![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard. FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts. Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked. I would encourage experienced editors and patrolling admins to close discussions that are not within the intended purpose of this noticeboard, and direct the OP and any involved parties to the correct forum. Very often that would be the article talk page, WP:RSN. or WP:NPOVN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
cabal(I hate that word, but it's wikiparlance) behavior that often originates or magnifies through posts to FTN. It sometimes seems to function as an expedient workaround to canvassing in certain subject areas. I believe that the issue has become so acute in terms of canvassing and biting that sanctions should be more readily administered. I've been involved in recent discussions unreasonably escalated by FTN-posting, namely at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents (which ultimately saw at least one behavioral block). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
we should excise [coverage of a given belief] from Wikipedia except in the most mocking of tones) that's valid to criticize, but the general complaint that these topics are out of scope for FTN seems off the mark. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Levivich ( talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
fringe would be more an attempt to explain that type of long lifespan using a naturalistic approach of some kind. Just mere religious belief is religious belief. Editors summarizing that in the plot of the Bible Joshua miraculously makes Jericho's walls fall, or even summarizing reliable scholarship that assesses the meaning and reception of this story for the book as a text or for believers as religion, even if editors disagree about how best to summarize it or what elements are due or how to represent or not divergent academic assessments/interpretations of narrative/philosophical/literary/religious meaning, doesn't seem WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense. Meanwhile, editors trying to make wikivoice say that archaeology has definitely found the ruins of Jericho and proven the story scientifically true (which archaeology hasn't), that would be a matter of circulating WP:FRINGE. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
religion is outside the purview of this noticeboardMy fact-checking instinct kicked in, and I checked the first 10 archives and this page for the percentage of religious topics (including creationism and theosophy, excluding channeling and New Age as well as this thread. Yes, that is a subjective borderline).
With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard.is simply false. Some separate issues have been brought up here, but they are beside the point. This sounds, to me, like just one more case of people standing up for fringe topics. VdSV9• ♫ 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboarddoes not hold up in practical terms. It just amounts to saying that "Religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard except when it isn't".
FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts.And some of the topics within the broad and fuzzily-bounded area called "religion" do involve empirically testable claims that contradict medicine, science, and/or history.
Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked.Turn that around: when religion does not deal with matters purely of faith, it can be
examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories. By and large, those are the cases that show up at FTN. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I tried to read good number of initial comments in the main section above but with WP:TLDR so I couldn't read them all. Here I would like to extend umbrella to cover all humanities topics and compare with STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Additionally may be we would need to discuss where to put topics like Law.
The thumb rule to my understanding is what mainstream academic STEM Reliable sources say in majority voice is not fringe and rest may be need to be cross verified for fringe-ness.
I am asking this question in Humanities side since I had seen approach by few editors to literally count number academic sources and define what is majority is mainstream and refute as many minority academic views as possible with help of WP:Fringe.
How far it is accurate to apply what is applicable to STEM area as is to Humanities topic areas? i.e. whether WP needs to have same level of rigidity as of STEM areas in Humanities topics too? whether Humanities can have a little more scope for accommodation for more views if academic RS is available? or Any scope to discuss WP:Fringe separately for Humanities topics than STEM?
Bookku ( talk) 14:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.When I read that, it strikes me that theology is a field unto itself. To compare theology to other more objective endeavours is, I think, a category error, just as we would not say poetry is a fringe application of statistics. Millions of people believe or claim to believe in theology (even if I am not one of them) and it has, as you note, an incredibly long intellectual history. There are certainly fringe theories within theology (historically Christians tended to call them 'heresies'). In short, I think for purposes of assessing 'fringeness' (fringeality? fringitude?), I think we have to consider theology as a theologian would, not as a physicist would. As ever, just some idle thoughts and reasonable minds can definitely differ on this one! Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(Outdent) Worse… I was just reviewing the academic scholarship about those battles… not one discusses Einstein’s theory of relativity. Must be Fringe to have so many eminent historians ignore it. Blueboar ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
As others say, for different topics there are different
WP:BESTSOURCES. While I can see why someone might "count" sources, I'm not entirely sure that's the best way to assess, or at least it shouldn't be the only way; there are cases in which
WP:AGEMATTERS would be relevant. That said, I'm not entirely sure "fringe" is the right language to use to talk about this except in narrow, conspiratorial contexts. For instance,
WP:FRINGE gives as an example of a "fringe" theory in the humanities something like conspiracy theories contending that
[John Wilkes] Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped
. Wikipedia parlance might call that a "fringe" view in history since it's very decidedly outside the mainstream consensus that
John Wilkes Booth died.
Where I think WP:FRINGE gets misapplied is when I've seen it used to undermine the citation of textual humanities scholarship. e. g. Wikipedia does not say in Wikivoice that Jesus was resurrected because that entails a biological claim about human bodies and there's no consensus in biology for human resurrection via a deity's magical divine powers. However, citing (as a hypothetical example) a Journal of Biblical Literature paper to have Gospel of John, for instance, say that the raising of Lazarus foreshadows the resurrection of Jesus in the plot of the Gospel of John—that shouldn't, I think, be considered "fringe". The raising of Lazarus and resurrection of Jesus in history are unverifiable claims that contradict mainstream consensus about biology and anatomy; the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus as plot points in the New Testament are verifiable (other scholars can read the New Testament and confirm whether or not those are part of the plot), and the former foreshadowing the latter is an academic interpretive claim that can be cited and attributed.
Personal anecdotal evidence isn't robust enough to make any sweeping claim, of course, so I'll leave it at saying I've been party/witness talk page interactions where citations to sources about the plot content of religious texts have been called "fringe" in what I think was a misapplication of the term and policy. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
a hypothetical examplein my comment; pardon if that hypotheticalness got muddled nearer the end. My experience was with with a different topic, though the scenario was similar: an editor at Talk:Ammonihah characterized descriptions of a religious text's plot content as "fringe"/"fringe sourcing" and on that basis removed descriptions and citations en masse. Concerns about level of detail and due inclusion might have had some place in the discussion, but I didn't and don't think it's in our guideline to apply "fringe" to plot summaries or textual studies that don't impinge on reality. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I see a lot of removal of unsourced content: Before the editor removed sources that he called
fringe sourcing, there were in-line citations at the end of every paragraph (and at the end of nearly every sentence as well). As for diffs, see the difference here: every edit in that span except for one was by the same editor, JPS. Only one edit in that span was made by a different editor, when I removed JPS's addition of "???" into the body text. Compare this result to the version of the article that passed reviews at Did You Know). On the talk page, JPS called the article
WP:PROFRINGE advocacyand accused editors of using
fringe sourcingto support
pet theories. These "fringe" claims and "pet theories" seemingly included that religious studies scholars say a book produced by Christians to spread a Christian religion depicts Christian characters (non-Mormon academics cited to verify that summarization of the book's plot were implied, and then confirmed, to be considered
lunatic charlatansby JPS; see the thread that ends
Whachagonnado), or that one of the characters says his god forbids him from invoking a miracle to rescue suffering people (the "Suffering" section that is gone), or that stories written to be set in the past can be set in the past; and the "fringe sourcing" seemingly included an article published by the European Mormon Studies Association that treated the Book of Mormon as a product of the nineteenth century (Stott's "Martyrdoms at Ammonihah") and another article published in the journal Dialogue that was cited to state that the story about a city kicking a bunch of people out and making them refugees has a plot beat about people getting kicked out of a city and becoming refugees (Kim, Warnick, & Johnson, "Hospitality in the Book of Mormon").The points about clarity of word choice land well enough; discussion about excessive details and due inclusion in the plot summary from a different editor were good points. But the impression and effect of the talk page comments went beyond 'this is phrased oddly' or 'is this claim due?' and well into a territory that seemed to result in most claims about the book and its contents being "fringe" unless they matched JPS's personal research agenda and his apparent interest in Nephite ecclesiology, a background element of the setting (see his
What is the Nephite Christian Church?on the talk page and his addition to the article of an unsourced section about that). Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 12:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
texts which combine fact and fiction: It was my impression that there is no mainstream consensus for the Book of Mormon combining fact and fiction because the mainstream consensus is that no element of it is factual. Any wikivoice reference to material internal to the Book of Mormon is necessarily reference to textual material, not historical material.
Well, I'm seeing disagreements about weight, sourcing and wording but not this denial of major 'plot points': I suppose we disagree about that; JPS articulated his comments in terms of "fringe", and his rejection of the notion, generally agreed upon by scholars writing about Mormonism, that Jesus-believing characters written by Christians are meant to be read as Christians, seemed like a denial of a major element of the plot. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 13:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Is no element of the book of Mormon factual?However it does make falsifiable assertions about history and other religious texts that run into the same issues as '"In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward doctors discover the local peasants cure cancer using chaga mushrooms"'. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
the same issues as '"In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward doctors discover the local peasants cure cancer using chaga mushrooms"': I'm not sure I'm really clear on why that example is an issue. If one is summarizing the novel, and if that aspect of the plot is somehow useful context for other analysis or reception, then saying that in a plot summary section seems like simply a matter of summarizing relevant plot. One doesn't worry too much that someone reading Annie will come away with the impression that a young orphan was the real inspiration for the New Deal because of sentences like
Warbucks brings Annie to Washington, D.C., where she meets President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt and his Cabinet are inspired by her optimism and decide to make it a cornerstone of their administration. If there is a concern about the effects of chaga being taken as too real, one could add an explanatory footnote saying
Chaga mushrooms do not actually have this effect on canceror something, or a section providing more thorough explanation of what parts of this Solzhenitsyn fictionalized and what he didn't. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward, the main character has a romance with a nurse.Should we take that as a statement about Solzhenitsyn's life, or not? Likewise, if a religious text makes a claim about a historical figure doing a thing that a historical figure could easily be imagined as doing, then we have to exercise caution to avoid ascribing actions to historical figures that aren't attested in history proper. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
an absolute minimum of lectures about how they are superstitious morons← it's language like this which lies at the heart of the problem, seeding and stoking up the drama. To be clear nobody should be doing any lecturing about how anybody else is a 'superstitious moron' at all, and so far as I can see these words appear nowhere else here. Bon courage ( talk) 09:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
ummary-only descriptions of works. The policy has nothing to do with whether a work claims to be fact or fiction and applies equally to
fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)<
I am somewhat disappointed by the fervor with which people here are seemingly champing at the bit to say incredibly inflammatory things about how religion is fiction and it's a conspiracy theory and it sucks and whatever.I don't know what page you're reading because none of that appears on this page. Ironically, this totally false allegation is the most inflammatory thing on this page.
I am actually not aware of any publications in actual scientific fields like geology or astrophysics (i.e. real papers in reputable journals, not blog posts or screenshots of NDT tweets or viral reddit memes) which make direct claims about whether the Universe has divine presence.
real papers; you have linked a book review, a book review, a letter to the editor, an op-ed, a book review, and a book review, none of which are papers... second of all, none of these seem to say anywhere that God is not real (did you actually read them?) -- they argue that evolution is real (which agrees with the official doctrine of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae 1992 [1] [2] but I am not really sure what the connection is to the existence of God). jp× g 🗯️ 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I am actually not aware of any publications in actual scientific fields like geology or astrophysics (i.e. real papers in reputable journals, not blog posts or screenshots of NDT tweets or viral reddit memes) which make direct claims about whether the Universe has divine presence.I showed you a real paper in a reputable journal that said
there is neither Creator nor Design, but simply adaptation. That is a direct claim about whether the Universe has divine presence, in a book review in Cell. I disproved what you claimed. Levivich ( talk) 02:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Which all religions do, which is what makes all religions fringe, within the meaning of WP:FRINGE: an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.
I believe I am 234 foot tall leprechaun that was birthed in the core of Jupiter
why don't we treat [Lazarus or Jesus's resurrections] the same as the other zombies?
religious studies is the mainstream while theology is the fringe
The theory that any such thing (triune deity, unitary deity, minor deity, demigod, angel, unicorn, dragon, giant, bigfoot, etc is fringe) actually exists or existed as a real being is fringe
Theism -- that there exists a God -- is WP:FRINGE
Religion is fiction, religion is fringe, and I'm not insulting anyone or saying anything inflammatory by saying that", as an explanation of one of the comments I quoted in my original post? jp× g 🗯️ 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I was reading the comments here, and they seemed to be headed nowhere. The original poster seemed to be thinking that matters of faith should not be within the scope of this board. In order to get this thread going somewhere, I will propose what I believe the original poster was thinking: Proposal: Matters of faith are outside the scope of WP:FTN, and are not appropriate to bring to this venue for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Money Threepwood ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, this is always going to have fringe sources. But should it really have them in further reading? Barry Fell, Pohl, Sorenson, Ashe [2], Huyghe who is editor of the publisher [3], Mallery (see Piri Reis map#Amateur claims}, Farley Mowat? Looking at the references, I see that the reference "Reconciling Conflicting Phylogenies in the Origin of Sweet Potato and Dispersal to Polynesia" has a PubPeer discussion (I can see a big tag at the top of the article and at the reference) here, I'm not sure we should be using it. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Some eyes more experienced in fringe matters could be used at Integral theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed a lot of unsourced material, but it got restored. Some sources got added, but not enough. Many of the cited sources appear to be self-published or otherwise inferior. Skyerise ( talk) 09:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Recent flurry of activity including new articles:
-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Virtually nothing about this century, a section on the last two. I found this today [4] which could be used. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Tesla, Inc. § Rfc regarding Tesla's founders. I think that there is a relevant topic on whether or not the view that there are 5 founders is a fringe view, which would decide whether we should replace the founders parameter altogether with a link to the section about Tesla's founding.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 03:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
New editor restoring deleted text, interesting edit summary for one edit: “ Restores the apologist perspective that had been up for years. No basis given to remove it, other than the individual hates the LDS Church )” Special:Contributions/Pombedo11!. There was a discussion at Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Heavy rewrite by User: DuncanGT [5] including unsourced and making it appear that Knapp got awards for his UFO stuff. Tried to revert to earlier version but failed for some reason. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This is about [6], please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing: ethno-national advocacy, WP:BATTLEGROUND conductis a valid reason for indeffing editors. See [8]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
"We should give the readers all the possible versions to know about their history."
Never a terribly good article in any case. I’m off to bed now but if anyone fells like advising them it would be nice, otherwise they may just get reverted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
After 12 years this article is still almost wholly sourced to Llewellyn Worldwide, itself a bad article. There are a few web links but they seem the same where they work. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original research and fringe at Safa Khulusi which is relevant to this noticeboard. Please participate there. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that the article has WP:FALSEBALANCE; see Talk:Reichstag fire#Consensus. Historians may disagree with me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Since a big part of the argument is whether it's acceptable to cite a fringe source for non-fringe content, this may be of interest. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Guy McPherson is a professor in AZ who makes predictions. In 2007, he predicted that due to peak oil there would be permanent blackouts in cities starting in 2012. In 2012, he predicted the "likely" extinction of humanity by 2030 due to climate-change, and mass die-off by 2020 "for those living in the interior of a large continent". In 2018, he was quoted as saying "Specifically, I predict that there will be no humans on Earth by 2026". He has been interviewed on film, tv, radio, etc.. and is frequently the go-to person if you want an extreme version of climate change, peak oil, etc... He has a following.
He has been described by climate scientist Michael E. Mann as a "doomist cult hero." Michael Tobis, a climate scientist from the University of Wisconsin, said McPherson "is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe." Andrew Revkin in The New York Times said McPherson was an "apocalyptic ecologist ... who has built something of an 'End of Days' following." The lead section summarizes these POVs, saying he engages in "fringe theories".
On the talk page, User:PESchneider, who has a disclosed COI with McPherson, has requested we remove "fringe theory" because this is a pejorative phrase and not in line with BLP, that McPherson bases his work on science papers, etc..
Should we characterize McPherson as a fringe theorist in the article, or some other wording? -- Green C 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The first chapter has a lot of fringe, eg [20] Searching that you can find:
"... Celts Perhaps earliest expeditions were those of Celts whose presumed records in Ogam script occur at many places in eastern North America ( Fig . 1 A), where the new- comers could have became established as hunters and farmers . The ..."
'... Celts , Iberians , and Libyans were associated in their explorations and settlements in the New World . Occasional presence of Egyptian Numidian , Hebrew , Basque , Roman , and "se scripts or words shows , reasonably enough , that..."
"... Libyans , all of whose ship routes lay nearby ( Fig . 1 ). Greek visits to the New World are uncertain . Al- though many short inscriptions in Greek are known and some words of Algonquian appear to be derived from that language , these ..."
"... Celtic ships . A stele in Yucatan denotes in Iberian the route of an expe- dition under the command of a Hanno , prince of Car thage . In fact, most of the identified sites have inscrip- tions in Celtic or Libyan as well as in Iberian ..."
"... Libyans were much influenced by the Greeks after Alexander's conquest of Egypt in 332 B.C. In fact, western New Guinea cave - wall inscriptions made in 232 B.C. by two Libyan captains , Maui and Rata , describe Eratosthenes ' ( of...a" which I think is from this fringe document. [21]
I don't think any of this is being used as a source for articles, but should it be discussed at RSN? Doug Weller talk 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Paranoid conspiracy theories are being stated in the voice of Wikipedia, see [22]. Note: this is a different issue from that reported at WP:NORN. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. Bookku ( talk) 07:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
As a way of reasoning used by fringe theorists, maybe only marginally relevant here. New user trying to force their opinion into the article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Another history subject edited by someone who does not believe in what WP:OR and WP:RS say. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Which reads as though he was real. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Kodiak Blackjack has been heavily editing this article. Their latest edit is here [23] and changed "Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American film producer, and internet personality. [1] [2] He is best known for his Hidden Colors film series, as well as his commentary and promotion of conspiracy theories on social media.
tp:
Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American
filmmaker,
anti-racism activist, and
media personality.
[3]
[2] He is best known for his
Hidden Colors film series, as well as his controversial views and commentary on
race relations in the United States,
institutional racism, and
dating.
[4]
plus other changes. Do we use newsone.com? I also see some old sources marked unreliable by Headbomb's script , eg YouTube, a tweet, etc.
{{
ref kust}}
Doug Weller
talk 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Career
and Views and reception
into appropriate subheaders. I added a section to Personal life about his swatting in 2018, a subsection about his YouTube channel to his infobox (a la
Jake Paul), and I did change the lede as you mentioned. I understand that when looking at diffs from before and after, the changes to the article seem pretty substantial, but I think you'll find that the majority of the prose is exactly the same as it was, but maybe just in a different place in the article.
There are fringe issues here, for sure.
There are also WP:BLP issues
"when a political or media figure publicly demonizes a person or group in a way that inspires supporters of the figure to commit a violent act against the target of the communication. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric."
and unreliable source issues
and due weight issues
Some of these changes were, as Kodiak Blackjack says, non-controversial, but this probably isn't the place to go into detail about which work and which don't.
Briefly, Nasheed is both a conspiracy theorist (per sources)
and commonly a target of other conspiracy theorists
Figuring out how to summarize this is difficult, but downplaying it by removing it from the lead won't work.
and due weight issues"
mea culpaNo! You did the right thing, posting a notice. That is what this board is for. After that, if people move discussion from the article talk page to here, that is out of your control. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.This article has two contentious article headers on its talk page, and it's a BLP, so I figured it'd probably be better to lean on the safe side. As I said over on the talk page, I'm fine with keeping conspiracy theorist in the lede, I just think we ought to have an in-line citation after it. — Kodiak Blackjack ( talk) • ( contribs) 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
References
The article on Jordan Peterson is clearly written by cultish fans intent on burying his numerous positions which conflict with reality, including his overt climate denial, his promotion of anti-vax ideas, his pro-Putin, pro-Russia stance, his right-wing talking points, and his continuing struggle with mental illness and drug addition. Strangely, none of this is found in the lead section. Viriditas ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
|
A dietary supplement for vegan pets. Concerns have been raised that the article contains fringe content, WP:OR and lacks independent sourcing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Both Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost describe ghosts and entirely rely on primary and questionable sources. Both articles focus on supposed "sightings" and largely do not discuss anything else. ― Susmuffin Talk 18:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
If interested the latest from these peeps is now out. I only watched the first few minutes and they have a stick and aren't letting it go. Possibly they will be making more trouble for the editors they feel are targeting the UFO/UAP disclosure they so want to happen. The interviewee for this specific show says he has a list of editors and their real life names and professions and apparently is planning on exposing them. Oh and @ LuckyLouie is Mick West, of course he is. I went on this YouTube channel last month and tried to explain and have a discussion with them, it was a 3-hour interview and they removed over an hour of content. I would say it was a waste of my time, except I'm always interested in trying to help people understand, plus it was fascinating to get a peek into their mindset. You can find it on their channel if you are interested along with their other nonsense about how Wikipedia works, when it is obvious they have no clue how it works. I only raise this issue as of course I know we are attacked all the time, but this seems to be at least for a few people to be escalating. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W1lohseihc]. Sgerbic ( talk) 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
[24] The early history section here makes some religious claims in wikivoice. 107.116.165.24 ( talk) 22:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't edit fringe medical topics often but recent edits, particularly about a BBC Radio 4 piece ( [29]), seem very egregious and would appreciate somebody with more experience of this sort of thing to have a look. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
About two months ago, there was an apparent consensus that this is a fringe topic, without sufficient sourcing to keep in mainspace, and it was draftified. An IP editor has been repeatedly attempting to reintroduce it to mainspace without fixing the problems. Based on a talk page comment, I tried to change it from a draft, to a "redirect with history" ( [30]), but the IP keeps reverting it back into mainspace.
I'd like to get some more opinions about what to do with this page. If it seems unlikely that the content can be appropriately sourced, perhaps it should either be made into a semi-protected redirect, or be taken to a deletion discussion and WP:SALTed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Alina Chan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Note that the latest entry into "The New York Times focuses on fringe and ignores the mainstream" seems to be extremely well-represented on this WP:FRINGEBLP. I am not sure how much emphasis we are supposed to be placing on Chan's Lab Leak claims (and some of the ones mentioned are exceedingly misleading and others are demonstrably incorrect). There is no attempt to find WP:SECONDARY sources which identify Chan's ideas as being prominent or worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Instead, it is all sourced solely to her OpEd. jps ( talk) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard. FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts. Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked. I would encourage experienced editors and patrolling admins to close discussions that are not within the intended purpose of this noticeboard, and direct the OP and any involved parties to the correct forum. Very often that would be the article talk page, WP:RSN. or WP:NPOVN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
cabal(I hate that word, but it's wikiparlance) behavior that often originates or magnifies through posts to FTN. It sometimes seems to function as an expedient workaround to canvassing in certain subject areas. I believe that the issue has become so acute in terms of canvassing and biting that sanctions should be more readily administered. I've been involved in recent discussions unreasonably escalated by FTN-posting, namely at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents (which ultimately saw at least one behavioral block). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
we should excise [coverage of a given belief] from Wikipedia except in the most mocking of tones) that's valid to criticize, but the general complaint that these topics are out of scope for FTN seems off the mark. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Levivich ( talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
fringe would be more an attempt to explain that type of long lifespan using a naturalistic approach of some kind. Just mere religious belief is religious belief. Editors summarizing that in the plot of the Bible Joshua miraculously makes Jericho's walls fall, or even summarizing reliable scholarship that assesses the meaning and reception of this story for the book as a text or for believers as religion, even if editors disagree about how best to summarize it or what elements are due or how to represent or not divergent academic assessments/interpretations of narrative/philosophical/literary/religious meaning, doesn't seem WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense. Meanwhile, editors trying to make wikivoice say that archaeology has definitely found the ruins of Jericho and proven the story scientifically true (which archaeology hasn't), that would be a matter of circulating WP:FRINGE. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
religion is outside the purview of this noticeboardMy fact-checking instinct kicked in, and I checked the first 10 archives and this page for the percentage of religious topics (including creationism and theosophy, excluding channeling and New Age as well as this thread. Yes, that is a subjective borderline).
With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard.is simply false. Some separate issues have been brought up here, but they are beside the point. This sounds, to me, like just one more case of people standing up for fringe topics. VdSV9• ♫ 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
With very rare exceptions, religion is outside the purview of this noticeboarddoes not hold up in practical terms. It just amounts to saying that "Religion is outside the purview of this noticeboard except when it isn't".
FTN deals with fringe theories which contradict generally accepted medical/scientific/historical facts.And some of the topics within the broad and fuzzily-bounded area called "religion" do involve empirically testable claims that contradict medicine, science, and/or history.
Religion, which primarily deals with a belief in the supernatural and matters of faith, cannot be examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked.Turn that around: when religion does not deal with matters purely of faith, it can be
examined in the same way we address pseudoscientific claims or fringe conspiracy theories. By and large, those are the cases that show up at FTN. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I tried to read good number of initial comments in the main section above but with WP:TLDR so I couldn't read them all. Here I would like to extend umbrella to cover all humanities topics and compare with STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Additionally may be we would need to discuss where to put topics like Law.
The thumb rule to my understanding is what mainstream academic STEM Reliable sources say in majority voice is not fringe and rest may be need to be cross verified for fringe-ness.
I am asking this question in Humanities side since I had seen approach by few editors to literally count number academic sources and define what is majority is mainstream and refute as many minority academic views as possible with help of WP:Fringe.
How far it is accurate to apply what is applicable to STEM area as is to Humanities topic areas? i.e. whether WP needs to have same level of rigidity as of STEM areas in Humanities topics too? whether Humanities can have a little more scope for accommodation for more views if academic RS is available? or Any scope to discuss WP:Fringe separately for Humanities topics than STEM?
Bookku ( talk) 14:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.When I read that, it strikes me that theology is a field unto itself. To compare theology to other more objective endeavours is, I think, a category error, just as we would not say poetry is a fringe application of statistics. Millions of people believe or claim to believe in theology (even if I am not one of them) and it has, as you note, an incredibly long intellectual history. There are certainly fringe theories within theology (historically Christians tended to call them 'heresies'). In short, I think for purposes of assessing 'fringeness' (fringeality? fringitude?), I think we have to consider theology as a theologian would, not as a physicist would. As ever, just some idle thoughts and reasonable minds can definitely differ on this one! Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 15:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(Outdent) Worse… I was just reviewing the academic scholarship about those battles… not one discusses Einstein’s theory of relativity. Must be Fringe to have so many eminent historians ignore it. Blueboar ( talk) 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
As others say, for different topics there are different
WP:BESTSOURCES. While I can see why someone might "count" sources, I'm not entirely sure that's the best way to assess, or at least it shouldn't be the only way; there are cases in which
WP:AGEMATTERS would be relevant. That said, I'm not entirely sure "fringe" is the right language to use to talk about this except in narrow, conspiratorial contexts. For instance,
WP:FRINGE gives as an example of a "fringe" theory in the humanities something like conspiracy theories contending that
[John Wilkes] Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped
. Wikipedia parlance might call that a "fringe" view in history since it's very decidedly outside the mainstream consensus that
John Wilkes Booth died.
Where I think WP:FRINGE gets misapplied is when I've seen it used to undermine the citation of textual humanities scholarship. e. g. Wikipedia does not say in Wikivoice that Jesus was resurrected because that entails a biological claim about human bodies and there's no consensus in biology for human resurrection via a deity's magical divine powers. However, citing (as a hypothetical example) a Journal of Biblical Literature paper to have Gospel of John, for instance, say that the raising of Lazarus foreshadows the resurrection of Jesus in the plot of the Gospel of John—that shouldn't, I think, be considered "fringe". The raising of Lazarus and resurrection of Jesus in history are unverifiable claims that contradict mainstream consensus about biology and anatomy; the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus as plot points in the New Testament are verifiable (other scholars can read the New Testament and confirm whether or not those are part of the plot), and the former foreshadowing the latter is an academic interpretive claim that can be cited and attributed.
Personal anecdotal evidence isn't robust enough to make any sweeping claim, of course, so I'll leave it at saying I've been party/witness talk page interactions where citations to sources about the plot content of religious texts have been called "fringe" in what I think was a misapplication of the term and policy. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
a hypothetical examplein my comment; pardon if that hypotheticalness got muddled nearer the end. My experience was with with a different topic, though the scenario was similar: an editor at Talk:Ammonihah characterized descriptions of a religious text's plot content as "fringe"/"fringe sourcing" and on that basis removed descriptions and citations en masse. Concerns about level of detail and due inclusion might have had some place in the discussion, but I didn't and don't think it's in our guideline to apply "fringe" to plot summaries or textual studies that don't impinge on reality. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I see a lot of removal of unsourced content: Before the editor removed sources that he called
fringe sourcing, there were in-line citations at the end of every paragraph (and at the end of nearly every sentence as well). As for diffs, see the difference here: every edit in that span except for one was by the same editor, JPS. Only one edit in that span was made by a different editor, when I removed JPS's addition of "???" into the body text. Compare this result to the version of the article that passed reviews at Did You Know). On the talk page, JPS called the article
WP:PROFRINGE advocacyand accused editors of using
fringe sourcingto support
pet theories. These "fringe" claims and "pet theories" seemingly included that religious studies scholars say a book produced by Christians to spread a Christian religion depicts Christian characters (non-Mormon academics cited to verify that summarization of the book's plot were implied, and then confirmed, to be considered
lunatic charlatansby JPS; see the thread that ends
Whachagonnado), or that one of the characters says his god forbids him from invoking a miracle to rescue suffering people (the "Suffering" section that is gone), or that stories written to be set in the past can be set in the past; and the "fringe sourcing" seemingly included an article published by the European Mormon Studies Association that treated the Book of Mormon as a product of the nineteenth century (Stott's "Martyrdoms at Ammonihah") and another article published in the journal Dialogue that was cited to state that the story about a city kicking a bunch of people out and making them refugees has a plot beat about people getting kicked out of a city and becoming refugees (Kim, Warnick, & Johnson, "Hospitality in the Book of Mormon").The points about clarity of word choice land well enough; discussion about excessive details and due inclusion in the plot summary from a different editor were good points. But the impression and effect of the talk page comments went beyond 'this is phrased oddly' or 'is this claim due?' and well into a territory that seemed to result in most claims about the book and its contents being "fringe" unless they matched JPS's personal research agenda and his apparent interest in Nephite ecclesiology, a background element of the setting (see his
What is the Nephite Christian Church?on the talk page and his addition to the article of an unsourced section about that). Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 12:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
texts which combine fact and fiction: It was my impression that there is no mainstream consensus for the Book of Mormon combining fact and fiction because the mainstream consensus is that no element of it is factual. Any wikivoice reference to material internal to the Book of Mormon is necessarily reference to textual material, not historical material.
Well, I'm seeing disagreements about weight, sourcing and wording but not this denial of major 'plot points': I suppose we disagree about that; JPS articulated his comments in terms of "fringe", and his rejection of the notion, generally agreed upon by scholars writing about Mormonism, that Jesus-believing characters written by Christians are meant to be read as Christians, seemed like a denial of a major element of the plot. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 13:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Is no element of the book of Mormon factual?However it does make falsifiable assertions about history and other religious texts that run into the same issues as '"In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward doctors discover the local peasants cure cancer using chaga mushrooms"'. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
the same issues as '"In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward doctors discover the local peasants cure cancer using chaga mushrooms"': I'm not sure I'm really clear on why that example is an issue. If one is summarizing the novel, and if that aspect of the plot is somehow useful context for other analysis or reception, then saying that in a plot summary section seems like simply a matter of summarizing relevant plot. One doesn't worry too much that someone reading Annie will come away with the impression that a young orphan was the real inspiration for the New Deal because of sentences like
Warbucks brings Annie to Washington, D.C., where she meets President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt and his Cabinet are inspired by her optimism and decide to make it a cornerstone of their administration. If there is a concern about the effects of chaga being taken as too real, one could add an explanatory footnote saying
Chaga mushrooms do not actually have this effect on canceror something, or a section providing more thorough explanation of what parts of this Solzhenitsyn fictionalized and what he didn't. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 18:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
In Solzhenitsyn's autobiographical novel Cancer Ward, the main character has a romance with a nurse.Should we take that as a statement about Solzhenitsyn's life, or not? Likewise, if a religious text makes a claim about a historical figure doing a thing that a historical figure could easily be imagined as doing, then we have to exercise caution to avoid ascribing actions to historical figures that aren't attested in history proper. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
an absolute minimum of lectures about how they are superstitious morons← it's language like this which lies at the heart of the problem, seeding and stoking up the drama. To be clear nobody should be doing any lecturing about how anybody else is a 'superstitious moron' at all, and so far as I can see these words appear nowhere else here. Bon courage ( talk) 09:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
ummary-only descriptions of works. The policy has nothing to do with whether a work claims to be fact or fiction and applies equally to
fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)<
I am somewhat disappointed by the fervor with which people here are seemingly champing at the bit to say incredibly inflammatory things about how religion is fiction and it's a conspiracy theory and it sucks and whatever.I don't know what page you're reading because none of that appears on this page. Ironically, this totally false allegation is the most inflammatory thing on this page.
I am actually not aware of any publications in actual scientific fields like geology or astrophysics (i.e. real papers in reputable journals, not blog posts or screenshots of NDT tweets or viral reddit memes) which make direct claims about whether the Universe has divine presence.
real papers; you have linked a book review, a book review, a letter to the editor, an op-ed, a book review, and a book review, none of which are papers... second of all, none of these seem to say anywhere that God is not real (did you actually read them?) -- they argue that evolution is real (which agrees with the official doctrine of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae 1992 [1] [2] but I am not really sure what the connection is to the existence of God). jp× g 🗯️ 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I am actually not aware of any publications in actual scientific fields like geology or astrophysics (i.e. real papers in reputable journals, not blog posts or screenshots of NDT tweets or viral reddit memes) which make direct claims about whether the Universe has divine presence.I showed you a real paper in a reputable journal that said
there is neither Creator nor Design, but simply adaptation. That is a direct claim about whether the Universe has divine presence, in a book review in Cell. I disproved what you claimed. Levivich ( talk) 02:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Which all religions do, which is what makes all religions fringe, within the meaning of WP:FRINGE: an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.
I believe I am 234 foot tall leprechaun that was birthed in the core of Jupiter
why don't we treat [Lazarus or Jesus's resurrections] the same as the other zombies?
religious studies is the mainstream while theology is the fringe
The theory that any such thing (triune deity, unitary deity, minor deity, demigod, angel, unicorn, dragon, giant, bigfoot, etc is fringe) actually exists or existed as a real being is fringe
Theism -- that there exists a God -- is WP:FRINGE
Religion is fiction, religion is fringe, and I'm not insulting anyone or saying anything inflammatory by saying that", as an explanation of one of the comments I quoted in my original post? jp× g 🗯️ 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I was reading the comments here, and they seemed to be headed nowhere. The original poster seemed to be thinking that matters of faith should not be within the scope of this board. In order to get this thread going somewhere, I will propose what I believe the original poster was thinking: Proposal: Matters of faith are outside the scope of WP:FTN, and are not appropriate to bring to this venue for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Money Threepwood ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, this is always going to have fringe sources. But should it really have them in further reading? Barry Fell, Pohl, Sorenson, Ashe [2], Huyghe who is editor of the publisher [3], Mallery (see Piri Reis map#Amateur claims}, Farley Mowat? Looking at the references, I see that the reference "Reconciling Conflicting Phylogenies in the Origin of Sweet Potato and Dispersal to Polynesia" has a PubPeer discussion (I can see a big tag at the top of the article and at the reference) here, I'm not sure we should be using it. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Some eyes more experienced in fringe matters could be used at Integral theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed a lot of unsourced material, but it got restored. Some sources got added, but not enough. Many of the cited sources appear to be self-published or otherwise inferior. Skyerise ( talk) 09:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Recent flurry of activity including new articles:
-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Virtually nothing about this century, a section on the last two. I found this today [4] which could be used. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Tesla, Inc. § Rfc regarding Tesla's founders. I think that there is a relevant topic on whether or not the view that there are 5 founders is a fringe view, which would decide whether we should replace the founders parameter altogether with a link to the section about Tesla's founding.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 03:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
New editor restoring deleted text, interesting edit summary for one edit: “ Restores the apologist perspective that had been up for years. No basis given to remove it, other than the individual hates the LDS Church )” Special:Contributions/Pombedo11!. There was a discussion at Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Heavy rewrite by User: DuncanGT [5] including unsourced and making it appear that Knapp got awards for his UFO stuff. Tried to revert to earlier version but failed for some reason. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This is about [6], please chime in. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing: ethno-national advocacy, WP:BATTLEGROUND conductis a valid reason for indeffing editors. See [8]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
"We should give the readers all the possible versions to know about their history."
Never a terribly good article in any case. I’m off to bed now but if anyone fells like advising them it would be nice, otherwise they may just get reverted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
After 12 years this article is still almost wholly sourced to Llewellyn Worldwide, itself a bad article. There are a few web links but they seem the same where they work. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original research and fringe at Safa Khulusi which is relevant to this noticeboard. Please participate there. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that the article has WP:FALSEBALANCE; see Talk:Reichstag fire#Consensus. Historians may disagree with me. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Since a big part of the argument is whether it's acceptable to cite a fringe source for non-fringe content, this may be of interest. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Guy McPherson is a professor in AZ who makes predictions. In 2007, he predicted that due to peak oil there would be permanent blackouts in cities starting in 2012. In 2012, he predicted the "likely" extinction of humanity by 2030 due to climate-change, and mass die-off by 2020 "for those living in the interior of a large continent". In 2018, he was quoted as saying "Specifically, I predict that there will be no humans on Earth by 2026". He has been interviewed on film, tv, radio, etc.. and is frequently the go-to person if you want an extreme version of climate change, peak oil, etc... He has a following.
He has been described by climate scientist Michael E. Mann as a "doomist cult hero." Michael Tobis, a climate scientist from the University of Wisconsin, said McPherson "is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe." Andrew Revkin in The New York Times said McPherson was an "apocalyptic ecologist ... who has built something of an 'End of Days' following." The lead section summarizes these POVs, saying he engages in "fringe theories".
On the talk page, User:PESchneider, who has a disclosed COI with McPherson, has requested we remove "fringe theory" because this is a pejorative phrase and not in line with BLP, that McPherson bases his work on science papers, etc..
Should we characterize McPherson as a fringe theorist in the article, or some other wording? -- Green C 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The first chapter has a lot of fringe, eg [20] Searching that you can find:
"... Celts Perhaps earliest expeditions were those of Celts whose presumed records in Ogam script occur at many places in eastern North America ( Fig . 1 A), where the new- comers could have became established as hunters and farmers . The ..."
'... Celts , Iberians , and Libyans were associated in their explorations and settlements in the New World . Occasional presence of Egyptian Numidian , Hebrew , Basque , Roman , and "se scripts or words shows , reasonably enough , that..."
"... Libyans , all of whose ship routes lay nearby ( Fig . 1 ). Greek visits to the New World are uncertain . Al- though many short inscriptions in Greek are known and some words of Algonquian appear to be derived from that language , these ..."
"... Celtic ships . A stele in Yucatan denotes in Iberian the route of an expe- dition under the command of a Hanno , prince of Car thage . In fact, most of the identified sites have inscrip- tions in Celtic or Libyan as well as in Iberian ..."
"... Libyans were much influenced by the Greeks after Alexander's conquest of Egypt in 332 B.C. In fact, western New Guinea cave - wall inscriptions made in 232 B.C. by two Libyan captains , Maui and Rata , describe Eratosthenes ' ( of...a" which I think is from this fringe document. [21]
I don't think any of this is being used as a source for articles, but should it be discussed at RSN? Doug Weller talk 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Paranoid conspiracy theories are being stated in the voice of Wikipedia, see [22]. Note: this is a different issue from that reported at WP:NORN. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. Bookku ( talk) 07:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
As a way of reasoning used by fringe theorists, maybe only marginally relevant here. New user trying to force their opinion into the article. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Another history subject edited by someone who does not believe in what WP:OR and WP:RS say. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Which reads as though he was real. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Kodiak Blackjack has been heavily editing this article. Their latest edit is here [23] and changed "Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American film producer, and internet personality. [1] [2] He is best known for his Hidden Colors film series, as well as his commentary and promotion of conspiracy theories on social media.
tp:
Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American
filmmaker,
anti-racism activist, and
media personality.
[3]
[2] He is best known for his
Hidden Colors film series, as well as his controversial views and commentary on
race relations in the United States,
institutional racism, and
dating.
[4]
plus other changes. Do we use newsone.com? I also see some old sources marked unreliable by Headbomb's script , eg YouTube, a tweet, etc.
{{
ref kust}}
Doug Weller
talk 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Career
and Views and reception
into appropriate subheaders. I added a section to Personal life about his swatting in 2018, a subsection about his YouTube channel to his infobox (a la
Jake Paul), and I did change the lede as you mentioned. I understand that when looking at diffs from before and after, the changes to the article seem pretty substantial, but I think you'll find that the majority of the prose is exactly the same as it was, but maybe just in a different place in the article.
There are fringe issues here, for sure.
There are also WP:BLP issues
"when a political or media figure publicly demonizes a person or group in a way that inspires supporters of the figure to commit a violent act against the target of the communication. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric."
and unreliable source issues
and due weight issues
Some of these changes were, as Kodiak Blackjack says, non-controversial, but this probably isn't the place to go into detail about which work and which don't.
Briefly, Nasheed is both a conspiracy theorist (per sources)
and commonly a target of other conspiracy theorists
Figuring out how to summarize this is difficult, but downplaying it by removing it from the lead won't work.
and due weight issues"
mea culpaNo! You did the right thing, posting a notice. That is what this board is for. After that, if people move discussion from the article talk page to here, that is out of your control. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.This article has two contentious article headers on its talk page, and it's a BLP, so I figured it'd probably be better to lean on the safe side. As I said over on the talk page, I'm fine with keeping conspiracy theorist in the lede, I just think we ought to have an in-line citation after it. — Kodiak Blackjack ( talk) • ( contribs) 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
References
The article on Jordan Peterson is clearly written by cultish fans intent on burying his numerous positions which conflict with reality, including his overt climate denial, his promotion of anti-vax ideas, his pro-Putin, pro-Russia stance, his right-wing talking points, and his continuing struggle with mental illness and drug addition. Strangely, none of this is found in the lead section. Viriditas ( talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
|
A dietary supplement for vegan pets. Concerns have been raised that the article contains fringe content, WP:OR and lacks independent sourcing. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Both Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost describe ghosts and entirely rely on primary and questionable sources. Both articles focus on supposed "sightings" and largely do not discuss anything else. ― Susmuffin Talk 18:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
If interested the latest from these peeps is now out. I only watched the first few minutes and they have a stick and aren't letting it go. Possibly they will be making more trouble for the editors they feel are targeting the UFO/UAP disclosure they so want to happen. The interviewee for this specific show says he has a list of editors and their real life names and professions and apparently is planning on exposing them. Oh and @ LuckyLouie is Mick West, of course he is. I went on this YouTube channel last month and tried to explain and have a discussion with them, it was a 3-hour interview and they removed over an hour of content. I would say it was a waste of my time, except I'm always interested in trying to help people understand, plus it was fascinating to get a peek into their mindset. You can find it on their channel if you are interested along with their other nonsense about how Wikipedia works, when it is obvious they have no clue how it works. I only raise this issue as of course I know we are attacked all the time, but this seems to be at least for a few people to be escalating. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W1lohseihc]. Sgerbic ( talk) 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
[24] The early history section here makes some religious claims in wikivoice. 107.116.165.24 ( talk) 22:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't edit fringe medical topics often but recent edits, particularly about a BBC Radio 4 piece ( [29]), seem very egregious and would appreciate somebody with more experience of this sort of thing to have a look. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
About two months ago, there was an apparent consensus that this is a fringe topic, without sufficient sourcing to keep in mainspace, and it was draftified. An IP editor has been repeatedly attempting to reintroduce it to mainspace without fixing the problems. Based on a talk page comment, I tried to change it from a draft, to a "redirect with history" ( [30]), but the IP keeps reverting it back into mainspace.
I'd like to get some more opinions about what to do with this page. If it seems unlikely that the content can be appropriately sourced, perhaps it should either be made into a semi-protected redirect, or be taken to a deletion discussion and WP:SALTed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Alina Chan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Note that the latest entry into "The New York Times focuses on fringe and ignores the mainstream" seems to be extremely well-represented on this WP:FRINGEBLP. I am not sure how much emphasis we are supposed to be placing on Chan's Lab Leak claims (and some of the ones mentioned are exceedingly misleading and others are demonstrably incorrect). There is no attempt to find WP:SECONDARY sources which identify Chan's ideas as being prominent or worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Instead, it is all sourced solely to her OpEd. jps ( talk) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)