Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#History of Astrology

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Shortcuts WP:FTNWP:FTN WP:FT/NWP:FT/N Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: 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.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Just asking a question.

Is Plurality (identity) a WP:FRINGE/ALT topic? I added a talk page banner explaining that so I just want to make sure.

It seems like an alternative theoretical formulation because they exist. - User:IPOfAFlower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 20:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can call an area which has a, to quote the HRP, small body of scholarship but that the rest of the field hasn't really studied in detail FRINGE/ALT. As the section header implies, those sections more typically and appropriately apply to specific formulations and theories, and Plurality (identity) seems like it may be broad enough to have multiple theories on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the basic center of this the proposal (medical or otherwise) that people so completely disassociate as to seemingly actually comparmentalize their selves, to where they can interact (I guess?) as separate entities? And anything else then hangs off that central core topic? So basically, I suppose, how the Hulk is depicted as an analogy? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it's basically an online subculture like otherkin, and should be treated as such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I’m happy with this statement in Otherkin: “ Because of the neurodivergence, transgender people who identify as otherkin are common.”. That only has one source. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y alright. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 18:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin is seen as a religous thing and is treated as sucj Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 18:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there? The lead of the plurality (identity) article explicitly mentions tulpas, which are an entirely religious concept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Mobile, at nkd protest) Sources for plurality make Tulpamancy out to be all intentionally/unintentionally non disorded created system.s

Though of course the practices are similar to praying and there are theries about god being a tulpa. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 18:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about queer spaces; Its obvious that Plurality intertwines with it in a major way. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 19:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there's not really a hard line between strongly held belief and religion is there?

The way I see it, one can have a strong belief about anything, while a religion is usually organised, has canonical texts and a community of believers. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A religion is not always any of one of those things. An organized religion is simply one type of religion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even organized religions don't always fit that definition. Unitarian Universalism is an organized religion with a community of believers, but completely lacks canonical texts. Several branches of Quakerism also lack any canonical text. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be more clearly labeled as an internet subculture and not a medical diagnoses. LDW5432 (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its treated as an identity with subculture elements built off of it. - Flower (she/her; Accounts)) 13:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I kinda want the article to reflect that there is alternative research.

The main alt theory is non-disordedness, so that warrents it imo. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 18:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fully understand what the acronym HRP stands for Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 19:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to note about this topic as a whole is its WP:Obscure Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 18:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the problem with this topic is that it's very closely related to the well known and highly controversial topic of Dissociative identity disorder, which is disputed as to whether it's even a real phenomenon or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is a major issue, though this article also includes DID as partial scope.

One of the things that I haven't worked into the article yet is the Problem of Other minds Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 19:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's people LARPing as having DID. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. This article includes Tulpamancy and has been linked to Plurality in its own right -Flower 24.155.147.107 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some research and cultural publications connect multiplicity (and by extension, plurality) with a community that is based on tulpamancy,

24.155.147.107 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It's an internet subculture of people pretending to have DID. We should not be treating this seriously. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct approach. LDW5432 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not per the sources clearly seperating DID as a part of it but not it entirely Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 13:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is the case that does not mean it's not an actual subculture worthy of documentation. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 01:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was considering an RFC but didn't want to go through the trouble and this is the next best spot for a conversation. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 19:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This VICE article is cited 8 times in the article. It is written by Tori Telfer, a freelance writer, who doesn't seem to have any relevant credentials in psychology/psychiatry and hasn't been published in the discipline. She writes true crime/non fiction novels. I think the use of that source should be evaluated, as I don't think it passes the BESTRS (MEDRS?) muster. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not medrs but JCS(?) is also editing the article often enough so I doubt there are medrs issues atm Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 19:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telfer is also used for culture related things w/ backing from peer reviewed papers Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 19:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telfer is also used for culture related things

But this is a psych related thing, isn't it? I don't think we should be mixing the scientific view with the tumblr view. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is concensus that this article is both; At some point i would like to split it into Mutliplicity (phenomenon) Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 20:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a split. One issue I can see is that the glossary consists of terms that are sourced to peer-reviewed scientific journals and the aforementioned VICE article, resulting in false equivalence. I also wonder if other editors think there are WP:FALSEBALANCE issues with the article. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources define them but vice was just first Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 20:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing iirc is all terms cited to vice are used within the article itself; feel free to remove ones that ain't and are attributed to vice. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 20:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though, if we split it, the Glossary should be its own article. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 20:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be left if we split? This already isn't a very long article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

its future for a reason. its not even close enough atm. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 21:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the article for a month or so now and yeah, I would say my main concern with it is related to WP:FALSEBALANCE. The problem with this topic is kind of the classic WP:FRINGE problem where it just doesn't get much attention from mainstream figures in the relevant field, even if it's notable enough for an article. There's also the fact that analyzed through one lens it's medical but there are other frameworks for analysis that definitely aren't--there's the subcultural/internet phenomenon aspect, there's philosophical claims about personality, and those can and should be covered without using MEDRS sourcing. I think the internet subculture aspect is being reasonably well-covered in the article, but I think some of the existing sourcing could be used to make it more clear that the claims about non-disordered plurality are controversial (and controversial in a way that's distinct from the "does DID even exist" conversation). CarringtonMist (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's partially why its a WP:FRINGE/ALT topic in my head. We can also disregard all stuff specifically about DID due to it not mentioning the identity at all, least it become a POV Fork. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 19:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

though, one other thing that can be said very easily is in page 110 of "Introducing Plurals" (too long to quote) - Flower (she/her; Accounts)) 15:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

essentially "But since tulpagenic plurals do not meet the diagnostic criterion for DID (nor perhaps for any mental disorder), they may show that being multiple, and even having a plural identity, is not in and of itself unhealthy.⁹" - Flower (she/her; Accounts)) 15:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People convincing themselves they have a mental illness to fit in IS unhealthy. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are they convincing themselves that they have a mental illness when most people directly say they don't? Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 13:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know a handful of people who identify this way, and while I'm not suggesting citing my anecdotal claims for any article use, I can say with absolute certainty that not one of them identifies this as a mental illness.

As it was explained to me by the first person I met who identified this way (who got pestered with questions because I'm a giant, curious nerd), "It's more a matter of different moods having different identities, and sometimes, there's not a lot of communication between them."

My experiences may be an outlier, but I would say that, absent any reliable sources which show that most people who identify this way claim to have DID, the claim that they're 'pretending' to have a mental illness isn't worth the pixels it displays on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says this via a licenced Therapist. - Flower (she/her; Accounts)) 13:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yep, it would be WP:DUE and WP:OR to add it to the article right now. - Flower (she/her; Accounts)) 19:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth changing the title to clarify that it's about a psychological phenomenon – an article titled "Plurality (identity)" makes me think it's about pure mathematics or identifying plural things in an abstract sense. YAQUBROLI ^{T | C} 13:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the WP:COMMONNAME at the moment. As I said, I want to split to Multiplicity (phenomenon) and Plurality (identity) when the article has enough content to warrent a split. Previous attempts to split the article failed as they where merged back into it. - Flower (she/her; Accounts) 15:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. There is no real reason we need to declare whether a topic is one type of fringe or another. It is fine for us to pay attention to the fringe guideline and work to put our best foot forward in terms of the principles of encyclopedia writing, but falling into categorical traps as though this is going right great wrongs in the world is a mistake. Talkpage notes are best used to put a stop to perpetual arguing, and, right now, there is little conflict that I see about article writing even among those who have differing opinions on the topics discussed in the article. This article is very much about a developing topic. As of a decade ago, there was basically zero literature talking about those who self-identified as as plural (this is partially why so much is inherited from the Vice article. For better or worse, they were one of the first outfits to notice this community). We are fortunate that we have a handful of sources from various publications documenting the community existence. As long as the trend continues where more usable sources are created about this, I think we'll be fine and we don't need to try to paste labels on talkpages. jps (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a label thats mainly for this noticeboard and for sending people to WP:FRINGE. 24.155.147.107 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these edits reasonable? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_the_Portuguese_discovery_of_Australia&diff=1321324494&oldid=1321245950]

Thanks. Just to much for me to deal with in my condition. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That just looks like gnome editing for missing information in the citations and some other related edits to citations, to me. Katzrockso (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-evaluation counseling and Co-counselling are both currently in a rather poor state and have been for probably a decade or more now. While there was some attention given to both by fairly experienced editors (and thank both of them for the attempt honestly), I'm considering a more drastic stubification or possibly even noming an AFD. Some other opinions on what could be excised and what might be salvageable would be welcome though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look at those articles and I think I have some fissile material down the back of the sofa which I’ll gladly supply if that will be of any help. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thread on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/scientology/comments/1otz0y4/harvey_jackins_fbi_files/

I think an AfD on both is the way to go. I just don't see the notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD is right. There's coverage in reliable sources, but much is old and not readily accessible online. I'd favour merging Re-evaluation counseling into Co-counselling, and further merging in Harvey Jackins and Tim Jackins, while trimming away the primary and self-published sources.

New sources: https://sk.sagepub.com/book/mono/psychotherapy-and-politics/chpt/beyond-therapy; https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine27; https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-theory-in-counseling-and-psychotherapy/chpt/reevaluation-counseling; https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203013526-9&type=chapterpdf; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ppi.1564; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s42738-021-00072-3; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515079508258695; https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004330542/B9789004330542-s023.xml; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1752-0118.1992.tb01357.x; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CpkIEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA445&dq=co-counselling+is+briefly+mentioned&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiysbG11YORAxUMV0EAHUbjNaEQuwV6BAgJEAc#v=onepage&q&f=false Fences&Windows 16:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also John Heron (social scientist), which needs improvement. He did more than co-counselling so shouldn't be merged in. Fences&Windows 16:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing RfC at NPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment. TarnishedPath^talk 05:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as any discussion here, whether Conversion therapy is pseudoscience is exactly the kind of thing we discuss. same with Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy, whether they are the same pseudoscience, and with the pseudoscience aspects of Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy.

Any discussion of the politics involved (there are many editors with strong feeling on that) are off-topic here. IMO this would include discussion about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Genspect, and Therapy First. Just because a political group espouses pseudoscience, that does not mean that we should allow it to become a WP:COATRACK for inserting politics into a noticeboard about fringe theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really baffling comment! There is actually nothing wrong with discussing political groups who aspouse pseudoscience here, as can be seen going back 18 years in the archives. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse's comment has confused me. My takeaway from Guy Macon's comment was not that the political groups who espouse pseudoscience should not be discussed here. The groups themselves, to the extent that we are discussing their promotion of pseudoscience are fair game, and always have been. Right, Guy? VdSV9•♫ 12:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. Talk about the pseudoscience. Name the politicians and political groups that promote it. Stay away from all the other things you dislike or like about those politicians or political groups. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfiqar (the sword of Ali) has been repeatedly edited to insert fantastic claims using unreliable sources. For example, one citation claims that: the one true sword of Ali from the 7th century has been found. According to the CIA, the Shah of Iran sent a "sacred artifact" (ie. the sword) to Kuwait. The real reason that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was to retrieve the holy relic. (The sword is claimed to be worth 27X more than the Mona Lisa. But, they are taking offers for 4.3 billion Swiss Francs.)[1] This reference was used to support the authenticity of the claim that this sword was possessed by Ali.

See contributions from:

• User:Меч Пророка (Google translate from Russian: "Sword of the Prophet")
• User:Sword Nr.1 (myself and another editor left messages on the talk page)
• and most recently User:Project Sword

This has been going on since April. Project Sword just reinserted the section two days after I removed it and left a note on the talk page. --mikeu ^talk 15:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: see global contribs to the corresponding de and ru wiki articles.[2] --mikeu ^talk 15:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See latest edits. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need some eyes here. The article is having unusual amount of activity and removal of sourced content. Zalaraz (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at it now.

(Not to be confused with Indian mathematics#Vedic period, which is a real thing in the history of India and has nothing to do with the Vedic Mathematics book.)

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some oversight from experienced contributors regarding Draft:Allatra, recently "draftified" article about a pseudo-scientific Ukrainian cult.

The article was created in early November 2025 and expanded substantially by a small number of editors. A brief summary of key edits: 8 November 2025 – The article was created in mainspace by User:Noospherix, with a substantial initial draft. 9 November 2025 – Major expansions were added by User:Time4Tinfoil, including new sections and additional sourcing. 16–18 November 2025 – Further refinements, cleanup, and additional content by User:Noospherix and User:Federhalter. 19 November 2025 – User:Deriannt applied several serious maintenance tags: undue weight, unreliable sources, undisclosed paid, submitted the page for speedy deletion (A7/G10), and then moved the article from mainspace to draftspace with the edit summary:

“Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): Possible UPE and socking concerns; vet through AfC for proper review.”

These are significant actions, but when asked on the talk page to identify specific issues in the article text that justify SD, tagging or draftification, only broad or general concerns have been raised (e.g., alleging UPE, LLM-generation, or coordinated editing). Concrete examples—such as specific claims lacking citations, demonstrably unreliable sources, or points of undue weight—have not yet been provided.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the article is perfect; there is room for improvement in sourcing and balance. However, based on reviewing the content, the issues do not appear to rise to the level that would normally justify draftification, and the related concerns have not been substantiated with diffs or policy-grounded examples.

Before considering whether the article should be restored to mainspace, I would appreciate input from editors experienced with fringe-adjacent topics, Eastern European sources, and contentious-topic vetting. Guidance on whether the article warrants remaining in draftspace, or whether normal mainspace editing would be more appropriate, would be very helpful. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I did not create the article. I became aware of it after it had been created and made several relatively minor edits. Thank you very much for your attention to this. Noospherix (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God the lede is too long and the article appears incredibly unfocused.

the article needs significant additional work. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific. One challenge is that the group itself is operating a sprawling web of influence on multiple continents, which doesn't lend itself to simplicity. Noospherix (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(uninvolved editor) I have started on this work. - Flower (she/her; Accounts) 21:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the updates. I fixed a couple of typos and we can move some of the information that had been in the lede into other sections later. Noospherix (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley These are significant actions, but when asked on the talk page to identify specific issues in the article text that justify SD, tagging or draftification, only broad or general concerns have been raised (e.g., alleging UPE, LLM-generation, or coordinated editing) – I didn’t expect such a loose comment, because any experienced editor can clearly see that the article is problematic. I hope you’ve seen this: [3]. I also marked a few unreliable sources on Mark Burns (pastor)’s page: [4]. The whole article functions as an attack page in its current form and would require a full rewrite. Deriannt (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: Editors reviewing the AllatRa page should be sure to review Draft talk:Allatra#Potential for future vandalism by Allatra about vandalism that may occur as a result of AllatRa engagement in this process. Noospherix (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From reviewing the earlier non-NPOV version of the article [5], it appears that the draft may have been structured in a way that uses Wikipedia to advance an anti-Allatra narrative, potentially involving coordinated editing by narrowly focused accounts. The inclusion of sections such as Draft talk:Allatra#Potential for future vandalism by Allatra also appears pre-emptively framed in a manner that could deflect scrutiny or accountability. Deriannt (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coordination between the people editing this. The flurry of activity is because there is interest in this topic. The burden is on you to prove coordination. You asserted UPE and use of sock puppets, which is a clear sign of bad faith engagement. Noospherix (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coordination is evident and easily verifiable; there is nothing further to prove here. If you have any other accounts, please disclose them. Deriannt (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are definitely operating in bad faith: I do not know any of the other people editing this account. I do not have any other accounts. You assert coordination is 'easily verifiable.' Verify it, then. I'll wait. In the meantime, I hope other editors observe your baseless accusations. Noospherix (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noospherix Please keep in mind the guidance at WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK. If you believe there is substantive evidence that I am acting in bad faith, you are of course free to raise the matter through the appropriate noticeboards. Deriannt (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know for certain you are making a baseless accusation against me, at least. And, yes, I will pursue the appropriate remedies if that doesn't stop. Thanks. Noospherix (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deriannt - I'm still hoping that you will show the evidence of UPE and coordination that you keep alleging. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley The evidence of coordination has already been sent to a CheckUser administrator. I am currently gathering additional information related to potential UPE, which will also be provided by email. You may request the relevant details from the appropriate Wikipedia functionaries if needed. Deriannt (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Please let me know where you are posting all this so I can finally meet the people I'm colluding with. The reason I can assert that you are acting in bad faith (at least with regards to any charges you are making about me) is that I have first hand knowledge that I am not connected to any other editor. It is unusual that you are making such an extensive effort to pursue something I know to be spurious, which only raises more questions.

@Salimfadhley I am ready to move forward with either gutting this article to a barebones skeleton, or starting a new one. We can perhaps continue that discussion on the Talk page. Thanks. Noospherix (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:NPA and ensure that comments remain focused on content rather than contributors. Given the previous policy issues raised regarding your edits on the Mark Burns (pastor) article, it would be advisable to review the relevant policies again to avoid repeating similar violations[6][7]. Deriannt (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not author that section. I don't know the person who did. I made source updates at your suggestion which you thanked me for. Noospherix (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox on that draft says:

• Pseudo-Science
• Religious
• Political
• Climate change denial
• Disinformation
• Promotes a pro-Russian worldview
• Political disinformation
• Medical misinformation
• Hoax technologies

That's quite a list, but I don't see some of those in the draft. Where does it talk about medical misinformation or hoax technologies? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the article does not yet cover all of these cases, but the referenced sources certainly do. If it would make sense to break each of those out into their own sections, that's something to consider doing. Noospherix (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be in the article and be properly sourced before you can put it in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will add sections to the article with citations. Here is an example of an article on AllatRa's medical misinformation. Noospherix (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon There are many instances of misinformation in the article, especially where LLM-provided references([8],[9],[10] etc.) were inserted and now require manual verification. I’m relieved that experienced editors are reviewing it, and once the issues are properly addressed, I’ll be happy to move it to mainspace myself. Deriannt (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a start, could we look at Mark Burns (pastor)#Involvement with Allatra, rip out all of the claims that are based solely on unreliable or primary sources. and see what is left? Let's get our duck in a row regarding our coverage in article space, then see if we can build on that in draft space. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However one wants to frame it, it is indisputable that Allatra has made multiple claims of Mark Burns' involvement. It is also undisputed that he has traveled with and been photographed with AllatRa leader Ovytsnova. This is something that Burns himself has publicized. Noospherix (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another instance of Burns publicizing his relationship with AllatRa. Noospherix (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those WP:PRIMARY sources obviously show his involvement, and he is prominently mentioned on [ https://allatra.org/ ], but have any independent secondary sources covered his involvement? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I understand the concern. We are likely ahead of such coverage, despite the obvious facts of the situation. I will report back with links to any such coverage. I understand also the desire to avoid primary sources, but when two primary sources each independently confirm their involvement with each other, that seems like something that should be taken more seriously than if one source claimed it unilaterally. Noospherix (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, especially if it is from both parties explicitly. - Flower (she/her; Accounts) 02:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I advise that you start with reading the following pages. WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS. Print them out and study them. If there is anything you don't understand, ask a question at WP:HELPDESK, quoting the exact wording you are having trouble with. Note that the policy does not say that you can't use a primary source, but rather explains when you can and can not us one. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a trained historian, I am familiar with such concerns. I think this section applies to the interlock between these two explicit primary sources. "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Noted. Noospherix (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue Guy Macon is pointing out is that if something is only mentioned in primary sources, it may have an issue with WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT to include it in the article. Katzrockso (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is clear. However, if two primary sources are both making reciprocal endorsements about the other, then those claims should be able to be cited factually without significant concern. Any issue would come from excess interpretation of those primary source assertions. Noospherix (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the Mark Burns article have been reviewed and updated. Noospherix (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a clear violation of WP:BLP, so it was removed entirely. I’d like to request again that primary sources not be used to support synthesis or serious allegations. Also, please keep in mind the guidance at WP:NOTNEWS. Deriannt (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not author that section, so your comments would be best directed to the person who did author it. Noospherix (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Age of Disclosure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disruptive IP edits coincident with film release date, off wiki canvassing (_of_age_of/), threats to editors ([11]) and aggressive fringe lobbying at the Talk page RfC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may need some administrator attention on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already semi-protected for a week: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=The_Age_of_Disclosure&type=protect. Fences&Windows 18:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "aggressive fringe lobbying" looks to be justified and definitely not be fringe. In fact the "lobbyist" was correct, and you were lobbying to block correction of verifiably false information. ~2025-37306-20 (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reform UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The section Reform UK#Climate change is full of anti-science-propaganda without the proper context. See also Talk:Reform UK#WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used look fine and it's OK to present fringe views so long as they're not in wikivoice. Some more of the scientific response reported in those sources might be included. Fences&Windows 19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe views need to be qualified by non-fringe sources, for WP:NPOV. Such sources do not need to mention Reform. Bon courage (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not be improper synthesis? There are ample non-fringe reactions in the coverage of Reform's fringe positions. Fences&Windows 13:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows No, this is core policy (WP:FRINGESUBJECTS):

Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included.

Of course don't do any synthesizing in presenting the mainstream view, but it needs to be stated. Bon courage (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bon courage, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fringe_theories_and_synthesis_policies_-_contradiction?. Fences&Windows 21:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Came here from the Reform Uk page to comment hope that is allowed).It's not propaganda it is including the views of a deputy of Reform.Some opposing views have been included but I would support more being included. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section needs to be reworked. Summarize more… list every instance of climate denial less. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the way to go. Remember that climate change denial is based on kettle logic: those people do not care about which arguments they use for or against what exactly. The only goal is that the energy market is not regulated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a short summary about the fact that they deny environmental considerations like climate change for policy decisions be enough? Indeed, WP shouldn't just be a quote farm of their arguments. If there's no secondary RS for that, then it's usually UNDUE. ~2025-35304-53 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not be enough we should be including quotes too and refutations of the views from those quotes. Tices views have been covered by reliable sources and thats whats in the climate change section. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 10:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan Haidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Jonathan_Haidt#Heritability_of_iq

A non-ECR editor added some content criticizing Haidt's viewpoints. I moved it to the talk page and found an additional reference that might be used. Any help would be appreciated, but especially editors that are familiar with the general consensus around race and intelligence content. --Hipal (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for genetic differences in intelligence between "races" and indeed only evidence against it. This was determined at a 2021 RfC [12] that reaffirmed a 2020 RfC that "the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory", but there have been more sources each year since then that go to establish this. Katzrockso (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question there is really one of due weight. It's clear that Haidt has parroted uninformed, fringe positions on race and intelligence as part of a larger Jeremiad against "woke" or whatever. But this aspect of his argument appears to be rather minor, given that only two glancing mentions in mainstream news sources have been provided. I'd say unless someone can find more substantial coverage, the R&I stuff is probably not encyclopedic content for a BLP. Generalrelative (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on the substance of including the content in the article, just clarifying the consensus. I don't think Haidt really directly professes an opinion on race & IQ, I think he's criticizing what he perceives as politicization of the subject, see e.g. [13] (on page 6 of this pdf or 60 of the original source). Katzrockso (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify what what we are meant to put under a section about "political views"? Like under most biographies in wikipedia, the written under "political views" are just a list of their political views with an independent reliable source confirming it. Maxandruby123 (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprised to see such a fawning bio for a figure who has proposed sketchy/fringe or at least fringe-adjacent views. Also surprised to see the Nature review[14] of his social media book is not included. Bon courage (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the article is outdated and has POV problems that need addressing. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• From a scholarly source: "claims that genes play a role in producing differences in cognitive traits that bring success in the modern world—such as intelligence and impulse control—are often greeted with embarrassed silence or harsh denunciation, independent of their scientific merit (Haidt 2009). ... Jonathan Haidt recounts that after the publication of E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology, which proposed among other things that gene–culture co-evolution might explain some behavioural differences between groups, Wilson was harassed and excoriated, in print and in public. He was called a fascist, which justified (for some) the charge that he was a racist, which justified (for some) the attempt to stop him from speaking in public (2012, 38)." [15] Fences&Windows 14:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Another: "Jonathan Haidt has rightly called genetic research into these kinds of group differences “the most offensive idea in all of science for the last 40 years.”". https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=3431786 Fences&Windows 14:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  fyi the "rightly" there is confusing - He is saying that Haidt is correct in saying that the idea is offensive - but not that Haidt personally is morally opposed to it. Maxandruby123 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: The Age of Disclosure -- a documentary that claims that information regarding the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has been subject to a decades-long government cover-up.

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 109#Is The Age of Disclosure a "documentary" or a "documentary-style film"?.

This article seems to promote a WP:FALSEBALANCE between that claim that a secret government program that has investigated and concealed evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence for more than 80 years and the mainstream view about such conspiracy theories.

The critics section mixes anti-fringe reviews reviews from well known sources (The Guardian, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, the New York Times) with neutral reviews from lesser sources, some of which are misleading. For example the article lists Collider as saying

"Nate Richard wrote that the film "delivers some fascinating information" but was "executed in the most bland way possible" and that "the pacing makes the movie feel like you're watching a college PowerPoint presentation". Nonetheless, Richard stated that there have "been far worse docs on the subject of UFOs".

but the actual review says things like

"But as we get further into the movie, the more ridiculous it gets" and "the movie felt like it was made to be an echo chamber for those who already believe in UFOs. If the job of The Age of Disclosure was to convert skeptics, it failed".

Then for some strange reason, there is a "review" from the Motion Picture Association. The MPA doesn't actually review films. It promotes upcoming films from its members with gushing articles about how great they are going to be.

Then there is the section about the reception by scientists. Seriously? Avi Loeb?

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Good point. /s
Please see WP:NPOV. The first quote has already been changed and you already removed the part about a review from a person at the MPA. I suggest you discuss this on the talk page instead of more threads and posts here complaining about Loeb and/or this article. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to engage with you. Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up a few times. A professor somesuch, with legitimate academic publications, also has fringe views within their area of expertise; these fringe views have never been legitimately published in a reputable source, but people argue that we can cite them via EXPERTSPS. I feel that this should be specifically and unambiguously forbidden - it's a misuse of EXPERTSPS, in that the views they're being cited for aren't actually the ones that were published; and it falsely creates an appearance of academic support for the fringe position they're taking. I'm unsure whether this would better be added to WP:FRINGE or WP:EXPERTSPS, but it feels like it should be clearly spelled-out somewhere. (We do currently say Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable; but the entire point of EXPERTSPS is to be an exception to self-publication, so I feel that if that is meant to bar expert self-published sources then it needs to be more clear so there's an obvious part of policy to point to.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have WP:FRINGE#Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance and the sentence you've quoted, I'm not sure we need much more. The sentence says "unacceptable", so it seems to have the same prohibition that WP:BLP has for SPS - that is: never, no exceptions. I think it's clear from the policies we already have that using WP:SPS to make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims is not supported by policy. Katzrockso (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is where WP:UNDUE comes in… A source can technically be “reliable” and yet still be UNDUE to mention or cite - Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 in that the views they're being cited for aren't actually the ones that were published what matters is whether it's the same topic/field/area. Then that doesn't guarantee inclusion, but it makes it very possible to include the info. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One important stumbling block here is that interest in a subject by someone with expertise in the field of that subject is easy to confuse for an endorsement of that subject. I know a number of mathematicians who can talk about numerology for hours without ever saying anything cross about it, for example. In my own case, I'm rather fond of all sorts of conspiracy theories, cryptids and esoterica such as tarot and ceremonial magic. I have had countless conversations about those subjects that didn't involve disclaiming my complete lack of belief in them.

I once had a rather long and detailed conversation with a fellow skeptic who had an MD and a PhD about the sorts of biochemistry one might see in a zombie, and I don't think we ever discussed our lack of belief in the reality of zombies because we both already knew it would be silly to assume the other believed this nonsense. And indeed, she later put up a lot of our thoughts and conclusions on her blog, still absent any expression of the skepticism we both held. I remember going so far as to joke with her that some Wikipedian might cite her blog per WP:EXPERTSPS some time later, a possibility we both found amusing. (Fortunately, zombies remain one of those few cryptids which get little attention from the pro-fringe crowd here.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently[16] it is the mainstream view that requires high quality sources and the fringe view[17] that only needs a SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JFC... The only thing that makes any sense about that first diff is the reverted tag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably ok cite fringe conclusions by EXPERTSPSes when there's sufficient rebuttal in actual RSes, but probably not something to just drop on the reader uncontextualized. Not all fringe claims are created equal: if a "surgeon" gets press for saying he saw a strange animal in Loch Ness, that's pretty harmless. But if a doctor tells patients to take untested medications, that's very dangerous. Feoffer (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation on this noticeboard a long time ago, combined with having participated in three discussions at Talk:Muhammad about a fringe source being published by a university press, prompted me to write the essay WP:UPRESS. Basically, just because someone is an expert, or a source has been peer-reviewed, doesn't mean it isn't fringe. There's a whole walled garden of peer-reviewed scholarly sources devoted to creationism, for example. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At a certain point of that fine a line, I would insist myself that "editor opinion" has to be forcibly shoved into the backseat unless we have widely used mainstream WP:RS that calls the claimed fringe thing as fringe. Which, if it's fringe, should be trivial to do. If not, don't presume fringe if it's that close to call on overall context. Our job is verifiability, even if unpleasant or uncomfortable or against our ethos. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these remind of the importance of secondary sources, or WP could be an indiscriminate collection of "verified" material to primary sources, about topics and claims that may have little traction or merit. ~2025-35304-53 (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific example you could point to? (I didn't see a link to a specific page/edit). BetsyRogers (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plant-based cat food was redirected at AFD due to being a fringe/pov-fork. The same issues are now coming to the cat food article where a secondary source written by experts and published by Wiley-Blackwell [18] is being removed, with a claim that the author of a chapter, a professor at the veterinary school at the University of Utrecht is unreliable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why Can't My Cat Be Vegan? --American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

Evidence Update: A Systematic Review of Studies Evaluating Vegan Diets for Dogs and Cats --SkeptVet

Can Cats Be Vegan? --Slate

Pet Food Mislabeling: Let Food Be Thy Dogma --Science-Based Medicine

Do not feed your cat vegan food – they are obligate carnivores --Skeptical Raptor

Idiosyncratic nutrient requirements of cats appear to be diet-induced evolutionary adaptations --Nutritional Research Reviews

Note: I purposely chose to not include any source based upon a survey asking people who chose to feed their cat a vegan diet how healthy the cat is. If that's the sort of thing you consider scientific evidence there are plenty of examples of it on the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion (after lots of reverts) about the article about the Mormon Book of Mosiah. I want to mention the author, others think that is not necessary. The article has in the lead things like " The title refers to Mosiah II, a king of the Nephites at Zarahemla. The book covers the time period between c. 130 BC and 91 BC, except for when the book has a flashback into the Record of Zeniff, which starts at c. 200 BC, according to footnotes. " without making it clear in any way that this is fictional or completely unscientific pseudohistory or whatever you want to call it. Counterargument is that authorship isn't given in many other articles about religious books or chapters either. All input is welcome at Talk:Book of Mosiah#Authorship in the lead section. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am the author of WP:YWAB. You can figure out my position from that page.

Over at Talk:The Age of Disclosure we have so far had the happy result of a good-faith editor who believes that the US government has been covering up evidence of alien visitors working well with more skeptical editors to improve the article. As the film has gained public notice, we have gathered more voices -- most of them skeptical -- and things are getting a bit testy. I can see why the lone true believer is feeling a bit ganged up on. Could I ask that some more calming voices go there and participate? There is zero change that the article will become pro-fringe, and to my way of thinking a mob with torches and pitchforks is not needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just to be safe, I'm cross-filing this to the Angry Mob Noticeboard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added AMN to my watchlist. - Walter Ego 20:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]