parts of this Solzhenitsyn fictionalized and what he didn't. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a little awkward, I'd say. Using the term autobiographical novel inevitably fudges the line between what was fictionalized and what wasn't. It would be worse if the claim were about something less dramatic than "the local peasants cure cancer". Suppose a sentence ran, In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward, the main character has a romance with a nurse. Should we take that as a statement about Solzhenitsyn's life, or not? Likewise, if a religious text makes a claim about a historical figure doing a thing that a historical figure could easily be imagined as doing, then we have to exercise caution to avoid ascribing actions to historical figures that aren't attested in history proper. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is only a point in such discussions if the result has an impact on what we do about it. So, what sets a fringe position apart from a non-fringe position? Here are three important points from WP:FRINGE:

• It should not get undue weight.
• It is framed by a field, within which there are mainstream views and fringe views.
• It needs attribution.

For religious views, it is obvious anyway that they need attribution (only certain religions believe in reincarnation or resurrection). Weight is determined by popularity (if only David Icke believes in a reptilian god, it does not belong anywhere except in the article about him), and there is no field for religion because religions tend to encompass everything. There are religiously inspired claims within particular field which are clearly fringe (creationism, faith healing, and so on) but the religious aspect has no bearing on that. I do not see what this discussion is aiming to achieve. Maybe it's just me, but it looks as if, whether religions turn out to be fringe or not fringe, they will not be handled differently from how they are handled now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There are also views that are fringe within a religion, which sometimes comes up. For example, Arianism or Gnosticism are / were fringe views within Christianity as a whole (as were several of the Mormon beliefs mentioned above.) They have to be treated with caution and referenced with attribution that makes this clear - sometimes we do get editors who treat their personal religious beliefs as applicable to the broader faith. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think religion belongs here, the connection seems to be that self described 'rational' people don't like pseudoscience or religion. We need good sources on religion, but this is a POV area attracting users who don't understand it and are implicitly hostile. Secretlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Religion doesn't belong here, but some things do. The E-meter doesn't get an exempt-from-fringe pass because it's associated with a religion, for example (Scientology). Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am somewhat disappointed by the fervor with which people here are seemingly champing at the bit to say incredibly inflammatory things about how religion is fiction and it's a conspiracy theory and it sucks and whatever.

In general, my understanding is that religious tolerance is one of the central and most crucial Enlightenment ideals, by which humanity was able to achieve its current state of great intellectual, economic, and scientific sophistication. Do you guys know how many people got their intestines splattered on the ground for thousands of years over differences in religion? Well, it was a lot. The consensus on which modern society rests -- notice how after reaching this consensus we have airplanes and penicillin? -- is for us humans to do our best to avoid stabbing each other over issues of the divine.

It's not always the easiest thing to strike a balance on, but generally, where we can do so, we should: "Christians believe that Jesus walked on water", et cetera. For reincarnation, for example, it actually cannot be proven whether or not this happens, so we do not say either way or the other in our article. This is fine. This does not need to change. We do not need to {{failed verification}} and demand "a study" (?) showing that Ahura Mazda is the source of all goodness and does battle with Angra Mainyu.

To take one of the seemingly flippant comments made here at face value -- that it's WP:FRINGE to believe God is real -- I am actually not aware of any publications in actual scientific fields like geology or astrophysics (i.e. real papers in reputable journals, not blog posts or screenshots of NDT tweets or viral reddit memes) which make direct claims about whether the Universe has divine presence. Geologists are not simply too stupid to realize that they should stop writing papers about the Oligocene melting of subducted mélange and start writing papers about the more interesting subject of how God isn't real -- the fact that they don't generally do this is a basic principle of the global society in which the modern institution of science lives and operates. Indeed, speaking empirically, a great deal of intellectual progress was given to us by people who have very different opinions from us, and from each other.

A Wikipedia where all content was strictly required to conform to the tenets of logical positivism would be an interesting case study, but I don't think it would be a very good encyclopedia. By the same token, I think we would have much more to learn -- we would have a better educational resource -- from a Wikipedia where Christians/Muslims/Jews/Taoists/Buddhists/Sikhs/Hindus/Mormons/Zoroastrians/etc are subjected to an absolute minimum of lectures about how they are superstitious morons. jp×g🗯️ 08:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

an absolute minimum of lectures about how they are superstitious morons ← it's language like this which lies at the heart of the problem, seeding and stoking up the drama. To be clear nobody should be doing any lecturing about how anybody else is a 'superstitious moron' at all, and so far as I can see these words appear nowhere else here. Bon courage (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think part of the reason is we did not invoke wp:plot, which kind of applies to fiction. Either is is fact, opinion or fiction. Its not fact so it must be one of the other two. Slatersteven (talk)

I'm not entirely sure how invoking or not invoking WP:PLOT pertains or if it even implies fiction. WP:PLOT, or WP:NOTPLOT as it appears at the page, is not a rule about fiction but rather a policy that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be [s]ummary-only descriptions of works. The policy has nothing to do with whether a work claims to be fact or fiction and applies equally to fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)<

You are right I meant MOS:PLOT. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That guideline is about fiction, true, but the spirit of it is IMO helpful when writing about religious stories, since they have plots too. WP:RSPSCRIPTURE includes a link to that guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat disappointed by the fervor with which people here are seemingly champing at the bit to say incredibly inflammatory things about how religion is fiction and it's a conspiracy theory and it sucks and whatever. I don't know what page you're reading because none of that appears on this page. Ironically, this totally false allegation is the most inflammatory thing on this page.

I am actually not aware of any publications in actual scientific fields like geology or astrophysics (i.e. real papers in reputable journals, not blog posts or screenshots of NDT tweets or viral reddit memes) which make direct claims about whether the Universe has divine presence.

• Carroll, Sean B. (2007). "God as Genetic Engineer". Science. 316 (5830): 1427–1428. doi:10.1126/science.1145104. ISSN 0036-8075.
• Noble, Denis (2008). "For a Redefinition of God". Science. 320 (5883): 1590–1591. doi:10.1126/science.1159912. ISSN 0036-8075.
• De Duve, Christian (1988). "Did God make RNA?". Nature. 336 (6196): 209–210. doi:10.1038/336209b0. ISSN 0028-0836.
• Cobb, Matthew (2001). "Wondrous order". Nature. 413 (6858): 779–779. doi:10.1038/35101666. ISSN 0028-0836.
• Scott, Eugenie C. (2006). "Creationism and Evolution: It's the American Way". Cell. 124 (3): 449–451. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.028. ISSN 0092-8674.
• Hoekstra, Hopi E. (2009). "The Evolution Ringmaster". Cell. 139 (3): 454–455. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.013. ISSN 0092-8674.

Pro tip: "I am actually not aware of any publications ..." says more about your awareness than about any publications. Levivich (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Pro tip [sic]: I said real papers; you have linked a book review, a book review, a letter to the editor, an op-ed, a book review, and a book review, none of which are papers... second of all, none of these seem to say anywhere that God is not real (did you actually read them?) -- they argue that evolution is real (which agrees with the official doctrine of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae 1992 but I am not really sure what the connection is to the existence of God). jp×g🗯️ 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The thing about book reviews is that books that get reviewed in journals like Science, Nature, and Cell, count as "real papers." Even better than papers, those are "real books," as in real scientific works that directly talk about science and religion and the existence of God, and are taken really seriously by real scientists writing reviews in real journals.

Letter to the editor, meh, I guess you have sort of a point that that's neither a peer reviewed paper nor a scholarly monogram, but still, a letter to the editor written by Christian de Duve published in Nature counts to demonstrate that real, serious scientists are discussing this in real, serious science journals. After all, typical letters to the editor do not have footnotes citing scientific papers and books--well, except letters to the editor in scientific journals.

As for reading it and quotes, here you go, in order:

1. In reviewing a book that argues (to quote the reviewer) "In short, God is a genetic engineer, somehow designing changes in DNA to make biochemical machines and higher taxa," the reviewer writes, "My goal here is to point out he critical flaws in Behe's key arguments..." In other words, the reviewer is arguing with the book about whether God is responsible for RNA/DNA/genetics. Yeah, that counts as real science really arguing about whether God exists.
2. Again, a review of a book that argues for a God concept. To quote the reviewer: "...But why should we call any of this 'God'? Kauffman's God is not even given the power that the Deists recognize ... as Kauffman notes, there are religions (notably Buddhism) that do not postulate a Creator God and for whom nature is sacred to a high degree ... So, could his concept of God as nature's ceaseless creativity be convincing? As he expects, believers in a Creator God will strongly disagree with him, whereas humanists are not likely to adopt a word they have expunged from their language." Sounds like an argument about the existence and nature of God to me.
3. Letter to the editor discussed above; admittedly de Duve is using "God" tongue in cheek and not really arguing for or against its existence; strike that one if you'd like
4. "there is neither Creator nor Design, but simply adaptation" is pretty f'ing clear, eh?
5. A review of a Dawkings book. 'nuff said.

HTH. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So yes, you agree with my claim that none of these things come remotely close to constituting scientific evidence that "God does not exist"? The statement "humanists are not likely to adopt a word they have expunged from their language" written in a book review does not, in any universe, logically equate to "God does not exist". The full sentence from which you've quoted the phrase "there is neither Creator nor Design, but simply adaptation" is, again, from an editorial piece -- this is the author's opinion. This is not an objective scientific claim being made on behalf of the journal Nature.

The entire concept of religion is not "fringe" because some guy wrote an op-ed in Nature saying that evolution was true. No amount of evolution being true causes this to be the case.

I get the feeling that you are simply following some kind of script developed in the early 2000s for winning arguments against creationists, rather than reading the things I'm writing and writing responses to them. To clarify, I am not Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, and I do not think that God created the world over the course of seven days a couple thousand years ago. The arguments you are deploying against this belief are not relevant to my original claim, which (to reiterate) is that the accusation that all religion is "fringe" is a patently uncollegial thing to post and earnestly defend on a Wikipedia noticeboard, and that whether or not religious metaphysical claims are true is almost never within the remit of a Wikipedia noticeboard for pseudoscience. jp×g🗯️ 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So it's not fringe unless there is scientific evidence that "God does not exist"? You know that's not how it works. A thing isn't WP:FRINGE because it has been scientifically disproven. A thing is WP:FRINGE if it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."

There are no objective claims made on behalf of the journal Nature in the journal Nature. You know that's not how it works. Journals don't make claims, authors do.

What you said, that I responded to, was this: I am actually not aware of any publications in actual scientific fields like geology or astrophysics (i.e. real papers in reputable journals, not blog posts or screenshots of NDT tweets or viral reddit memes) which make direct claims about whether the Universe has divine presence. I showed you a real paper in a reputable journal that said there is neither Creator nor Design, but simply adaptation. That is a direct claim about whether the Universe has divine presence, in a book review in Cell. I disproved what you claimed. Levivich (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize in advance, as I am still regretful for my part in kicking up this hornet's nest. But again, for me this all comes down to levels of abstraction. There are absolutely many theistic claims that are easily debunked and most certainly fall into the fringe category. But the ultimate theistic claim just isn't susceptible to scientific investigation in the same way. The article about Behe and the Dover school brouhaha is a very good example: you say that that "counts as real science really arguing about whether God exists." But it clearly is not that! It is absolutely a rejection of Behe's ideas (that Darwinian evolution cannot be responsible for various traits), but it does not say there is not some sort of god. It is certainly entirely possible to imagine a deity working through evolution. Ditto for the Dawkins review, which mentions God precisely once: in the name of his book The God Delusion. Any theory which rejects Darwinian evolution is absolutely fringe. I don't see how there can be any doubt about that. But if I have a theory that a deity started evolution, from exactly what mainstream theory am I departing? If I say 'evolution doesn't exist' or 'the big bang (or hyperinflation, what have you) never happened,' then I am absolutely in the world of fringe. If I say "I agree with all the science, but I feel there must have been a prime mover," I am not actually in conflict with scientific theory. It's just not a claim which is cognizable by science. Again, I am no fan of religion and I don't even think this is about ultimate meaning in any way, really; for me it is much more about accepting the epistemic limitations which restrain us all. The scientific method is, for my money, far and away the greatest (and really only) tool we have for understanding the universe. That doesn't mean, however, that it can answer every question. With that, I will wish everyone a happy Friday eve and again, sorry for instigating. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: "I am somewhat disappointed by the fervor with which people here are seemingly champing at the bit to say incredibly inflammatory things about how religion is fiction and it's a conspiracy theory and it sucks and whatever." As the kids say diffs or it didn't happen... You can't just cast aspersions like that without backing them up and I don't think those aspersions can be backed up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can quote directly from this single section:

• Which all religions do, which is what makes all religions fringe, within the meaning of WP:FRINGE: an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.
• I believe I am 234 foot tall leprechaun that was birthed in the core of Jupiter
• why don't we treat [Lazarus or Jesus's resurrections] the same as the other zombies?
• religious studies is the mainstream while theology is the fringe
• The theory that any such thing (triune deity, unitary deity, minor deity, demigod, angel, unicorn, dragon, giant, bigfoot, etc is fringe) actually exists or existed as a real being is fringe
• Theism -- that there exists a God -- is WP:FRINGE

Now we are ready for the part where someone asserts that calling something "fringe" is actually not derisive, and not an insult, and there's no evidence that anyone uses it that way, and rather a totally neutral descriptor with no bearing on something's merit, et cetera, even though "being profringe" is sitebannable. jp×g🗯️ 18:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Fringe" as used on this page means WP:FRINGE, and no, it's not derisive or an insult, and if you can't handle reading someone arguing that all religions are (or contain) WP:FRINGE without considering that an example of "fervor" and "champing at the bit to say incredibly inflammatory things about how religion is fiction and it's a conspiracy theory and it sucks and whatever," then this is not a discussion for you. Religion is fiction, religion is fringe, and I'm not insulting anyone or saying anything inflammatory by saying that. I don't have to pretend that it's true, or might be true, in order to avoid giving someone offense. This is an encyclopedia, a book of science. Levivich (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also laughed at the 2005 bash.org quote about getting kicked out of Barnes and Noble for moving the Bibles to the fiction section, but to do this bit on an international project to write a collaborative encyclopedia with culturally diverse participants spanning the globe is childish. jp×g🗯️ 22:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

None of that seems to call religion fiction, a conspiracy theory, or that it sucks. Are they meant to be examples of inflammatory comments? Is the argument the classic one that encyclopedias are inherently anti-religious because they don't elevate the sacred over the profane? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the comment directly above yours, written 25 minutes before it, that literally says "Religion is fiction, religion is fringe, and I'm not insulting anyone or saying anything inflammatory by saying that", as an explanation of one of the comments I quoted in my original post? jp×g🗯️ 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumable from before you made your comment, not after. Anything inflammatory... Anything at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is about can we use the plot of the bible as a source for its claim, correct? THis is where the issue stems form as to many science books do not have "plots" and history books do not have "plots". Thus it is easy to see anyone making that claim as (in effect) saying that religious books have "plots", not "facts", and that sits better with the idea of fiction. That is why (I at least) have talking about is fiction, as there are really only a few ideas here, either the bible is true, or it is false, it is either fact or fiction. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not really, it's a mixture. There was, in fact, an Egypt led by a Pharaoh, a Rome that was led by a Caesar, etc. It's not all fiction. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Nor are the Flashman novels, they are still fiction (hence the analogy to fiction, real history books do not contain fiction, that is a specific genre). What we can't do is treat religion as some special case when it comes to finger opinions. If the Bible says it we can't treat it as fact, but as attributed opinions (at best). Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

True. Reliable sources should be 100% fact and 0% fiction, not a mixture. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That aspiration is understandable. Yet even generally reliable sources publish untruths (many conversations about The New York Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc.), which is why our guidelines direct us to avoid depending on only one source for a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point: "100% fact" is an unrealistic standard :-) Levivich (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(Merely for clarity, histories can have plots, especially narrative histories. Of course these plots are, or are supposed to be, rooted in reality and not invented, and research and accuracy remain the primary purposes of history, but there is a "plot" to a book like Ron Chernow's Hamilton, about the rise and fall of Alexander Hamilton in early U. S. politics, for instance. The raw data of history, archival primary source material, doesn't have plot; but a historian (especially a narrative historian) assembles the information into something readable—often taking cues from conventions of plot.)

I may have let my point get lost. I'm not looking to make a special exception for citing religious texts without consensus historical grounding. I just remain perplexed by the experience of having cited secondary sources to make the from what I can tell non-fringe claim that 'religious text X says Y in it' (it doesn't violate physics or biology or history to say that a book says something) and another editor having averred that such claims (about the contents of the book, not about events in reality) are fringe. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For example, "The first chapter of the Book of Ezekiel says that the prophet saw a UFO" would a fringe claim about the story within the book. A statement about the reading or the interpretation of a passage can get converted, even unintentionally, to a statement about the contents of that passage. That can happen in an overt way or a subtle one (the example here being on the overt side). XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel that we should ever use the texts of major world religions themselves as the sole direct source for anything except perhaps the most trivial detail (and even then, ideally a secondary source will eventually be added.) The smallest details of interpretation and framing of these texts can have extremely serious implications to the faith. This isn't like trying to write an article about some random novel - the Bible, for instance, is the most heavily-analyzed and written-about book in all of human history. The idea that there could be any encyclopedic aspect of it that lacks a secondary source is absurd. For more obscure religious texts we might be forced to rely on the text itself, but for major ones like this it should be trivial to find secondary sourcing, which will help us avoid stating marginal interpretations or individual editor's WP:OR about the texts as fact. WP:PRIMARY sources are for extremely simple uncontroversial details and basic uncontested facts; I don't think there are many such details when it comes to major religious texts, where almost every single word or phrase has been subject to interpretation, reinterpretation, religious conflicts and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Are religious matters outside the scope of the Fringe Theory Board

I was reading the comments here, and they seemed to be headed nowhere. The original poster seemed to be thinking that matters of faith should not be within the scope of this board. In order to get this thread going somewhere, I will propose what I believe the original poster was thinking: Proposal: Matters of faith are outside the scope of WP:FTN, and are not appropriate to bring to this venue for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Money Threepwood (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is really unhelpful. As "religious matters" is an impossibly vague phrase. Render under WP:FRINGE that which is due to WP:FRINGE, and sometimes that will overlap with "religious matters". It's not fringe to say that in ancient Greek religions Zeus is king of the Gods; it is fringe to assert a sick child doesn't need to go to ER because Christian Science#Healing practices will suffice for medical care (and hence discussion about how Wikipedia covers that matter would be appropriate here). Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree entirely with the above. There are many religious matters that strike me as being clearly within the remit of this board. My only quibble would be that not all religious matters fall within that remit merely by dint of being religious in nature. Happy Friday, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• No but with a caveat Religious matters are not outside the remit of this board when they are fringe religious matters - where the board extends beyond its remit is if it begins to treat religious thought as de-facto fringe on the basis that science disproves religion. However, in religious studies, as in most fields of scholarship, there are fringe positions and those should be identified and treated according to applicable policy on fringe positions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• What is a "matter of faith" in this context? Is for example the age of the earth a matter of faith? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• When a religion claims something that can't be proven true or proven false (existence of God / Xenu / Flying Spaghetti Monster, you go to heaven when you die) it is outside our scope. We just report that religion X claims Y. When they make a claim that is testable (the earth is less than 10,000 years old, the stars are all closer than 10,000 light years, Benny Hinn has the ability to cure diseases by touching people, there were horses, elephants, and steel swords in the New World at the time of Christ) the religious beliefs are clearly within the scope of fringe theories. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know how helpful this would be; on one hand it would feel like we'd done something, but on the other hand I don't think it would clarify anything. Instead of wondering whether something was "appropriate for this noticeboard", everyone would just have to wonder whether something was "concerning a matter of religious faith", which doesn't really seem any easier. jp×g🗯️ 17:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Context matters - noting that Jesus is said to have turned water into wine is not a Fringe claim in an article about the Wedding at Cana. Noting this in an article on viticulture, on the other hand would be. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Nothing becomes outside the remit of this noticeboard just because somebody slapped the label "faith" upon it. Heck, some people hold onto conspiracy theories like they're articles of faith: not just believing in the absence of evidence, not just believing despite evidence to the contrary, but binding up their belief with their notions of what it means to be a good person. QAnon can't be separated from religious extremism. XOR'easter (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia does not determine the truth of sacred texts since experts themselves are generally divided on these matters. Most of the religious claims like Muhammad spoke with Angel Gabriel are actually historical claims and here historians take a neutral stance on historical supernatural claims. Attribution is useful here. And yes context makes a difference. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Religious matters can't possibly be all outside the purview of this board. It is claimed in some circles that Jesus was a transwoman with a fake beard a la Monty Python. Suppose somebody were to get such a theory published. Fringe, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Even more mainstream claims can be fringe; if you say that Jesus actually fed 5000 people with five loads of bread (as opposed to Christians believe he did), or that Xenu actually murdered billions in Earths volcanos (as opposed to Scientologists believe he did) then that is a WP:FRINGE claim that is suited to this board. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• fringe is fundamentally stuff that goes against WP:RS/AC or is otherwise wp:undue ultimately it doesn't matter what field an article is in the point of this board is to make sure it follows those policies—blindlynx 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• No, as I said above, all else aside there are always fringe views within a religion, and fringe interpretations of religious texts. For example, the Sermon on the Mount or the death and resurrection of Christ are views held in mainstream Christianity; the view that Christ secretly survived because his brother Isukiri was crucified in his stead, allowing him to go to Japan and eventually get buried in Shingō, Aomori is obviously fringe. And this does come up - sometimes editors will try to insert their own takes on religious works, or will present a fringe religious interpretation as mainstream. This is one reason why (referencing the above) we should generally avoid using religious texts themselves as citations for anything but the most obvious and straightforward aspects, because determining what reading and interpretation is mainstream involves analysis that is best left to secondary sources. When it comes to religion, even things that seem extremely straightforward and uncontroversial at a glance to someone unfamiliar with the topic might have deeply important nuances. (eg. consider the nature of the trinity in Christianity, where even the slightest variation in wording can take you away from mainstream Catholicism.) And of course there are also cases where religious beliefs overlap with other academic consensuses, eg. when it comes to historical or scientific things like faith healing or the historicity of some figures and events in religious texts - in those cases we ultimately have to go with the academic consensus and make that consensus clear, we can't just throw up our hands because religion is involved. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, just wanted to add that I read though each of the posts and think they were all pretty on point, you said the same thing over and over again each time trying to better explain. It was really great reading your same argument from different perspectives. Will be sharing this conversation with my team members as I often do. Great to be working along side you people, I learn so much from you all. Sgerbic (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson

The article on Jordan Peterson is clearly written by cultish fans intent on burying his numerous positions which conflict with reality, including his overt climate denial, his promotion of anti-vax ideas, his pro-Putin, pro-Russia stance, his right-wing talking points, and his continuing struggle with mental illness and drug addition. Strangely, none of this is found in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I gave up on the article, too much of a mess. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. While I'm quite thoroughly aware of Peterson I question whether I have the patience, time or willingness to probably end up at an arbcom enforcement discussion that trying to fix that mess would engender. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't read the lede without getting the urge to tag every line, sometimes several times.. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we at least throw on a NPOV tag? —blindlynx 19:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe an RfC on the article to rewrite the lede might help, and, if issues persist, a WP:BLUELOCK. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there's a particular slant to Ralston College, the place he's chancellor of. Reconrabbit 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm carefully making a few small edits to the article to at least push it a bit in the right direction. We'll see what happens. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is way too long. I would suggest to cut all the "views and works" stuff into a daughter article, and just put a summary in the main article - which seems largely innocuous. We can then clean up the daughter article, with a lot of deletion. Wdford (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Female cosmetic coalitions

The article for Female cosmetic coalitions identifies it as a controversial theory, despite that, the article goes into a likely undue amount of detail about the “testable predictions of the model” with only two sentences at the end to cast any doubt on the theory, and those sentences neglect to elaborate on why that doubt exists. Some comments on the talk page also cast doubt on the theory (someone citing something in menstrual synchrony that goes against the theory and an IP editor that claims to be a biologist calling it nonsense) but I have no expertise in the field myself. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like quite a bit has been added and much of it relies on a small number of sources, I'll have to take a good look at the edits, but I'm also rather ignorant on this topic so I can't yet speak to its neutrality. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Glenn Miller

Seeking input on whether to mention the 'friendly fire' conspiracy theory surrounding Glenn Miller's death, as well as its debunking. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

• Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent flurry of activity including new articles:

• Frogs into Princes (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• The Structure of Magic (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

--Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I did some maintenance on the articles for the books. The Structure of Magic needs some attention still because of the way it presents the subject, and both need reception. Reconrabbit 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories

Ok, this is always going to have fringe sources. But should it really have them in further reading? Barry Fell, Pohl, Sorenson, Ashe[6], Huyghe who is editor of the publisher[7], Mallery (see Piri Reis map#Amateur claims}, Farley Mowat? Looking at the references, I see that the reference "Reconciling Conflicting Phylogenies in the Origin of Sweet Potato and Dispersal to Polynesia" has a PubPeer discussion (I can see a big tag at the top of the article and at the reference) here, I'm not sure we should be using it. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Integral theory

Some eyes more experienced in fringe matters could be used at Integral theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed a lot of unsourced material, but it got restored. Some sources got added, but not enough. Many of the cited sources appear to be self-published or otherwise inferior. Skyerise (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reincarnation needs updating

Virtually nothing about this century, a section on the last two. I found this today [8] which could be used. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

New editor restoring deleted text, interesting edit summary for one edit: “ Restores the apologist perspective that had been up for years. No basis given to remove it, other than the individual hates the LDS Church )” Special:Contributions/Pombedo11!. There was a discussion at Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and removed a lot of "Apologist perspective" sections. In some cases I retained the perspective but removed the "Apologist perspective" headings. In most cases, however, the perspective presented amounted to hand-waving WP:SYNTH of sources that fail to mention anything about the Book of Mormon, or were cited to primary sources, or relied on religious belief. I removed all of those. There was an over-arching tone of "if something can be interpreted in a way that resolves the anachronism, regardless of lacking evidence, then that must be the correct interpretation."

The only problem I see is that the lead now summarizes the typical methods of rebuttal by Mormon scholars but the article body doesn't really elaborate on that, so the lead now has an orphan summary. The article could use a separate section with selected examples from the content I removed. What the article doesn't need is a he-said/she-said point/counterpoint format like it had before. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc.'s founders

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tesla, Inc. § Rfc regarding Tesla's founders. I think that there is a relevant topic on whether or not the view that there are 5 founders is a fringe view, which would decide whether we should replace the founders parameter altogether with a link to the section about Tesla's founding. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

George Knapp again

Heavy rewrite by User: ‎DuncanGT [9] including unsourced and making it appear that Knapp got awards for his UFO stuff. Tried to revert to earlier version but failed for some reason. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified them and saw they've had a ct alert for fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The first source in the lead now is " "I-Team: A look at how Bob Lazar interviews match up with Pentagon's admission of studying UFOs". KLAS." - written by Knapp himself. I think at least a page ban might be in order but I did a minor revert, not of this editor, a while ago. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hyksos in Armenia

This is about [10], please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please can you let me know what is the problem of this article? Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert upon the Hyksos, but my intuition that the edits were far-fetched was confirmed at [11].

In case you wonder, Disruptive editing: ethno-national advocacy, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct is a valid reason for indeffing editors. See [12]. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but there are some facts that show the connection between Armenia and hyksos, surely we don't consider them as a final one, but we should at least mention that facts showing or guiding readers to study Armenian sources too. Can we write shorter content and only about the facts approving that connection, or you will delate it? Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not actually aware of a single scholarly argument that the Hyksos were Armenian being taken credibly, but I admit that my history around the Hyksos is weak. Would you be able to provide some sources that meet WP:RS for this claim? I agree with @Tgeorgescu here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is an English scholarly testimony: https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc18.pdf, page 47, line 2. We should give the readers all the possible versions to know about their history. May be this will be a factor to help researcher to study the topic more thoroughly. So I consider it true to inform the reader about the variant of Hyksos's Armenian possible origins with reliable sources. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I daresay the state of scholarship has moved on quite a bit from 1939, the date of your article. And in that article, the author is arguing for a sort of confluence between the Hurrians and Hyksos peoples--but not an equivalence of the two. Rather, he says there is linguistic evidence of Hurrian influence in Hyksos king names (I have heard this before, but never followed up on the claim). Associating the Hurrians with Armenia and the broader Lake Van area is not controversial at all. But the sourcing you have provided does not say what you want to put in the article, and would be far too little for what be a fairly extraordinary claim. But that's just one old shepherd's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A single source from 1939 isn't going to convince anyone to upend our entire understanding of history and, by extension, rewrite the article.

"We should give the readers all the possible versions to know about their history."

This isn't how wikipedia works. We don't need to present theories with no mainstream acceptance or evidence because it appeals to a nationalist sense of pride. If you wish to inform readers of the true state of the scholarship, this isn't the way to go about it. I daresay accepting that the Hyksos aren't Armenian is probably a more scholarly way to go about it... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, then I will write the statement in another format to give the readers opportunity to study the weak pages of our history. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Without a credible source it's going to instantly be removed. The idea that the Hyksos were Armenians is, likely, a nationalist fantasy without any credible sourcing behind it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wide studied are done in Armenia and, unfortunately, they are still in Armenian, but surely there are English sources that shows it and hope soon Armenian sources will be available in English too. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah… it’s not a real thing. I appreciate that many feel it is in Armenia, but it’s a similar situation to the Altaic language family in Turkey: widely popularly believed to be true, factually bunk. If Armenian scholars had meaningful evidence the Hyksos were Armenians one would think that some of that evidence would have been put forward to the wider archaeological community. Please do not try and edit this back into the article. It may warrant a mention that some nationalists have attempted to link the Hyksos to the Armenians, but any statement of that beyond it being a nationalist fantasy runs up against WP:ECREE. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article and I know the current scholarly consensus pretty well. The Hyksos are believed to have been Semitic speakers from the Levant, definitely not Armenians. Also, they weren’t an ethnicity.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also: the Hurrian connection has been thoroughly debunked. The Hyksos have Semitic names.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What I know about the Hyksos: the word means "foreign rulers" (of Egypt), and they were of Semitic origin. They were later expelled from Egypt. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Student editor I think could use some help at Phoenician Ship Expedition

Never a terribly good article in any case. I’m off to bed now but if anyone fells like advising them it would be nice, otherwise they may just get reverted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliably published book with a fringe chapter, The Geology of the Atlantic Ocean

The first chapter has a lot of fringe, eg [13] Searching that you can find:

"... Celts Perhaps earliest expeditions were those of Celts whose presumed records in Ogam script occur at many places in eastern North America ( Fig . 1 A), where the new- comers could have became established as hunters and farmers . The ..."

'... Celts , Iberians , and Libyans were associated in their explorations and settlements in the New World . Occasional presence of Egyptian Numidian , Hebrew , Basque , Roman , and "se scripts or words shows , reasonably enough , that..."

"... Libyans , all of whose ship routes lay nearby ( Fig . 1 ). Greek visits to the New World are uncertain . Al- though many short inscriptions in Greek are known and some words of Algonquian appear to be derived from that language , these ..."

"... Celtic ships . A stele in Yucatan denotes in Iberian the route of an expe- dition under the command of a Hanno , prince of Car thage . In fact, most of the identified sites have inscrip- tions in Celtic or Libyan as well as in Iberian ..."

"... Libyans were much influenced by the Greeks after Alexander's conquest of Egypt in 332 B.C. In fact, western New Guinea cave - wall inscriptions made in 232 B.C. by two Libyan captains , Maui and Rata , describe Eratosthenes ' ( of...a" which I think is from this fringe document.[14]

I don't think any of this is being used as a source for articles, but should it be discussed at RSN? Doug Weller talk 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is not used as a source, what is the point? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling The book itself is used in various articles, not that chapter. My question is that given the clear lack of proper editorial oversight, should this be taken to RSN as being unreliable for all of the book? Doug Weller talk 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. For some reason I thought the chapters had individual authors. They don't. This is all written by two authors, which for me casts doubt on all of the book. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSCONTEXT reminds us that context matters for reliable sources. Kenneth O. Emery was a marine geologist, and Elazar Uchupi was likewise trained in geology. A source that is reliable for certain claims (like the physiography of the Atlantic Ocean, a matter Emery and Uchupi seem trained and reputed for) can be unreliable for other claims (like trans-Atlantic oceanic voyages before the 1400s, a matter I would turn to archaeologists and historians for). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Even for most scientific claims a book first published in 1984 is too old in context. Those are eminent scientists of the 1960s-1980s, not today. We really shouldn't be widely using this source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ordo Aurum Solis

After 12 years this article is still almost wholly sourced to Llewellyn Worldwide, itself a bad article. There are a few web links but they seem the same where they work. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably better at WP:NPOVN, but now there's even a better place for such a primary source-based trainwreck: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Aurum Solis. –Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Guy McPherson

Guy McPherson is a professor in AZ who makes predictions. In 2007, he predicted that due to peak oil there would be permanent blackouts in cities starting in 2012. In 2012, he predicted the "likely" extinction of humanity by 2030 due to climate-change, and mass die-off by 2020 "for those living in the interior of a large continent". In 2018, he was quoted as saying "Specifically, I predict that there will be no humans on Earth by 2026". He has been interviewed on film, tv, radio, etc.. and is frequently the go-to person if you want an extreme version of climate change, peak oil, etc... He has a following.

He has been described by climate scientist Michael E. Mann as a "doomist cult hero." Michael Tobis, a climate scientist from the University of Wisconsin, said McPherson "is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe." Andrew Revkin in The New York Times said McPherson was an "apocalyptic ecologist ... who has built something of an 'End of Days' following." The lead section summarizes these POVs, saying he engages in "fringe theories".

On the talk page, User:PESchneider, who has a disclosed COI with McPherson, has requested we remove "fringe theory" because this is a pejorative phrase and not in line with BLP, that McPherson bases his work on science papers, etc..

Should we characterize McPherson as a fringe theorist in the article, or some other wording? -- GreenC 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, near term human extinction is a fringe theory. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

His speech on near term human extinction is on the blacklisted site globalresearch.ca according to his user page. His memories were published by PublishAmerica, now America Star Books and probably self-published. He doesn't have a COI with McPherson, according to his use page he IS McPherson. His userpage is a copy of the article as he first wrote it[15] and I believe at least that part should be deleted.

The list of his books on his article is too long and and written entirely by him which explains the number of books written by iterations of PublishAmerca, a book published by the now defunct TayenLane publishing (see [16]. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

He wrote the existing one sentence description in the lead. I guess he's still technically there as [17] lists him as a professor emeritus, but he no longer seems to be teaching there.[18], THe last part of his list of accomplishments there is interesting.[19]. "America's Registry of Outstanding Professionals" seems very dubious although used in three articles.[20] A couple there seem ok, eg American Men & Women of Science. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research and fringe (Shakespeare authorship question; Islamo-Arabic contributions in history of science) at Safa Khulusi

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original research and fringe at Safa Khulusi which is relevant to this noticeboard. Please participate there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the massive restoration and told them to discuss on the talk page, as well as briefly commenting there. Based on their behavior and that this is a new account, I'd suggest looking into the page history to see who added that material originally, and seeing if the latest account might be connected. For example, this account seems to have added a lot of material back in 2011 and 2012. See also this ANI thread and this SPI about that user. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, both the old accounts and the new one seem to be heavily focused on the Eric Ormsby quote (the "large quote" Boing was talking about in the ANI; cf. [21][22] vs [23][24][25]). Very likely the same user. Not sure if it's worth an SPI (accounts are going to be stale), but a clear consensus on the article talk or the NORN thread may help to prevent future disruption. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Reichstag fire

• Reichstag fire (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I think that the article has WP:FALSEBALANCE; see Talk:Reichstag fire#Consensus. Historians may disagree with me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Suissa and Sullivan

Since a big part of the argument is whether it's acceptable to cite a fringe source for non-fringe content, this may be of interest. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)