Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    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.
    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    • 03 Oct 2025 – Bernard Haisch (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
    • 19 Sep 2025 – Israel and claims of supernatural warfare (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Smallangryplanet (t · c) was closed as merge by OwenX (t · c) on 04 Oct 2025; see discussion (20 participants; relisted)

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Files for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Pajeet

    [edit]

    This is an article about a 4chan originated alt-right slur (used to direct racism against Indians and people of Indian origin). I have nominated it for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pajeet) for what I believe was mostly perfunctory coverage from most sources (it is a neologism mostly in currency in the alt-tech (now also X) sphere. The reason I bring this here is because things directly related to the White genocide conspiracy theory are being added to the article. This source (an op-ed) is being used to propose these additions to the article:

    According to Rohit Chopra, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University, the archetype "Pajeet" is typically described as an "uncivilized," "violently misogynistic," and "unhygienic" "dark-skinned immigrant" who is obsessed with cows and refuses to assimilate into white society, where he is portrayed as posing "a threat to the white majority" and their women."

    The source clearly frames these in the context of the racist conspiracy theory but these proposed additions de-contextualized and uncountered appear to not only condense bigotry but to crystallize racist rhetoric (as is clear from the source and others which cover it (e.g. [1]), the slur is associated with anything under the sun to dehumanize those its targetted against) but give undue NPOV coverage to it as well (no other slur-related article covers racist conspiracies related to it from the POV of its purveyors) but also go counter to precedent WP:FRIND. I argued at Talk:Pajeet#Edit to history, that the only thing due from the source would be to link the slur with the conspiracy theory and nothing more (especially not anything from the proposal), others have disagreed but haven't really provided any alternative or given policy-based arguments (I don't think there are any really policies which would make us quote racial bigotry in this way). I ask frequenters here for their opinion, thank you.

    PS: The AfD proposal by me has lead to a barrage of socks attacking me with vile racial abuse. So, indeed I am a bit partial against edits which appear to legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case). Gotitbro (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit you reverted[2] is not what you quoted above. This itself shows that you are misleading the observers. The version you reverted[3] clearly mentions the conspiracy theory. Simply listing the tropes and the conspiracy theory is not fringe at all. Also, the cited source is not op-ed.[4] Koshuri (あ!) 11:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Rohit Chopra, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University, the archetype "Pajeet" is typically described as a "dark skinned immigrant" who is "uncivilised", "violently misogynistic", "unhygienic", "fixated on cows" and "unable or unwilling to abide by the norms of his new society". The slur is sometimes also used to attack immigrants of Indian backgrounds for being a "demographic threat" to a "usually white majority population" as a form of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

    Not much different from the proposal at all beyond a sidelined mention of the conspiracy theory, the points raised above wholly stand.
    The source largely appeared to be an opinion of the writer to me, nonetheless the way it is being proposed to be used is not how we go about it (platforming fringe, extremism and conspiracies at enwiki). We also need stellar academic sources for anything fringe (I don't believe this has been satisfied either) and we cover academic views of extremism not give bare references to the extremism itself, this is absolutely not how the proposals go about it. I will wait for uninvolved editors to now comment, so that we aren't going around in circles. Gotitbro (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The given source is not an op-ed. Further, the writer of it is a highly reputed scholar. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly a bit confused about what you mean here. The material you removed says "the archetype [is] typically described as...". It's describing what the racist trope entails, attributed to Rohit Chopra. Unless you're saying Chopra's description of the trope is wrong, how can it be fringe or require countering? Neither Chopra nor Wikipedia is promoting those beliefs. Chopra also appears to be a relevant expert, so the CSOH source seems a perfectly good one to assess the characteristics of the racist trope. Endwise (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is that the way it is framed is POV and undue, picking up racist framing without explicitly describing it as such or linking it to the conspiracy theory from the get go. It is entirely decontextualized and neither are any of the racist usages of the slur particularly relevant for our article (I am yet to find such inclusion of extremist rhetoric at any slur-related article). The slur is used with a myriad other racist phraseology (I have linked the NCRI report above) and I don't believe it does us any good to have fringe material in a way which does not explicitly contextualize it in the frame of the conspiracy theory. Gotitbro (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a conspiracy theory. It is an ethnic slur, and functionally every ethnic slur has stereotypes. Mentioning such is neither POV nor UNDUE. In the talk page discussion, Guido (slang) and White replacement conspiracy theory were given as concrete examples where stereotypes were portrayed, in basically the same manner as the one for Pajeet, which is neutral, and you subsequently ignored them. As per the source, which is very reliable, the stereotypes surrounding Pajeet are not at all fringe. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the specific addition of just the trope lacks the contextualization by Chopra in the CSOH post. Before the description of the trope, Chopra describes its usage in far-right spaces (including social media) by white supremacists. After the description he describes how the slur (and other related slurs) is deployed by South Asians against each other even though white supremacists use it widely against all South Asians. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He notes, for instance, "Even a cursory examination of the history of anti-immigrant prejudice and discrimination against minorities in any society will reveal that these traits have been ascribed to numerous groups seen as outsiders" in reference to the tropes. He is clearly contextualizing the trope in wider racial bigotry. This contextualization is missing from both of those edits. Worse, the edits read as unqualified descriptions being attributed to Chopra in a manner that I reckon Chopra himself will find repulsive. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The material removed is neither incorrect nor presented in a non neutral manner. The source is also fairly reliable and not at all an op-ed as Gotitbro falsely claims. In Talk:Pajeet, a discussion was held about exactly this matter and out of multiple editors, including Gotitbro, Gotitbro was the sole opposition with everyone else portraying a consensus to maintain the statement in the article. Gotitbro subsequently edit warred in the Pajeet article to repeatedly remove mentions of the paragraph, which several other editors wanted to add back as the consensus regarding its inclusion is pretty clear. The user seems to be highly confused about Wikipedia policies EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sole" opposition when the material itself was reverted quickly after it was restored by another editor ([5]). But this isn't about vote count and the core issue fringe is what we are handling here.
    Now that even that this is fringe is being challenged by you, despite all the racialized nonsense listed being connected to the extremist conspiracy theory, we really have a bothersome understanding of fringe.
    PS: About editorial competence the policies have been cited perfectly well discuss those than commenting on editors, and you should be careful of such accusations when not being careful with synth yourself ([6]). Gotitbro (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The policies have already been discussed extensively in the talk page discussion, all of which you have repeatedly ignored EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of 'edit warring' can be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (you are unlikely to succeed) and about 'false' categorization of op-ed, I stated that in passing of what I still believe to be true that these are the opinions of the writer not a research publication of CSOH.
    About ignoring stuff, I have with alacrity responded to every point raised, no policies have been cited in favor of this what has been given is a bunch of disparate quotes of direct racist usage citing a single source without even properly contextualizing or framing it.
    But please keep on commenting on editorial behavior here and bringing up issues barely relevant to the board. Gotitbro (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say the content is fringe yet you do not provide sources or academic consensus that states that Chopra's writings are contrary to mainstream scholarly opinion. Therefore your accusations of "fringe" are not only baseless but also reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of the term "fringe". Wikipedia articles are not written based on personal opinion of an editor, the point remains, your opposition is censorship and lack substance. Koshuri (あ!) 14:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly lay out in the opening statement here that the issue of fringe comes due to its clear association with the violent conspiracy theory not what you say here. The issue is how do you say something is bigoted and extremist without purveying those very things. None of this has been answered, the same paragraph full of extremist chatacterization has been given without context, without clearly showing what it is (a violent conspiratorial racist framing) and without concern for policies and precedent. Neither is this a case of personal opinion nor censorship, repeated reference to these without addressing the core issues at hand is not should be done. I have provided a clear cut proposal, none has come from the other side. Gotitbro (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chopra's writing is not being called fringe. White supremacist and far-right descriptions are being called fringe. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the AfD is going to be closed as keep, so you will want to consider other ways to address the issue. The article should describe fringe theories and note their status as such. It looks to me like we have sources which identify this slur as a slur and the prejudicial and stereotyped nonsense it is based on as exactly that. The proposal then should be to note that the term is a slur and explain how it is a slur with appropriate citations to those sources. jps (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. I believe we already cover these points (slur and how): "The term Pajeet originated from the "Pajeet my son" meme created on the 4chan message board /int/ in July 2015 mocking open defecation by Indians. Prior to 2019, Pajeet was mainly limited to a small number of social media platforms such as 4chan, Gab and Telegram. However, pajeet was then popularized by Islamist extremists and white supremacists to target Hindus. ... In the aftermath of the 2022 Leicester unrest between Hindus and Muslims, anti-Hindu memes were accompanied by "pajeet" depicting Hindus as barbaric and dirty."
    The source (used for the proposed additions) is merely listing its usage in the violent rhetoric of "white genocide" conspiracists. And no proposal as such can de-emphasize that while foremost emphasizing the extremist rhetoric.
    A mere mention to the conspiracist usage as such should suffice, we can do without inadvertently ballyhooing for racists. Gotitbro (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස: Of course, but those desriptions cannot be denuded of their context with which they appear in the source used, as I note above (here and here). UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is surely important. Do you have interlocutors who are arguing otherwise? jps (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talk page we have some South Asian editors who are arguing that we should limit the targets of the slur to those understood by them to be the targets (specific South Asian groups) in contravention of what sources say (all South Asians in general, specific ones when slur used by other South Asians against each other), so yes, we do have commentors wishing to kill the context. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sources are necessarily what win these arguments. If they have sources, consider them. If they don't then refer them to the rules about sourcing WP:RS. If they disagree with the sources and the context in them, then they should show why those sources are wrong with better sources. If those sources don't exist, there is nothing we can do. jps (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that being racist is itself a conspiracy theory. Of course, it is true that racists often espouse conspiracy theories, but the mere act of calling someone an ethnic slur is not really what I'd call a conspiracy theory, or even really fringe — it's simply a bad and cruel thing to do. I don't think that mentioning someone's description of a racist stereotype is "ballyhooing for" it. Like, what, do we need to have "WARNING: being racist is bad" in big flashing letters at the top of every page where we describe something racist? jp×g🗯️ 23:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Plurality (identity)

    [edit]

    Some attention would be good as the article seems to have received quite a rewrite. For example compare the same article one year ago. See also the article Tulpa.

    My concern is that what was once reflected as the beliefs of an online subculture are now reflected as true. E.g. Each person may have their own thoughts, emotional reactions, preferences, behavior, memory and sense of self, or materialized beings or thought-forms created through spiritual practice, or souls that have departed from their original body to inhabit or co-inhabit another, etc.

    New sources also seem pretty bad. For example, Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences is a predatory journal. Also a thesis, and some other websites like "thegamerstrust.com" and "powertotheplurals.com". Endwise (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. There are past discussions of this issue in the archives of this noticeboard. The concept should be firmly associated with internet culture, I think. As far as I know, advocacy for recognition of this identity is pretty much limited to those spaces, though if there have been movement developments along the lines of neurodiversity rights or other such movements, it would be good for us to document those. jps (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that whole article is trash. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:8403:E588:D005:D071 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? I think it's actually in better shape now than when I saw previous versions. jps (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. It seems like the editing environment right now is converging on something that may possibly be okay. The complicating factor is that not all the participants in this collective identity have DID, and the extent to which those who have DID and are interested in forming support communities are the people included in this marker is entirely unclear... perhaps moreso now than the last time this topic found its way onto our noticeboard. jps (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    David Berlinski

    [edit]

    In articles about ID figures, we usually point out that ID is pseudoscience. Do we really need a source for that in every article? Isn't it WP:SKYBLUE? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say yes, the main reason being that articles about people notable in full or in part for association with intelligent design most likely attract readers who care about the topic one way or another, and could use a good, solid reliable source verifying the core fact that it is pseudoscience. The other reason is that I am on WP:REDSKY team. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:FRINGE/PS: "Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." [Emphasis added]. That would suggest "No" as the answer to your question, although it might be argued that intelligent design does not sink to the level of "obviously bogus" required by a literal reading of the guideline. Tevildo (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ID indeed does absolutely sink to the level of obviously bogus. VdSV9•♫ 18:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the context of that section of the guideline, I think we're discussing what language to use. For something like ID, FRINGE is telling us that we can label it pseudoscience in wikivoice, without needing to justify or attribute. I don't read that guidance as saying we don't need a source, and I think we always need a source. I don't think the source needs to be about the subject of the article, so any high-quality source about how ID is pseudoscientific will do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A defining characteristic of "intelligent design" is being a "pseudoscience". There are proponents who argue it is not. There are philosophers who argue that defining anything as a "pseudoscience" is fraught. But given that the preponderance of the sources continue to identify it as such, we are under no obligation to try to accommodate these critiques when trying to write plainly and describe an idea. The "pseudoscience of intelligent design" is a perfectly legitimate way to categorize the endeavor in wikivoice until such time as it is no longer considered such by reliable sources. jps (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This gets to what I said above. If no source has talked about his views and called them pseudoscience than it is unlikely they are WP:DUE for inclusion. The solution is to remove his views or delete the article rather than WP:Synth it in. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking more this seems to be about an organisation he is associated with rather than his views per se. In that case it'll be more acceptable to mention but I think we still need to be cautious with WP:labels and consider carefully if they are need or the pary could be reworded or it's just unneeded point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Azerbaijanis 'mixed ancestry' (again)

    [edit]

    Fringe genetic existentialist nonsense about Azerbaijanis 'mixed ancestry' is back more eyes are needed please—blindlynx 20:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooof this looks thorny. If I were more experienced with these kinds of debates I'd weigh in. Don't we default, especially in the lead, to how a group self-identifies? DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I remember a few years ago a bunch of stuff got deleted because of this but I can't find the discussions... The major issue is that saying that there is some sort of 'pure genetics' of ethnic groups is fringe as all fuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Azerbaijanis#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_13_September_2025

    Using FRINGE to Sanewash

    [edit]

    I have had several instances where editors seem to use FRINGE to keep a person's wacky ideas of their page. This has happened on David Grusch, D. Gary Young and RFKJr. It's possible that editors think they are doing something important by keeping wacky ideas out of the encyclopedia, or being BLP compliant, but that horse has left the barn. Fringe ideas and pseudoscience are now mainstream. I propose editing the WP:FRINGE page to make it clear that if a person espouses fringe ideas we can attribute those ideas to them as long as we contextualize it as fringe. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give some more specific examples (diffs) where consensus is happening with the result of sanewashing at those pages? Letting people know that people hold fringe views in context is the basic thrust of this page. As long as reliable sources have identified a person as holding the fringe views, we can contextualize it. jps (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with jps that you should provide specific examples. A common problem we have is there are no good BLP compliant sources covering the person's fringe views in a way that does contextualise them. We can't generally use other sources which don't mention this specific person and their views even if they do discuss the issues so the best option is sometimes just to exclude mention since these views aren't actually that mainstream if no good sources are covering them and properly contextualising them from a Wikipedia PoV (i.e. WP:UNDUE. In the case of someoone like RFK Jr it's quite like there are so many different fringe which we will have to prioritise significance based particularly on how much coverage these views get even if there are plenty of other views which are sufficiently covered that we would mention them in our article again per WP:UNDUE but in a different way. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do when fringe goes mainstream?

    [edit]

    Ever since RFK Jr. was installed at HHS, there has been a never-ending stream of fringe bollocks from unserious people who have been given serious jobs. Paracetamol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is just the latest. What can we do when fringe nonsense is official policy, and when cranks are trying to use legislative alchemy to instantiate reality for things that are not real? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Paracetamol claim is not completely unsubstantiated, but it is old news. The gist is that not using Paracetamol for fever leads to more risk for the fetus than using it. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If fringe "goes mainstream" then by definition it isn't fringe any more, see for example: germ theory. Official policy is not necessarily the mainstream view, either. TurboSuperA+[talk] 09:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The key thing is that 'accepted in certain US political/governmental circles' does not mean 'mainstream' for science, however much some Americans might think so. Bon courage (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The key thing is that 'accepted in certain US political/governmental circles' does not mean 'mainstream' for science
    Precisely. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The logical thing feels like to treat the nonsense as "claimed on [exact date] by [person name/signing authority on statement/document] of [agency/department]", cite that, and then bury/wrap it around with mainstream science citations that demonstrate the current "as of 2025" claim is the fringe one. That leaves the continuity of prior fact and lets us transition back to reality, leaving the "2025" blot on the record highlighted to who spoke nonsense. Keeping receipts for a chain of continuity is most important like that, even if more work. Just my $0.02. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Global warming is now considered fringe by white house.
    doesnt mean its fringe according to reliable sourcing.
    let us judge reliable sourcing accordingly Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so let's say RFK decides to declare that autism is a vaccine injury, which is his clear agenda here, and has been for 25 years. It will remain bullshit, even if it is US Government policy and it's added to the NVICP schedule , rendering vaccines effectively unmarketable in the US. The US is only 5% of the Earth's population, and every reliable source in the US agrees that vaccines don't cause autism. It's a classic collision between TRUTH and fact. Since the 17th Century, empirical fact has been the arbiter of reality, but this is inconvenient for the fossil fuel lobby and evangelical Christianity, so they have spent billions reinstating ideological TRUTH as the measure. Between them, Big Oil and Big Otry have persuaded a solid proportion of the US public to believe things which science says are simply not true. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The case of the USA is just that the health authorities have in some respects become captured by politicians/charlatans. We deal with it like we deal with China and Russia (e.g.) for certain topics, and just accept that these US bodies are unreliable sources of knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Politicians aren't RS for medical/science topics, regardless of where they are from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but in these cases they make the National WP:MEDORGs they control susceptible to emitting fringe claims. Bon courage (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't usually be relying on government-controlled sources for medical claims (or anything that requires interpretation or analysis) anyway. By default they are primary sources for the government's view, nothing more. A few sources manage to escape this by being clearly editorally independent and having a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy, ofc - but that reputation can be easily lost, since government policy can change so fast; any whiff of government pressure, efforts to manipulate results, or controversial / exceptional / potentially fringe claims should prompt a re-evaluation focused exclusively on reputation under the current administration. This is similar to how we would treat a paper whose ownership changed to someone with radically different policies - if anything seems off, re-evaluate with a focus on the current era. --Aquillion (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But what does 'government controlled' mean? In a totalitarian state everything – including all scientific research – is, potentially 'government controlled' because the State has ultimate power to control its citizens. Traditionally, non-commercial public health bodies (e.g. the US CDC of yore) have been the absolute highest form of WP:MEDRS. (This of course is what makes them such a choice target for political takeover). Bon courage (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The CDC was one of the exceptions I mentioned with a reputation for independence and for fact-checking and accuracy. But it's important to recognize that that reputation is fragile and that as soon as there's any indication that a new regime is attempting to influence it or push fringe perspectives, we need to re-assess it the same way we would an established paper that has a new owner who is clearly meddling with its policies - at that point we ignore previous reputation and only look at its reputation under the new leadership. And obviously in this case it's no longer a RS. Citizens and researchers in totalitarian states who notionally do not work for the government but who are subject to its censorship and laws are a special case and I was thinking about writing an essay about it. The answer is that we should take that into account but it doesn't automatically discount everything that is published there; we look at their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but also for signs that they are WP:INDEPENDENT from the government. If it's obvious that a source is bowing completely to government pressure to parrot the government line, then they lack independence and anything they say that relates to government positions should be treated no differently than something the government said itself. But even in authoritarian regimes there are usually degrees; not every source in eg. China simply parrots the government line. Even with the more independent and high-quality sources, though, it's important to remember that they're subject to censorship and to avoid taking the fact that they don't say something as evidence of anything. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In related news, journalists are now not permitted to report on any US defense matter without their stories being pre-approved, at risk of losing their press credentials.
    Totalitarianism is not some hypothetical future state. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but in these cases they make the National WP:MEDORGs they control susceptible to emitting fringe claims.
    Isn't even single statement still subject to scrutiny? If the CDC mistakenly put out a statement saying plutonium isotopes injected by suppository are awesome for IBS, we're still going to treat it like nonsense when someone invariably as a joke or otherwise tries to shove it up the IBS. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not scrutiny by Wikipedia editors. Our job is to relay accepted knowledge as published in the best sources. WP:ECREE is a useful check in case of "surprising" claims. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the distinction between what is significant and what is true. It is significant that the US government has made statements about Paracetamol. We can report that they have made these statements, in accordance with the weight given in secondary reliable sources. It doesn’t mean we have to treat them as true. We should still base wikivoice biomedical claims on MEDRS sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The WP:RS is Bauer, Ann Z.; Swan, Shanna H.; Kriebel, David; Liew, Zeyan; Taylor, Hugh S.; Bornehag, Carl-Gustaf; Andrade, Anderson M.; Olsen, Jørn; Jensen, Rigmor H.; Mitchell, Rod T.; Skakkebaek, Niels E.; Jégou, Bernard; Kristensen, David M. (2021). "Paracetamol use during pregnancy — a call for precautionary action" (PDF). Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 17 (12): 757–766. doi:10.1038/s41574-021-00553-7. ISSN 1759-5029. PMC 8580820. PMID 34556849. Retrieved 23 September 2025.

    A paper from four years ago. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nature Reviews Endocrinology is legitimate but I'm sure we can find an awesome source from veterinary journals that say ivermectin is a wonder drug for horses. It's the current nonsense twist is the issue. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the call to avoid taking paracetamol "indiscriminately" is in any way controversial. Bon courage (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the modern guidance from all other developed nations with established CDC-like bodies on the matter? The USA has been kept proportional as one of many when we go off the ranch, not any kind of authority simple because of who we used to be. That's my only real position. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Broadly, that paracetamol is the only safe painkiller to take during pregnancy (/breastfeeding). It doesn't harm the fetus/baby. Nevertheless it's a nasty drug with known risks so use with care. And no, Virginia, it does not cause autism. See e.g.[7] Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx20d4lr67lo Guy (help! - typo?) 09:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The European Medicines Agency published this statement yesterday. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a really good lay summary by a scientific authority, we can certainly use that. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not unlike the situation where people were claiming that UFO hearings indicated official recognition of alien visitation. As others have pointed out, such WP:ECREE declarations are not unlikely to come out of bodies which are influenced by political considerations. It used to be that much of the US federal government in the executive branch was insulated from such influence as a result of certain late nineteenth and early twentieth century reforms which tried to undo the more egregious indulgences of the spoils system. But those reforms have been dramatically swept away by an aggressive and self-assured administration and a congress and court system more unwilling than ever to act as oversight into excess. Just so.
    Another instance where this sort of problem shows up is in the instance of certain agencies in the US government making fringe assessments of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 (again, with political tinges evident). Never mind that we have overwhelming evidence in the form of a few reviews in Science (magazine) which have yet to be refuted by any of those arguing otherwise, the investigative arms of agencies without medical or scientific backstops are fine with propping up lab leak claims.
    All this is to say that governments never are the mouthpieces by which the understanding of the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding of an empirical fact are made. We rely on the experts from the relevant epistemic community and those groups and organizations which make it a point to rely solely on the scientific consensus models for judgement rather than political calculus. How do we determine that this has happened? By looking at what the reliable sources say (or, in the case of really fringe ideas that no one even bothers to discuss, doesn't say) about the statements and declarations as well as the status of the groups themselves.
    jps (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "[E]xperimental and epidemiological research suggests that prenatal exposure to APAP might alter fetal development, which could increase the risks of some neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders"
    Versus: "Acetaminophen use during pregnancy was not associated with children’s risk of autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability in sibling control analyses. This suggests that associations observed in other models may have been attributable to confounding." Ahlqvist VH, Sjöqvist H, Dalman C, Karlsson H, Stephansson O, Johansson S, Magnusson C, Gardner RM, Lee BK (2024-04-09). "Acetaminophen Use During Pregnancy and Children's Risk of Autism, ADHD, and Intellectual Disability". JAMA. 331 (14): 1205–1214. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.3172. PMID 38592388. S2CID 269007550. That study has n=2,480,797. Most of the studies suggesting risk are tiny.
    And all of this is strongly reminscent of the years it took to finally kill the zombie arguemnt that MMR vaccines cause autism, launched by just one fraudulent, but eagerly followed, study, cited over a thousand times before its eventual retraction. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Government announcements are reliable for the opinion of the government making the announcement, for scientific or medical claims use other sources. Governments are not arbiters of fact. From what I've read there's a correlation between paracetamol and autism, but the current US administration have taken that as causation without scientific justification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no correlation. It's an artifact of the data, as several sources have pointed out. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The similarities are painful, right down to one of the studies being part of a court case (in which it was rubbished). "Dr. Baccarelli downplays those studies that undercut his causation thesis and emphasizes those that align with his thesis."[8][9] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the people who will get rich of this are definitely plaintiffs' lawyers. Remind me again, how did RFK Jr. get rich? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Impacted content

    [edit]

    Anyway, this latest round of MAHA nonsense affects at least the following areas:

    All would benefit from more fringe-savvy oversight. Bon courage (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bible code

    [edit]

    See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Bible code. Discussion takes place there. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "List of botanical cryptids" listed at Redirects for discussion

    [edit]

    The redirect List of botanical cryptids has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25 § List of botanical cryptids until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of quote from WP:Academic bias

    [edit]

    There's a discussion about removing this quote[10] from WP:Academic bias. If anyone is interested see WT:Academic bias#"Scientism". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is relevant here and can use some attention from experienced editors. There are two new editors involved. Wikipedia talk:Academic bias#"Scientism" Doug Weller talk 18:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    VLF weapons

    [edit]

    I'm not a frequent visitor to this noticeboard so I'm not up to speed with current fringe theories, but this stuff about non-consensual testing of "VLF weapons" (very low frequency?) is totally fringe, right? They've apparently been conducted at Anthorn Radio Station, possibly with the involvement of incoming MI6 director Blaise Metreweli. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed as unsourced. Unethical tests on unwitting civilians were a hallmark of the mid-20th century US, but there's no sources suggesting this is an instance of it. Feoffer (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Glyphosate op ed in New York Times

    [edit]

    Gifted link.

    Relevant to our discussion above on #Percy Schmeiser, but perhaps broader still.

    jps (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Remote viewing

    [edit]

    Low edit count SPA WP:PROFRINGE edit warring credulous anecdotes about psychics and the Carter administration [11] accompanied by WP:IDHT Talk page campaign invoking “shooters” [12], [13], [[14]]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a quick note to report that the SPA has received a CTOP notification, and the page has been EC protected. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been looking for some commentary on the whole Jimmy Carter thing and haven't found much. Carter seemed to be generally a bit more on the credulous side when it comes to matters like this. See Jimmy Carter UFO incident. jps (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He never said anything beyond "I do not know what it was", which is simply correct. And he rejected the Venus explanation because he knew what Venus normally looks like (though it looks different sometimes and this may have been one of those cases). No credulous side there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For my students, I have found it instructive to use Stellarium to simulate what Venus looked like that evening. When people dismiss the simplest explanations and null hypotheses because of personal attestation, I tend to think of this as being based on credulity (which is to say, a forestalling of incredulousness). YMMV. jps (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what Venus looked like that evening Including the clouds and atmospheric conditions at the place where Carter was at the time?
    Carter was interviewed by The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe [15] in 2007 to clarify his position. "I don't know what is was" is not an extraordinary claim. I think it was Venus, the SGU thinks it was Venus; Carter disagreed. Alien spaceship believers or even just-questions-askers are in a totally different league. And of course, "the Carter administration" is not Carter. He was a democrat, not a childish, boastful and corrupt simpleton who tries to get everybody fired who disagrees with him, like others one could name.
    But nothing of this is relevant here, and I will stop now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla's 3-6-9 theory

    [edit]

    The WP:FRINGE guideline was mentioned in this discussion, so I'm bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of terms of conspiracy theories and alike from Infowars and Alex Jones

    [edit]

    I notice that Steakunderwater (talk · contribs) edited Millie Weaver to remove all references to conspiracy theories and alike in reference to Infowars and Alex Jones in addition to adding unsourced "Early life" section 2001:8003:3E12:3300:CC22:DD15:B336:61 (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

    [edit]

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That certainly reflects a fringe view of how to run an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's been quite successful; a number of other 'competitor' projects have been failures. And now the architect of (some of the higher-profile) failure thinks their ideas could help Wikipedia? Hmm. Bon courage (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In his defense, he co-founded this one too, or founded, depending on source. But, quoting the NT-page (...did he pick those letters on purpose?), "The article creator determines who works on the article." I disagree with that, I think WP:OWN is better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very tempted to boldly add some cn tags to "[...]any number of examples of stories broken in disfavored conservative and new media sources, which are only later admitted by mainstream sources. Such stories have included the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, the lab leak theory of COVID-19 origin, censorship and coordination between government and Big Tech platforms, the issues with biological males competing in women’s sports, etc." REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could put this to the test, but I would get a ban. It may be no accident that Wikipedia has still not gotten over its past reputation for being about as reliable as Fox news. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that must be satire? Tercer (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arcturians (New Age)

    [edit]

    Arcturians (New Age) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The first six sources seem really problematic. Not sure if this is worth a separate article. Do we really need these sorts of documentation of every harebrained alien community believed by New Age cultists? jps (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, but I can think of several editors who would write "Yes," which makes me hesitate in pursuing a time-sink at AfD. The lede does, however, require extensive trimming and re-sourcing if possible. As an aside, the combination of Arcturus' location in the red giant branch and its metal-poor state make it an...interesting star for positing the location of a "very advanced extraterrestrial civilization," but who am I to question the real estate preferences of ascended masters? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look like independent sources exist but, yeah, those first six sources are not independent. Nor reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and removed what looked like the most egregious source and its associated text in the article. Kinsha Books is a Netherlands-based publisher that mainly publishes works on quantum healing. -- Reconrabbit 17:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarrely, there seems to be at least, or just one (1) RS+SIGCOV: Talk:Arcturians (New Age)#Slim but not zero pickings. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, do we need pages on anything? This is a fairly well discussed topic in scholarly discussion of New Agers, which there is a lot of. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    THen why does it not use those, rather than tripe sources? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we have stubs? Why do we have hundreds of thousands of badly written articles? That the sources are not IN the article means little. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of the opinion it is better to have no article at all than it is to have a poor article with poor sourcing. I know others disagree, but it is a defensible position considering that we should strive to put our best foot forward. jps (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we really need these sorts of documentation of every harebrained alien community believed by New Age cultists? In general -- absolutely we do! (assuming RSes exist to support an such article). Does Snopes really need to document every single false urban legend? Yeah, they do. Learning the evolution of a culture gives the reader the tools to understand it. Much of what we think is 1950-70s "Saucer culture" turns out to actually be 1890-1920s "Theosophy/New Age culture", and that's an important fact for readers to know. Feoffer (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that this could be a subsection of Star people (New Age) as it is sometimes described as a subsection of that belief system (though the narrative is a little different as noted on the talk page discussion linked). -- Reconrabbit 13:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't really the same thing, which is my issue. Other than the fact they're both broad beliefs that involve aliens that are believed by New Agers, there isn't much commonality. Their origins histories and details are different. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if we had sources which studied these claims and made comparisons. But unlike the social science work done on UFO religions, discussion of how "benevolent extraterrestrials" are used as a shibboleth in New Age circles is confined to individual instances rather than being looked at as a common undercurrent. See also Ramtha. jps (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, the line between New Age alien channeling and UFO religion is historically very, very thin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernard Haisch

    [edit]

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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Haisch

    also related:

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of Earth

    jps (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1314933854"