Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, whether there may be problematic promotion of fringe theories, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 20 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Stanislav Grof

This article came to my attention via reference gnoming. I know very little about the subject area, but the latter part of the article gives the appearance of being promotion of a body of fringe theories, supported by "in-universe" references none of which pass the "independent" leg of WP:RS. I am unenthusiastic about this sort of clean-up, but perhaps somebody who frequents this board would like to take a look at the article? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, in-universe is right! Journeyers in holotropic states of consciousness can also experience meaningful family, ancestral, racial, or collective memories. These experiences from the "historical unconscious" are in basic agreement with C. G. Jung's observations. Another category that Jung did not study or document are past-life experiences. The authenticity of these can sometimes be independently verified. This article needs a serious haircut. Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have culled the article. Some work on the lede may be appropriate where it outlines a bunch of awards he has received from fringe groups. jps (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of the Shroud of Turin

The section "Prior to the 14th century" should be severely cut down, since the Shroud was created in the 14the century. Every "history" before that is fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I see we have Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. two other articles besides the main one covering the history, three on investigations, etc. Do we even need VP8 Image Analyzer? Why is House of Savoy]] included in the template - it doesn't mention the shroud. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another one: Relics associated with Jesus#Shroud of Turin is full of WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of these discuss Yupanqui's alleged travels, neither has any sources that suggest this didn't happen. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the contrary, both indicate contrary points of view saying there are doubts that the voyage ever happened. Your are allowed to add additional information which adds additional context if you think it is lacking. I don't see where anyone has tried to stop you from doing so. --Jayron32 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jayron32 What source that isn't the proponent of the alleged travel have I missed? Doug Weller talk 15:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the first article "Critics of del Busto have pointed out that Yupanqui's expedition—assuming it ever took place—could have reached the Galapagos Islands or some other part of the Americas instead of Oceania.[168]" On the second article "Many historians are skeptical that the voyage ever took place." If you find this insufficient, you don't need to seek the permission of this noticeboard to fix it. Has anyone disputed your additions to these articles? Where is the text you have added strengthening the case that the voyages likely did not occur? I'm not claiming the articles are in a sufficient state, quite the contrary, they are not, but you also have not indicated any dispute we are supposed to adjudicate or discuss here. You're quite allowed to all by yourself make articles better in any way you see fit, and if no one objects, just keep on going. If someone is objecting, we can use this noticeboard to discuss that. But what dispute are you trying to ask editors to solve for you? --Jayron32 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jayron32 ""Critics of del Busto have pointed out that Yupanqui's expedition—assuming it ever took place—could have reached the Galapagos Islands or some other part of the Americas instead of Oceania" is sourced to del Busto. There's no source for the historians are skeptical. Never mind, if you're going to lecture me as though I'm a child or ignorant of how Wikipedia works, There's no point. But I didn't suggest there was a dispute, just came here to see if anyone had any knowledge or interest enough to find sources that aren't the person pushing the idea. Or had any other useful ideas. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been unable to find reviews of Doig[1] or Del Busto[2] and unsure how seriously to take Lisardo Pérez Lugones Argumentaban la posibilidad real de que Túpac Yupanqui Inca hubiera llegado a la Polinesia[3] (a symposium paper.) But what is the intention of the section? There is a great deal to say about this voyage legend: Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa, Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira, Clements Markham, Thor Heyerdahl, etc. which predates this latest theory. Would this be important for the reader[4] or outside the scope? Lothrop[5] looks to be the first to "suggest this didn't happen" and i imagine other references would be available in Tupac Yupanqui. Descubridor de Oceanía. Maybe providing more background and history would be a good approach when there is not much available on the latest theory? fiveby(zero) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good start. Interesting that there's so little. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Kauffmann Doig F. (2000). "Tupac Yupanqui rumbo a Oceanía". Revista de Instituto de Estudios Histórico-Marítimos del Perú. 19: 103–118.
  2. ^ Del Busto, J. A. (2006). Tupac Yupanqui. Descubridor de Oceanía.
  3. ^ Pérez Lugones, Lisardo (2016). "La hipótesis transpacíic". El mar: una forma de vida en América.
  4. ^ Ballesteros, Andrea (2021). "Ideas about Trans-Pacific Origins and Voyages in Early Spanish Chronicles from the Americas". Journal of Iberian and Latin American Research. 27.
  5. ^ Lothrop, S. K. (1932). "Aboriginal Navigation off the West Coast of South America". The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 62: 229–256.

Help finding a Chrome addon or a script that points to comments on peer reviewed articles

I know this isn't a fringe issue but it seems the most likely place to ask (unless someone can help with a better one). I had this until I changed computers. That makes it most likely to be Chrome. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PubPeer[1] is handy. Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bon courage thanks, that’s it! Doug Weller talk 20:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comet Research Group and the June Cosmic Summit to be run by CRG's director

See [} a lot of the usual suspects. And a disclaimer saying it isn't a presentation of the CRG. True, it just has a lot of its members speaking, alongside Hancock, Randall Carlson, etc. For those who don't know Kenneth Tankersley, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85 (note he has changed his ethnic identity). Not until June - and it will cause problems then I'm sure, but it's relevant to the CRG now. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a list of the CRG members and directors.[2] Doug Weller talk 17:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In November, we had a discussion about possibly deleting the Comet Research Group article. Merging was the consensus decision. But trying to do that today, I found that it doesn't really seem to work. Also, I rediscovered the PSMag source on CRG which is kinda exactly what I was looking for as a source. [3]. Maybe we should revisit the consensus and no longer effectthe merge. jps (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New editor adding promotional material (SPA,3rd edit, first was to talk page). Doug Weller talk 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential sock or new account of Sattviclight (which you previously warned)? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Could be the same person, but not a sock as the older editor wasn’t blocked and there is no overlap. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pyramid power

See this version and the second section in the lead which suggests it's real(reverted of course). If you want to read the article it's at [4] or a Google scholar search shows the pdf on some sort of religious website, but that's copyvio. I don't know enough to see if the inclusion is warranted, but it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding that the pyramid can scatter and focus eletromagnetic waves is not pertinent to the idea of Pyramid power unless and until a properly conducted study shows that such scattering and focusing has any effect on living things. I suspect that a similar study of any building or of many natural features would show scattering and focusing of electromagnetic waves. Donald Albury 15:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure they've even 'found' that. They've fed data through an algorithm, and got a result. Which may or may not reflect the real world, and may or may not tell us anything of consequence even if it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just have to say that "Pyramid Power" reminds me of those distant days when I felt nonsensical woo was mostly harmless. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And is it just a pre-print, or was this peer reviewed somewhere? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find the concept plausible. All electromagnetic waves interact with all substances. The magnitude of the scattering or focusing depends on the wavelength of the radiation and the makeup and structure of the substance the waves are traversing. Air scatters light, and a lens can focus light, but the electromagnetic waves that can penetrate a pyramid will be subject to much smaller scattering and focusing than light in air or glass. So, proper instruments may be able to measure the scattering and focusing of, say, radio waves passing through the Great Pyramid of Giza, but the effect is likely to be very small, and of no measureable effect on living things. So, I agree, this has no consequences for people (other than scientists interested in studying such things or trying to detect unknown chambers in the pyramid), and nothing to do with any concept of "pyramid power". Donald Albury 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 15:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now here I am, contemplating the concept of a 'pyramid of air' and if it might correct my myopia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Only if that pyramid of air had a different index of refraction than the air surrounding it. Donald Albury 20:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trancey, dancey. Space news and self-help. Sounds from this planet and others. Eye of Horus, eye of the storm of the Great Red Spot. Psych, kraut, new age and electronic beats beamed direct from Orion's Belt to Giza to the Hudson Valley. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, but, but... it's peer reviewed!! -Roxy the dog 20:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe this is the same paper we discussed briefly before.
ApLundell (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically all fringe, but a reader might not be clear about that. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UFO pages

Some additional eyes would be welcome at List of reported UFO sightings, UFO sightings in the United States, and the associated Talk pages. At issue is whether material sourced to confirmed fringe advocates, including Jacques Vallée, Ann Druffel, and Martin Shough, passes WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:FRINGE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be a good idea to revisit the WP:LISTCRIT. Sourcing to the news, in particular, seems to be poorly attested-to. jps (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is we are getting list entries for “incidents” not covered by WP:FRIND sources — like this [5] cited to Ann Druffel, and this [6] cited to Martin Shough — both UFOlogists whose work is claimed to be "scientific" because it has been uploaded to or - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The steadfast promotion of non-FRIND material continues (here, here, here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have warnd Yann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in two ways to stop with this WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There you show your true face. You accuse me of spreading fringe theories, but you claim that this is not a real CIA report? Wow! THAT IS a conspiracy theory!
Then I repeat what I wrote on Talk:List of reported UFO sightings. I don't think UFOs are extraterrestrial. I have never said that, and I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Most of UFO reports are not even about real objects. Yet they are interesting phenomena. Among thousands of reports, about several hundreds are yet unexplained.
I don't think any government hides anything about UFOs. But Ruppelt's book shows very well how the US government (and may be several others), through mismanagement and lack of coordination, could give the impression of hiding something. This is more a lesson on communication and governance than anything else.
Then you accuse me of not being competent enough to edit that article. That's quite arrogant. I have read a lot of books and various documents, and not only from supporters of the ET hypothesis. Can you say the same? Nobody is required to prove a qualification to write something here anyway. And BTW I have been here longer than you, and I know these policies very well, but your interpretation of RS is quite nonsense IMO.
You accuse me of Wikipedia:Advocacy, which read Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas. Again you are wrong. I don't try to promote any personal belief or agenda. I just try to improve some articles on UFOs. Yann (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You reverted all the sourced text I added, but there is a case (Allagash Abductions) there referenced by, which is in WP blacklist. There are many more referenced by unreliable sources (,,,, etc. ). Why not removing them? Yann (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how come is a reliable source, but the ones I provided are not? They are at least of the same quality, or probably better. Yann (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for mentioning twofour awful sources that needed to be removed. I have removed them. As for the rest of your rant, I think you may be suffering from the misapprehension that having been active on this site for 20 years must somehow make you an expert in all areas of this site. You clearly do not have experience with matters relating to WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In UFO sightings in the United States, most cases don't even have a reference... Double standard anyone? Yann (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, just too many people not following Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even ignoring the poor sourcing and dubious use made of such sources, the entire structure of the List of reported UFO sightings seems problematic to me. The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quite agree with you here. I would start the list only after WW2, and separate obvious hoaxes, clear misinterpretations, etc. from unexplained sightings. Yann (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A list consisting only of 'unexplained sightings' would still be problematic, since it implies a common explanation. And you seem to be advocating subjective inclusion criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, "unexplained sightings" doesn't mean they have a common explanation. They are just unexplained. And no, I don't advocate a subjective inclusion criteria. Yann (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Unexplained" by whom? There are a number of sightings which are claimed to be "unexplained" which are clearly explained. There are obscure sightings which are "unexplained" because they're obscure and no one has bothered to debunk them. There are sightings which have many different plausible mundane explanations, but since no one knows which is correct because the evidence is scant, the sighting remains "unexplained". "Unexplained" is not a reasonable standard by which we can group anything. jps (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least unexplained by the government bodies which study UFOs reports. That's between 5 to 20%, depending of the country and the group which study them. Note that these do not include reports in a category "lack of data", which represents an additional 20 to 30%. Yann (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Government bodies which study UFOs reports" is a pretty miserable approach. The problem is that there are a variety of governments around the world and within those governments, various bodies have adopted different approaches that range from the absurd to the haphazard to the niggling. There does not seem to be a consistent manner in which such "studies" have taken place and so we are stuck. These percentages you are quoting are largely made up based on arbitrary inclusion criteria and so that's not going to cut it for us. jps (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The conflation of alleged 'fiery disks' from 1440 BC with 'close encounters and abductions' and recent unexplained sightings by civil and military aircrew as 'UFO sightings' appears to me to be synthesis, promoting fringe claims that there is some sort of single explanation for disparate accounts over millennia. It is a list of 'stuff ufologists like to present as evidence for something or other', compiled apparently by Wikipedia contributors who wish to do the same. Agreed. The reason that it is set up like this, however, is that this sort of "synthesis" is one that is seen in some reliable sources. The last time I fought this battle, I was content to include any incident that was mentioned in sources about UFOs that were even vaguely reliable. Skepticial debunkings often mention these "historical" UFO claims in the context of arguing that these compendiums are what make up the entire fringe oeuvre. Whether and how we decide what the best standards for inclusion and sourcing that can be used to do this are is the question I would like to see resolved. When I last tried to do this, I couldn't really get enough people interested to form a consensus, so I just did removal haphazardly based mostly on whether or not I could find a source. Now it may be a good idea to be a bit more discerning in which sources we would use to allow for inclusion. Happy to see this ball rolling. jps (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A fair amount of cruft has been removed and some of the parent articles needed reappraisal, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO-Memorial Ängelholm. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusion between the facts and the interpretation

There is a big confusion here. Sure, claiming that UFOs are from outer space is a fringe theory. But puting the whole subject into FRINGE, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even the US Air Force acknowledges that some sightings are unexplained. Yann (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of things go unexplained. Expecting an explanation for everything is wishful thinking... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And "unexplained" according to who? There are plenty of mundane explanations published in reliable sources for notable UFO sightings, yet popular media and UFO enthusiasts prefer the "unexplained" tag because it generates debate and interest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many things remained unexplained because there simply a lack reliable observations available to base an interpretation. That something is unexplained cannot be used as evidence of any interpretation. Paul H. (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. But we have List of unsolved problems in astronomy (I started this), and even a whole category: Category:Unsolved problems in astronomy. Which means to me that unsolved or unexplained issues have a place in an encyclopedia when backed up by sources. Yann (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference is that there are reliable sources which call various problems "unsolved" in the context of astronomy. In contrast, when dealing with a subject that is entirely WP:FRINGE such as this one, individual instances are called "unexplained" when others argue they have been explained and there isn't anything like consensus sourcing to decide who is right and who is wrong. If we went by WP:FRIND, then we would probably have to conclude that there are no "unexplainable" sightings. While there are ones that are so poorly attested to as to permit certain thresholds of ambiguity, the argument that only "conclusive" identifications are what counts ends up just kicking the can towards a question of what constitutes a "conclusive" identification. And, what's worse, fringe advocates tend to muddy the waters when it comes to such conclusive identifications when it suits their interests. See Roswell UFO incident, for example, which is about as "conclusively identified" as any UFO incident you care to name. The idea that we wouldn't include Roswell on a list of UFO sightings because it is "identified" violates, minimally, the principle of least astonishment, as far as I'm concerned. jps (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alas, it is unmistakeable that the entire subject is inextricably linked to fringe speculation and there is no way we can disambiguate which ideas are not fringe and which ones are. In spite of the breathless reports the have made the rounds in erstwhile reliable sources in recent years, it takes reading only a few sane investigations to identify that the "unexplained" sensationalism is just that. To take just a quick example, your hope to use Jacques Vallée as a source is an immediate WP:REDFLAG. This is a guy who argues with a straight face that the most plausible explanations for most UFOs is that they are interdimensional disembodied spirits. I have found literally no independent sources that take him seriously and this is so disconfirming as to call into question almost any claim he makes including that a particular "incident" is one that should be meaningfully classified as a "UFO". jps (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there are serious sources which make clear which cases have mundane explanations and which ones do not. Since we should only use these sources, I don't see the issue.
I agree that Vallée is not reliable for the interpretation of UFO sightings. However, as I said above, we should separate fact reports and interpretation. I understand your PoV. Let's agree to disagree. Anyway, there are other sources for these cases, as I have shown on Talk:UFO sightings in the United States‎. So I will use these other sources. Yann (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia isn't for facts. It's for knowledge. Stating "facts" without knowledgeable commentary is an excellent way to promote fringe topics. Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More to the point - simply listing “facts” without knowledgeable commentary risks violating WP:NOT. Wikipedia should not simply be a directory of UFO sightings. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's exactly what List of reported UFO sightings‎ is (and many other lists BTW). I don't see any interpretation of what are these sightings (which doesn't mean I advocate there should be). Why keeping the article then? Yann (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why keep the article? Because those of us who have considered what to do think there are enough sources out there that it probably would survive AfD. Look, if you can come up with a WP:LISTCRIT that would solve some of this mess, have at it. One idea might be to only include incidents for which there is a standalone article (or, at the very least, a section in another article). Another idea might be to only include incidents that have at least one WP:FRIND source covering it. These are all ideas I have had, but up until now there hasn't been enough of a critical mass to really get the editorial consensus to decide exactly how we should proceed, so imperfection has been the name of the game. Let us know what you think, and, if enough people agree, we'll fix it up. jps (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I propose on the talk page there: adding 14 cases, not currently included, all backed up by a reliable source. Yann (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's what you've done. "Mere mention" is not the right way forward here. What makes those 14 cases WP:PROMINENT enough for inclusion? Surely it's not their inclusion in a compendium from conference proceedings in 1969?! jps (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is about [7]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If not for his internet fame, I doubt this person would be notable. I question whether he is properly identified as an "(author)" in the title. I would think he is more of an "(anti-pornography advocate)" jps (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sahaja Yoga, again

Returned to this article recently after unwatching it for a while, and the fringe had regrown (whitewashing of cult allegations, poorly-sourced medical claims, etc.). There also appears to have been a recent uptick in interest from new(ish) accounts. Could use more eyes. Bon courage (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is definitely in dire need of scrutiny by practitioners of non-promotional encyclopedic writing. –Austronesier (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't as bad as some articles I've read. I did it a once-over. jps (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, this[11] is the version being pushed. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be worth asking Chiswick Chap, he's written most of the Wikipedia articles on yoga from a scholarly perspective. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He does real yoga, which this is a long way from. - Roxy the dog 19:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trindade Island UFO hoax

Trindade Island UFO hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are there better sources for this article? jps (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The picture on that page is probably a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm by no means a lawyer, but looking at Commons explainer on Brazilian copyright I think it's actually ok. Under the pre-1998 copyright law 'documentary' photographs, those meant to document events or situations, are public domain. The photo seems documentary, the reason it was taken was not artistic expression but to document the event. But if someone can speak authoritatively I'll defer. --(loopback) ping/whereis 04:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does that clause count if the event is a hoax and the photographs were faked? In that case are they still 'documentary' photos or are they artistic expression?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes as works of fiction are also copyrighted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't speak Portuguese and have precisely zero knowledge of Brazilian legal precedent, so my knowledge comes entirely from commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Brazil#Photos. Since the page is about to be VfD'd I don't think it matters, but you could ask around on commons to satisfy the curiosity. They do have subject matter experts there. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but the license was wrong. I changed it to PD-Brazil-Photo. Let's see what others on Commons think. Yann (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have AFD'd it, as right now it is wholly unsuitable, and a quick search brought up no better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first sentence in the lead has called this a writing system since 2013[12] but the rest of the lead seems to contradict this assertion. Unless I'm missing something I intend to remove that. If I'm wrong, sorry for bringing this here as a a real unknown writing system isn't fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller: I don't see the contradiction. It's written in an unknown writing system, that may be a legitimate but unknown system or a real-but-constructed (i.e. hoax) system, that has not been observed in any other document. Calling it an otherwise unknown writing system seems eminently apt to me and the rest of the lead makes clear that it being a writing system does not in itself confer any particular form of authenticity. Even if whoever created it was just making stuff up it's still a pretty impressive system with apparently observable rules and internal logic.
There's other stuff in that article (and its revision history) that is far more relevant to WP:FTN than that bit. On the whole, the Voynich is a legitimate area of study (with plenty of reliable mainstream scientists) that just also happens to attract a lot of amateurs, kooks, and conspiracy theorists. The set of amateurs, incidentally, are not by any stretch identical with the "kooks and conspiracy theorists" (though there is probably some overlap) in my experience.
The Voynich isn't my field but I did spend some time reading up on it a few years back (due to its obvious mystical allure, heh) and found the field much more well-behaved than I had expected. Skimming the article now it also seems much improved since last I looked, and the biggest problem is probably that it's a bit long and should be split into sub-articles. Xover (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover So it is definitely a writing system? “ The origins, authorship, and purpose of the manuscript are debated. Various hypotheses have been suggested, including that it is an otherwise unrecorded script for a natural language or constructed language; an unread code, cypher, or other form of cryptography; or simply a meaningless hoax.” inthe lead notwithstanding? Not a code, etc? Doug Weller talk 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller: To the best of my understanding of the terms, yes. In terms of copy-editing I am sure the lead could be made both clearer and less seemingly-contradictory. But A writing system is a method of visually representing verbal communication, based on a script and a set of rules regulating its use, which definition a code or cypher would fall under. To call it a "script" is just to refer to one part of the system without the other (the "set of rules"), so at worst slightly imprecise. If it is a hoax it may still be a writing system, just one constructed artificially with the intent to deceive. The only thing that is actually contradictory is if it turns out that there is no actual system there, just some madman drawing random pretty pictures that look like writing. But in that case the randomness looks enough like a writing system that it has fooled lots of serious mainstream scholars into investigating it and observing possible features of a writing system (see the rest of the article).
But to be clear, if you want to go hog-wild copy-editing it for clarity I have no objection (the locals at Talk:Voynich manuscript might but I don't watch that page often so I don't know how controversial or not that'd be). I am only saying I—as a dabbler and not an expert—see no obvious WP:FRINGE issue in the "writing system" issue. I could be wrong, but that's my take anyway.
BTW, one of the theories that have been investigated regarding the Voynich is that it is written in a known human language, just using a made up alphabet (one reason for which might be in order to "encrypt" it). Think of it as Russian written in either the Cyrillic or Latin script, or Arabic written in either Arabic alphabet or in a Romanization of Arabic (Latin script). There are some linguistic statistical features of it that suggest this may be the case (but like everything else about the Voynich the evidence is not conclusive and no real firm consensus exist among scholars, or it didn't back in 2015 or thereabout anyway). It's what makes the Voynich so fun: there are so many tantalising clues, and yet the only real evidence for its providence point so strongly in the direction of a fraud or hoax. Xover (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I certainly have my own thoughts regarding the manuscript, but I think Doug's objection is well-taken; to call it a "writing system" is to make an assumption which is currently unproven. I am not sure it had to be produced by a madman to not be a writing system, but that seems to me eminently possible, as would production for simple fraudulent motives. As such, in my non-expert opinion, the simplest solution would be to add a qualifier -- an "apparent" writing system or some such. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding an "apparent" there would seem reasonable. I don't think it's necessary, and my copy-editing muscles twitch when I see it, but it would be equally accurate as the status quo IMO. But now we're definitely in "discussions that should happen on Talk:Voynich manuscript and not on WP:FTN"-territory. Xover (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LGBT grooming conspiracy theory

LGBT grooming conspiracy theory (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is there a "mainstream debate" over whether teaching children about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way is a form of "grooming"? Or is this a conspiracy theory? Sources have been marshaled. Brand-new accounts have staked out provocative positions. Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread?? If so, check out all the zany shenanigans at Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory#Conspiracy theory in the name!!! Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect that most of those who object to the way LGBQ topics are taught believe that it isn’t actually being done in a neutral way… but in an affirming (and even promotional) way. And it is that supposedly promotional way of teaching it that they consider to be “Grooming”. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Predicted climate change effects.

I am disputing the use of three refs to source predicted changes of temps in various cities and towns. The refs, all web pages, do not contain the names of the cities concerned in a web page search, but you have to search and guess where to click to find the info, in some clever bit of webmappery.

Discussion can be found here on a user Talk page. Unfortunately, the section has become confusing, but I think the issue is adequately covered in the first few entries of the discussion. Any advice would be welcome, including advice to me along the lines of "wrong as usual Roxy" if that is in fact the case. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 10:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure this is a WP:FRINGE issue, but it does seem that this is minimally going in the wrong direction. Adding subsections to individual pages might be worth doing if there is a consensus way to source, but relying on one source to do this for all of Wikipedia is obviously problematic when it comes to measuring uncertainties. We know that the world is warming. We don't know how much or how quickly that warming will affect individual cities and only have individual studies to say that with certainty. My advice would be to workshop this kind of subsection through a wikiproject or a summary article and only after everyone has the chance to figure out issues of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, then begin a campaign to add it to individual articles. jps (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a WP:FRINGE issue. Agree with jps that adding it as a subsection isn't optimal, as it puts too much emphasis on a single primary source (from a Plos One, decent journal). The study does not claim certainty and has a good confidence interval quantification for text tweaking. It's verifiable easily (one minute work either clicking on a map, or cntl F in the Supplementary Information of the paper). WP:CITY is probably the best place to have a discussion, as WP:PROCC may be a bit biased in favour of inclusion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the only issue with WP:CITY is that its talk page appears a little low-traffic, with most discussions seemingly held on other pages? Though, it is probably still the best place regardless.
When it comes to the paper itself, I suppose there are three separate issues which can be brought up.
Does it describe a plausible scenario globally?: I think the answer is clearly "yes": we all know that the world is warming, and we have discussed the high relevance of its chosen global warming scenario extensively on my talk page.
Is it good at estimating the impacts of this scenario locally?: here, the answer is a little less clear, since the paper "only" used three models, and from my understanding, the models they chose generally have a hotter bias. However, while the full set of 30 or so top models is obviously the most reliable in most circumstances, papers which can do this are incredibly expensive and quite rare: excluding any paper not living up to these criteria from the individual pages is unlikely to be a wise policy.
Is it good at portraying future effects relative to the present climate?: Unfortunately, this is the most problematic part, since the paper can obviously only compare cities with other cities in its dataset, and while it's very extensive (520 cities), it does not appear to be always up to the task. I say this because there are more than a few instances where, according to its projections, two cities somehow "exchange" their climates even as they both get hotter: i.e. Gaza City gets hotter by about 2 degrees and Alexandria gets hotter by about 3 degrees: yet the "Future Climate" of Gaza is listed as Alexandria and vice versa. Same with Abuja and Teresina, or Leon and Gaborone, and perhaps some other such examples. I suspect that the paper would need an even larger dataset to avoid this, but I'm not sure. Perhaps you can explain what causes these results better, as an academic with published papers to your name. :) (Alternatively, perhaps the authors of the paper would be willing to answer enquiries from you on this subject.)
TLDR: I suppose any discussion over this paper, whether held at WP:CITY or elsewhere, ultimately needs to decide whether its methods are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of individual city articles, and also what to do about the cities which somehow "exchange" their climates according to the paper. Technically, simply choosing only the cities not involved in such exchanges will most likely still allow for the section to be added to several hundred pages, but this is still better discussed ahead of time. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The models have a bit of a hot bias, but the CESM ones less so in the mid-term (2050), so I don't think it'll bias the results too much.
The results about Gaza and Alexandria seem wrong, from their database_S1. 2050 Gaza is ever-so-slightly closer to current Gaza than to current Alexandria, and visa versa. The database S2 and the website seems to have made a simple mistake their, excluding self-similarity (they don't make this mistake in the main paper, indicating that "The climate conditions of remaining 23% of cities remained most closely associated with their current climate conditions."). This may be worth sending an email over, to get the webpage and possibly also the paper corrected. I don't have time to pursue this, but feel free to name-drop me / cc me in any email if you think that makes it easier. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's certainly going to take a while if nearly a quarter of the entries in the webpage might need to get corrected before we can include the data!
Interestingly, I just found out one of the main authors of the paper has both his own page and had received this profile in Nature, which is presumably a pretty strong argument in favour of the study's results being WP:NOTABLE.
Either way, I am currently still engaged in a discussion over rewriting/merging the climate crisis page. I am not sure if I want to sort of act on behalf of Wikipedia here as well, though I guess this would have to be done eventually if no-one else steps up. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On further reflection, I might just try something else.
@Twcrowther: This discussion is about the proposed addition of temperature change and city analogue data from the "global analysis of city analogues" paper to relevant city articles on Wikipedia. Right now, a key roadblock is that when using "Cities of the Future" website, some cities appear to "swap" their future climates, in a way which would appear very confusing to Wikipedia readers. We are wondering if this could be clarified/corrected. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transpersonal psychology

Transpersonal psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After doing the cleanup of Stanislav Grof above, I noticed that this page is suffering from a lot of problems. Can others point to good WP:FRIND sources about this "field of study"? It looks to me to be very WP:FRINGE perhaps to the tune of most relevant experts straight-up ignoring it. jps (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through and removed nearly 75K text. I imagine some will not be pleased with this. [13]. jps (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal business studies. jps (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal anthropology. jps (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Lindsay and the Cultural marxism conspiracy theory

Should our article on James A. Lindsay mention his support for the Cultural marxism conspiracy theory? It is the subject of his latest book. More eyes and opinions would be very welcome at Talk:James A. Lindsay MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New book: Academics discussing fringe Egyptology

[14] Not a good title but recommended. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation! A. Parrot (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a fringe theory or just an alternative mental health practice. But it seems like kind of advertisement for this method of psychological treatment and the primary support for its claims is an article in a journal that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on which increases my skepticism. There are reliable sources for EMDR, an apparently related treatment method, but I know that EMDR's effectiveness has been studied and it's pretty well accepted among therapists which doesn't seem to be the case with "havening".

I don't have enough knowledge about WP:MEDRS to nominate the page for deletion but I thought I'd bring it over here to see what the regulars at this board thought. The reason I came across this article is I just closed an AFD discussion for a practitioner of this method, an "excutive coach", which was closed as Delete and I hadn't heard about this methodology that she practiced. I'm interested in hearing whether or not you think this this is a valid alternative practice or just a promotional article for an invented form of mental health treatment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it is worth, the Journal of Pschophysiology is published by Hogrefe Publishing Group. Per its Instructions to Authors, the journal is peer reviewed. (The International Journal of Psychophysiology is another publication.) - Donald Albury 21:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The threshold for MEDRS is higher than just being peer-reviewed. We are typically waiting for secondary studies: literature reviews, meta-analysis, etc. At least, for being able to claim clinical significance (see relevant XKCD) in wikivoice as 'a thing that actually happens' rather than 'a thing someone claims happens'.
I'll expand, probably worth checking Type D personality as this treatment's success is based on evaluation on that scale. I know there's a significant concern with personality testing broadly speaking, but I'm not sure if this falls into that category or not. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's a dodgy primary source (not even in PUBMED, let alone MEDLINE indexed). A better, but still primary, source is PMID:30321440 which says this therapy doesn't work. There appears to be no more academic sourcing. I don't think this is notable. Bon courage (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project Veritas and Covid Vaccines

Project Veritas released a new covid-related video recently and as usual it's full of lies and misdirection, so expect an uptick in traffic on the article. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:44BA:33D4:C395:AEEB (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 167 page watchers, a third active. It will be dealt with. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's already happening on O'Keefe's talk page. The usual "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah: that proves it!" --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]