Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Categories for discussion

• 02 Jul 2024 – Category:Hijacked journals (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Fgnievinski (t · c); see discussion

Featured article candidates

• 15 Jun 2024 – Ethics (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Phlsph7 (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 04 Jun 2024 – Answers Research Journal (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (t · c); see discussion
• 10 Mar 2024 – Roswell incident (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Feoffer (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 20 Jun 2024 – Out-of-place artifact (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Argument cat (t · c); see discussion
• 14 Jun 2024 – Polyvagal theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Ian Oelsner (t · c); see discussion

Peer reviews

• 16 Jun 2024 – Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Femke (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 26 Jun 2024 – Climatic Research Unit email controversy (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Climatic Research Unit email leak by PhotographyEdits (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be merged

• 03 Jun 2024 – There was no such thing as Palestinians (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Golda Meir by TarnishedPath (t · c); see discussion
• 23 May 2024 – Thirteenth floor (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Triskaidekaphobia by Awesome Aasim (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Mar 2024 – Superstitions in Muslim societies (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Islam and magic by VenusFeuerFalle (t · c); see discussion
• 27 Jan 2024 – Barber and Calverley (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Theodore X. Barber by Animalparty (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 08 Jul 2024 – List of common misconceptions (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by WhatamIdoing (t · c); see discussion
• 30 Dec 2023 – Scholarly approaches to mysticism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion
• 23 Sep 2023 – Witchcraft (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Skyerise (t · c); see discussion

Articles for creation

• 05 Jul 2024 – Draft:Charles Ortleb (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Thriley (t · c) was declined by SafariScribe (t · c) on 06 Jul 2024

Evolution of human intelligence

Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [1] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Macrobiotics

A new user has just created this article Macrobiotics and is removing sourced content from Macrobiotic diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

See related discussion [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Did a WP:BLAR since the macrobiotic diet article is the same topic. (Add: but TruthIan  – Yeah, I know – is repeatedly reverting. Needs attention from NPOV-aware editors.) Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Genealogy of Jesus

This is about Talk:Genealogy of Jesus#Set something straight. Why does it pertain to WP:FTN? Because the guru of a WP:FRINGE cult should not be WP:CITED inside the article about a mainstream idea. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Steiner’s Christology was, however, quite heterodox, and hardly compatible with official church doctrine.²² Among the eccentricities of Steiner’s esoteric Christianity was the notion of two different Jesuses being involved in the incarnation process – the “Nathanic” and “Solomonic” Jesus – born to separate pairs of parents that were both named Mary and Joseph, and belonging to two different lines of descent from David.²³ The association of Christ with the “light-bringer” Lucifer was undoubtedly another controversial point, accompanied by a reinvention of Satan in terms of the Zoroastrian divine antagonist, Ahriman. Breaking with the official dogma of existing churches did not matter, however, for in the early 1920s Steiner’s movement established its own church, the “Christian Society” (Christengemeinschaft), with new sacraments, new liturgies, and new ecclesiastical arrangements.²⁴

— Asprem, PhD thesis, p. 507

This is the quote from Asprem. Source: [3]. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

See also Johnson, Marshall D. (2002). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-57910-274-6. Retrieved 26 June 2024. The text is available at Google Books.

First published as Johnson, Marshall D. (1969). Black, Matthew (ed.). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-521-07317-2. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is clear to me that both WP:RS explicitly deride Steiner's claim of the two Jesus kids. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Galileo affair

• Galileo affair (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Motion is relative, and it was just about Galileo's opinions, so the Church was right. See also Conservapedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Why Galileo was condemned is a tricky story, probably it was because of politics rather than science or religious dogma. And, yup, while he boldly posited a hypothesis which later turned out to be true, it does not mean that he offered enough evidence, according to the scholarly customs of his age. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Historicity of the Book of Mormon

I've gotten into a bit of a disagreement about whether Mormon apologetics are WP:DUE in this article, and would appreciate additional eyes to let me know if I'm out of line. 68.170.73.15 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Mormon aplogetics should be mentioned, but never as WP:THETRUTH. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just stumbled upon Life of Joseph Smith from 1827 to 1830. The article repeatedly uses wikivoice to say Smith was actively transcribing from plates, which isn't in agreement with mainstream scholarship about languages, angels, etc. If I remove all of the obviously fringe content, I'm afraid there won't be much left. 68.170.73.15 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse scraps US filming plans after outcry from Native American Groups

See [4] Doug Weller talk 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg

This IP [5] that has a history of making POV edits on race and intelligence articles is reverting well sourced content on the Helmuth Nyborg article sourced to Danish news sources. Nyborg ‎is a well known far-right activist who attends neo-nazi and white nationalist events and meetings. For example, Nyborg has attended the Scandza Forum (Guide to Kulchur) as Hope Not Hate have noted [6]. For background, there is some information about the Scandza Forum here with other sources. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

For further background, the source I added is this source [7]. It was written in Danish but it can easily be translated. It definitely passes WP:RS. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have followed up at Talk:Helmuth_Nyborg#Far-right. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Also see Curtis Dunkel 51.6.193.169 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Rasashastra

Could do with some eyes, perhaps. Recent edits seem to have added undue fringe material about "purification" of mercury to the Toxicity section. Brunton (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Some ufo edits

Could someone please check this edit[8] which uses the fringe journal Journal of Scientific Exploration as well as the edits on Roswell by the same editor, User:Mcorrlo [9]. Also see their talk page for warnings about using the minor edit tick box and other problems. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Erie Stone

• Erie Stone (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Does this need WP:MEDRS sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say no, this is a historical article. Also it would be hard to find MEDRS sources about an unknown substance. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Only if it ventures biomedical/health claims. I have to wonder though WTF the category "traditional knowledge" is, that this article belongs to! Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much danger from "There's a substance, we're not sure what, that Native Americans used in traditional medicine." It's just not imitable, unlike, say, black salve. If someone wants to claim that a specific substance that might be Erie stone might have specific properties, then we have something we may need to deal with. Compare and contrast the much more discussed and robust Silphium.

Basically, I think MEDRS kind of requires a risk that someone will take the article as something they should try. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 08:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Feldenkrais method at RSN

Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN#Inclusion of medical evidence review at Feldenkrais Method. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Now WP:RSN#Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rajiv Dixit

• Rajiv Dixit (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Efforts are being made for a long time now to whitewash this article about a crank mainly known for spreading disinformation and unscientific health-related claims. Take a look at the talk page discussion too.[10] Thanks Orientls (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)