Notice: file_put_contents(): Write of 440838 bytes failed with errno=28 No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard - Wikipedia 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

    • 05 Oct 2025 – Kennedy curse (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Finnmahoney (t · c); see discussion (13 participants)
    • 03 Oct 2025 – Bernard Haisch (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ජපස (t · c); see discussion (7 participants; relisted)

    Categories for discussion

    Files for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    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.[1] 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."[2][3] -- 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[4] 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 [5] accompanied by WP:IDHT Talk page campaign invoking “shooters” [6], [7], [[8]]. - 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 [9] 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]

    USRTK

    [edit]

    Just noticed that earlier this year,

    warped-in. So Wikipedia now describes USRTK merely as "a nonprofit public health research and journalism organization which is dedicated to promoting transparency". But considering WP:FRINGE, that's not the whole (or even the correct) story right? Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh good grief.
    In related news I constantly have to remove self-sourced statements by them that are presented as fact in articles relating to GMOs. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief is right. I feel like I've seen a resurgence in people uncritically using organic industry related sources like that and becoming a huge time sink in saying it's ok to use them while ironically complaining about Monsanto's influence (whether real or spin) in the same vein. While we do occasionally catch non-independent stuff from the pesticide industry, it really feels like we're having to deal with the opposing industry(s) in terms of volume that people often have a blind spot for.
    More recent cases I've had to remove have also tied into glyphosate-related litigation where people are trying to use sources with financial ties to the lawfirms trying to claim glyphosate causes cancer. In that case the author is a paid consultant of the lawfirm making those claims for about the last ~20 years, and it spells that out right in the paper. When we have editors insisting authors like that still aren't paid consultants for anyone even though they've been frequently referencing that very study, that just stirs things up even more. I know @Silver seren has been helpful too, but it's really feeling like editors are coming in very hot with these types of sources and creating timesinks often bowling over previous compromises on talk pages that long-time editors have helped craft while navigating more than just the competing industry viewpoint against GMOs/pesticides. It does seem like the issues from WP:ARBGMO are flaring up again when it comes to advocacy in this topic, though there hasn't been much luck at AE in recent years on tamping down advocacy before it gets to be an even bigger problem, so it feels even worse in terms of support when repeatedly having to deal with sources like you mention Guy. KoA (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised to see it too since while I think it can meet WP:FRINGEN, that iteration was pretty bare bones in sourcing and gets into some WP:PUFFERY language too. I at least added the mention of organic funding since the source had it already. It looks like they've expanded from mostly being a science-denialism group on GMOs to now expanding to anti-vaccine/COVID-19 conspiracies. It seems like they're filling the gap the Natural News used to hold.
    This Guardian article actually gives good context on USTRK's interactions in the science denial real on the scientific consensus on GMO safety and close relationship (maybe an understatement) with the organic industry: The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook. I remember when their FOIA request activities in the anti-GMO realm got bad enough that even journals started speaking out.[10] You'd often hear of lesser known cases in ag. news too.[11]
    Because the Organic Consumers Association is involved, you get a tangled web on fringe stuff like anti-GMO and anti-vaccine.[12]. If you go searching for sources, you also have to be really careful to remove sites like USRTK, but you're still going to get a lot of the organic industry affiliated websites. While it's just a college newspaper, this one gave a good overview, and the line Organizations that claim scientists are in bed with corporate America aren’t necessarily free of those entangling alliances either. They are just better at keeping it on the down low. really describes the situation we run into as editors.
    I'm not as up to speed on recent vaccine/COVID stuff with the group, but this 2021 article seemed to have a good summary.[13]. There are a few other WP:PARITY type sources I saw too on COVID/vaccines.[14][15] KoA (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of your objections to citing USRTK seem to actually be objections to citing documents obtained by USRTK via FOIA or other releases. Regardless of USRTK's fringe status, that should not affect the ability of editors to cite such documents (which are not produced by USRTK). Who filed a FOIA request (or is hosting a released document) has little to no bearing on the reliability of the document. Nosferattus (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    USRTK is an advocacy group. Nothing they say, or republish, can be taken at face value. Any reference to their webshite must be via third party sourcing. They lie. You cannot trust them as an honest broker. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The past few days have felt like I've been transported back to 2015 with all the anti-GMO fringe nonsense going on on Wikipedia at the time. That USRTK article is a complete no-go. It doesn't help that both of the currently existing sources in the article are about how the group has been promoting the Covid lab leak claims, but specifically from a fringe conspiracy standpoint regarding EcoHealth and research that never actually happened in the first place. The first reference also discusses how USRTK members have been actively harassing people that work at EcoHealth and that has been resulting in death threats and other such nonsense. That article needs a complete overhaul to discuss the fringe, conspiracy nature of the group, both on the Covid topic and on all their past anti-GMO nonsense. SilverserenC 23:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    More organic industry sourcing

    [edit]

    Looks like the problem is escalating that I mentioned earlier with Nosferatus who commented above. There's more at Talk:Monsanto#Williams_2000_ghostwriting_controversy, but in short, the initial content was removed I mentioned earlier and just reinserted by Nosferattus within 24 hours. They've been repeatedly alerted to 1RR in the topic and the expectations to get consensus and also revert to self-revert, but the kicker is that instead of trying to add the McHenry source (lawfirm COI source) while keeping the same text, they're now trying to add Carey Gillam (organic industry/USRTK COI source). I'm really short on time at this point to bring it to AE, so I don't know if you want to look at it as an admin Doug Weller, or if you have ideas Guy problem of people pushing those sources? 1RR was at least supposed to keep people from inserting problematic content and just reinserting it when someone said it needs to be taken to the talk page, and I'm not getting any traction with this editor on understanding that. KoA (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Facilitated communication

    [edit]

    See Special:Contributions/Spotoninuity. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Casey Means

    [edit]

    Fringe person who is now the US surgeon general. It maybe just May, but the article seems to e too much self-sourced. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that the US Surgeon General is never a “fringe person”… instead, I would say they hold fringe views. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, "people" are not fringe, and even FRINGE says it's about beliefs, not people. Even the best or worst people, in a BLP biography, will have not the entire article be about their valid or nonsense beliefs. Balance the views correctly when they need to be mentioned, but the article still has to be neutral to every character and word written. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, not a fringe person but a person many of whose views are on the fringe. I think that could be a bit picky for some people but not her, Nevertheless I hope others would take a look at her article. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful with the word balance as WP:FALSEBALANCE is policy in the context of fringe. In this case we are definitely dealing with a fringe advocate (i.e., fringe person in any plain meaning as Doug put it). KoA (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is in poor shape, for instance the balancing of her beleives in functional medicine with one person view against gives a false balance. Functional medicines, as per it's article, is pseudoscience. This isn't a case of her opinions against another person's opinion but her believes being pseudoscience according to the mainstrean. I don't think this is the only instance of softballing some of her more out there believes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s my impression and why I brought it here. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it does seem untethered from MEDRS sourcing when it comes to validity of views, not to mention difficult to sort through the very bare references. I'm seeing at the bottom her repeating the myth that somehow knowing your farmer magically makes raw milk safe too. KoA (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem saying “she is an advocate for fringe views” with perhaps some examples… (I suspect that there are likely multiple sources to support this). Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the article gives way to much validity to many of those views, and describes them how practitioners would like them to be described rather than how the mainstream view describes them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't we just rip out any silly language like that to be dryly neutral (e.g. the mainstream view)? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of, it will likely need to be rewritten. Removing part of "view A" from the structure of "this is view A and this is view B" doesn't fully solve the problem, as the problem is the structure itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Great Lithuanians and Historical Lithuanians

    [edit]

    First of all, sorry for my long statement, but there is a big mess going on in Lithuanian topics for years (which recently increased) and I think it is necessary to present context, description of recent disruption to simplify the understanding of the problematics of these issues for unrelated users

    A new article Great Lithuanians was created by user Heroldicas on September 10, 2025 which include Litvinist statements that "The aim was to foster mental and civic Russification of young “Samogitians” (i.e., modern Lithuanians)" and "In informal schools for “the people” set up at manor houses, instruction was usually in Polish, and less often in the local “Samogitian dialect”, i.e., modern Lithuanian". Multiple users at Talk:Lithuanians#Revert war about hatnotes and Talk:Great Lithuanians noted that article "Great Lithuanians" features WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. The first version of this article (English version is just a direct translated version of it) was created in 2023 in the Polish Wikipedia (see article: Starolitwini) solely by a user with a hidden IP and just one edit, so highly likely he was just a WP:TROLL. When it was attempted to remove (with provided justification) the English Wikipedia article "Great Lithuanians" user Bildete started reverting and received support from IP user 46.112.94.52. Another user Mindaur also stated in article's edit history that the article's content is WP:FRINGE (his edit).

    Long story about Litvinism in short (context): this point of view theories claim that the "real" Lithuania (Belarusian: Litva) is Belarus and the "real" Lithuanians are Belarusians (WP:FRINGE, WP:NATIONALISM, not recognized by top-class reliable sources), while the nowadays Lithuanians and Lithuania is a "falsification of history" (Litvinists equate nowadays Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language to Samogitians, Samogitia, Samogitian dialect), however internationally recognized scientific point of view (WP:NPOV) recognize Lithuania's continuous history since at least 1009 and support that modern Lithuanians ancestors (see: Lithuanians (tribe) article) created Lithuania (Duchy of Lithuania, Kingdom of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania). The statehood continuity of Lithuania is also noted in the preamble of the nowadays Constitution of Lithuania (see: here). As a proof that these Litvinists claims are niche even in Belarus see the Belarusian Wikipedia articles: be:Літва (Litva = Lithuania) and be:Гісторыя Літвы (History of Litva = Lithuania) which support claims that Lithuania (the same country as nowadays) was first mentioned in 1009 and now continues its long history.

    The article Polish–Lithuanian identity describes a historical phenomena when residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (e.g. East Slavs who often did not spoke even a little bit of Lithuanian language) since the 1569 Union of Lublin identified themselves as citizens of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, however this phenomena do not deny that Baltic Lithuanians created Lithuania's statehood, continued living in it until Russia destroyed Lithuania in 1795 and restored Lithuania in 1918. The so-called "Polish–Lithuanians" are not "Great Lithuanians" (unless they hail from Lithuania proper) and cannot be described as exclusively "Lithuanians" because very often they were Ruthenians (mostly nowadays Belarusians, Ukrainians ancestors) who spoke Ruthenian and Polish languages.

    Multiple users at Talk:Lithuanians#Revert war about hatnotes, Talk:Great Lithuanians, Talk:Lithuania proper#Merge proposal stated that article "Great Lithuanians" should not exist and multiple users also opposed its deletion/merging. I provided (see: my statement of 17:06, 6 October 2025) many quotes from multiple WP:RS that the "Great Lithuanians" are "Lithuanians of Lithuania proper" (also known as "Great Lithuania" or "Real Lithuania") and in the Lithuanian language they are called "didlietuviai" (a very popular and widely used term), which is a compound word of two Lithuanian words: "didelis" (Great) and "lietuviai" (Lithuanians). This is a distinction of Lithuania proper's Lithuanians from the Lithuanians of Lithuania minor who are called in Lithuanian as "mažlietuviai", which is a compound word of two words: "mažas" (Little) and "lietuviai" (Lithuanians), so translates to English as "Little Lithuanians". Even in article "Great Lithuanians" used source by Piotr Łossowski Próba przewrotu hitlerowskiego w Kłajpedzie 1933–1935 describe Lithuanians of Lithuania proper as "Great", so the article "Great Lithuanians" was so poorly written that its sources even contradict each other (or statements based on them are simply WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:HOAX).

    On September 30, 2025 user Bildete also created a redirect page "Historical Lithuanians" to article "Great Lithuanians", so this is a clear manifestation that according to him Lithuanians (e.g. nowadays Lithuanians) are not "historical Lithuanians", despite the fact that the Lithuanians spoke the Lithuanian language already since the early statehood periods of Lithuania (see: this article of Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia). Per article of the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created in Lithuania proper (also known as "Great Lithuania" or "Real Lithuania").

    User Bildete even made defamatory statements towards Lithuanians: "Someone could also be saying modern Lithuanians are fake" (his edit), so he clearly demonstrated that according to him there is a probability that "modern Lithuanians are fake" (his repeated reverting to keep previously mentioned theories about Samogitians and Samogitian dialect: 1, 2 also support such point of view of his). User sbaio reported user Bildete at WP:AN for violation of multiple rules and guidelines, however since the article "Great Lithuanians" was created by another user Heroldicas and the actions of users Heroldicas, Bildete received support from other users and IP user 46.112.94.52 (who also restored the same claims about Samogitians as user Bildete) it is clear that it is a much broader problem.

    1) So firstly I invite to discuss here: whether per WP:RS the "Great Lithuanians" (Lithuanian: didlietuviai) are "Lithuanians of Lithuania proper" and whether theories stating otherwise are WP:FRINGE.

    Secondly, since the activity of Litvinist editors in the Lithuanian topics of the English Wikipedia increased in the recent years, so I think now is the right time for the English Wikipedia community and its administrators to act strictly against Litvinism because if Litvinists will be allowed to attempt rewriting Lithuanian topics articles by pushing their point of view then the reliability of Wikipedia will be severely damaged and it will result in many WP:BATTLEGROUND situations because the Lithuanians and other users who are Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia will certainly oppose Litvinist editors who present defamatory claims towards the Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language, name of Lithuania. I think that this discussion about fringe theories here can be a foundation for the future implementation of WP:TOPICBAN per WP:NOTHERE to aggressive Litvinist editors (who deny Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language historical continuity since the early statehood periods of Lithuania). In the past Litvinist editors multiple times attacked such high-importance articles as Lithuania, Name of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, etc., so a clear identification how to tractate the problem of Litvinism would simplify the reporting of disruptive users at WP:AE per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe instead of discussing with thousands of characters whether modern Lithuania/Lithuanians are fake or not.

    2) So secondly I invite to discuss here: whether per WP:RS users/sources denying Lithuanians, Lithuania, Lithuanian language historical continuity since the early statehood periods of Lithuania are WP:FRINGE. This would also be useful in the context of page "Historical Lithuanians" (= are "Lithuanians" also are "historical Lithuanians").

    Previously mentioned and talk pages discussions participants were notified about this discussion with a dedicated template.

    My opinion is that per WP:RS: "Great Lithuanians" are "Lithuanians of Lithuania proper" and Lithuanians also are "historical Lithuanians". -- Pofka 19:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Altenmann

    [edit]

    The "Great Lithuanians" is a straight translation of the plwiki article pl:Starolitwini. There are two problems with this: (1) Polish word "Linwini" is polysemic, so word-for word translation can and did cause issues. (2) Other language Wikipedias have way less stricter rules for citing and OK, so II am alwways lookking with suspicion on these. That, said, I agree that the current text is of dubious quality and mmust be rewritten from scratch. I was initiaaally supporting merging (after severe cleanup), but some search shows that the term "starolitwini" is indeed discussed in RS, e.g., "Senalietuviai" ir "jaunalietuviai" kaip analitinės kategorijos, apibūdinančios lenkų ir lietuvių konfliktą, mostly as a point of contention. --Altenmann >talk 20:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pofka: I suspect "tl;dr" will be the first knee-jerk reaction. Please prepend a concise summary. People are busy --Altenmann >talk 20:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Altenmann: I presented the main questions to discuss in bold, so it is not necessary to read everything, but the provided context might be useful for users unfamiliar with Litvinism topic (in fact very few people really are).
    Your mentioned "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) and "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians) is a confusing terminology and it does not have clear definitions, distinctions to create dedicated articles. It does not mean that all supporters of the 1918 Act of Independence of Lithuania were "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians) and that either "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians) or "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) were automatically not "Lithuanians". For example, Lithuanian nobleman Konstantinas Radvila of the historical Radziwiłł family was a friend and supporter of the Lithuanian President Antanas Smetona (source with photos), while Józef Piłsudski, who personally spoke in the Lithuanian (sources: 1, 2) and Polish languages, hailed from Lithuania proper and belonged to the Lithuanian origin House of Piłsudski, was a cherisher of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, not Independent Lithuania. Lithuanian nobleman Stanisław Narutowicz was one of the 20 signatories of the 1918 Act of Independence of Lithuania, while his brother Gabriel Narutowicz was the first President of Poland. All four of these individuals can be easily described as "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) and they belonged to the old Lithuanian nobility (who were significantly repressed by Russia in 1795-1918 and quite few of them remained until 1918). The "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) can be either described as purely "Lithuanians" (e.g. Konstantinas Radvila, Stanisław Narutowicz) or as "Polish–Lithuanians" (e.g. Józef Piłsudski) and no additional pages/articles are necessary. Nowadays there are no "senalietuviai" (Old Lithuanians) or "jaunalietuviai" (Young Lithuanians). -- Pofka 21:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You confirmed my point: there is a certian controversy and must be covered. But not what is in the current article. --Altenmann >talk 22:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1316511971"