Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Washington Post on Cold Fusion

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Shortcuts WP:FTN WP: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

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello, I've initiated a discussion at RSN that editors more familiar with evaluating sources related to religion may be able to help out with. It is here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:RSN#Islamic University of Gaza Journal of Islamic Studies. I'm not seeing how a minor point about Islamic mythological naming is relevant to this noticeboard. Bon courage (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s hyperlinked to the word “here” in my post. The relevance is that I know this board is often where discussions on acceptable sources for religious topics take place, particularly when drawing the line of legitimate scholarship is concerned. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this board is not for religious topics (except when claims obtrude into reality in a FRINGE way). WT:RELIGION would be an apt venue. Bon courage (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that use of this source would enable the obtrusion of claims into reality in a FRINGE way, because its text appears to take for granted the doctrine and mythic narratives of Islam as factual. I’ve seen similar discussions related to LDS sources at this noticeboard; hence my cross-posting. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have definitely seen issues with Islam's mythic claims before. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Miracles_can_happen. Maybe that helps? jps (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related: [1]. jps (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a paper from a professor at Islamic University of Gaza claiming present day munafiq are a fifth column supporting the occupier, I don't know why it is even a question for here or RSN. fiveby(zero) 16:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread inspired me to work on the subject of the Ijaz movement which appears to be explicated in at least three different articles that are in moderate tension with each other:

• Islamic_attitudes_towards_science#Science_and_the_Quran
• I'jaz#Scientific_I'jaz_Literature
• Islamic_view_of_miracles#Ijaz_movement

Anyone care to help fix this issue? I think it is fair to have mention of this in all three articles, and I think all three articles deserve to exist. One option might be to create a new stand alone article on the I'jaz movement, but I'm not sure that is deserving.

At the very least, we should agree on a place to put this material and then only include summaries of it with either main-article or see-also links in the other two sections.

jps (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tafsir#Scientific_claims

tafsīr ʿilmī (scientific exegesis), a broader concept, here's a useful overview. fiveby(zero) 00:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Maurice Bucaille too. What should we do? jps (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think modelling content on other tertiary sources (but not citing them) is a useful thing to do, so will look for more sources when i get time. Islamic_attitudes_towards_science is that WP's top-level "Islam and Science" article? fiveby(zero) 16:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would agree with that. jps (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I was answering an edit request from a user who proposed to add the following paragraph:

The movie, like Climate: the Movie, has also been criticized^[1] for relying exclusively on the Hoyt and Schatten (1993)^[2] total solar irradiance (TSI) modeled reconstruction, which has since been unequivocally discredited due to methodological flaws^[3]. The apparent correlation between the Hoyt and Schatten (1993) TSI series and Earth's temperature record, as presented in the movie, is now recognized as a result of flawed methodology in the Hoyt and Schatten (1993) reconstruction^[3]. As a result, the movie's key claim, that TSI can account for the observed temperature rise on Earth in recent decades, is invalid^[3].

The text hinges on the YouTube lecture from a guy who clearly is an expert on the Sun specifically. Around 18:10, the guy does the criticism of the Hoyt and Schatten papers. He says that "there is one particular [total solar irradiation series] that received a lot of attention over the last decades" and shows four graphs: two presumably published in academic papers and two that are the work of Martin Durkin, including one mentioned in the movie. The guy goes on to say how the flaws of Hoyt and Schatten's paper show under scrutiny. The researcher never actually talks about the movie nor discusses Durkin.

I declined, based on my understanding that it would be akin to coatracking only based on a passing mention of the movie, and initially because I missed the actual graph - I was only focused on the audio. My second misgiving is that the "thoroughly debunked" part is only sourced to Chatzistergos himself. I mean, it is a secondary source, but the paper as recent as his may not have formed scientific consensus yet. Google Scholar gives 10 citations, of which one is by the authors whom he criticises, but you can tell that's gonna probably be a load of bullshit since they published their findings with the Heritage Foundation.

So, long story short. Was I right to decline? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question is present in Martin Durkin (director)#The Great Global Warming Swindle. While the movie has been criticized ^[4] for its presentation of Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991)^[5] and there is some recent kerfuffle involving FCL91 and HS93^[6] i can't seem to close the loop between HS93 and the movie with refs. fiveby(zero) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fiveby The movie the great global warming swindle shows both the FCL91 and the HS93 series. However, they don't list the HS93 as such, but simply refer to Soon. The relevant figure shown in the movie (shown at 33.20 in the movie) is a variation of Figure 1 from Soon 2005 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2005GL023429 which shows the HS93 total solar irradiance series, but in the movie they simply call it "Sun". So they are even misleading with what the graph shows besides the criticism Dr. Chatzisergos did. Johnk89 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A debunking is a secondary source on the original claims that are being debunked but (unless it's very egotistical in talking about itself) would generally be a primary source on how thorough or unequivocal the debunking is, as well as any other secondary statements about said debunking (as well as being non-independent even if it did make those egotistical claims). Additionally, unless the source itself (or another source) explicitly claims it to be thorough and unequivocal, those secondary claims would constitute original research. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for describing this in such a good way. I appreciate your effort.

I want to add the following 2 links about the support Dr. Chatzistergos' work has received, although it is recent.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/

https://factuel.afp.com/doc.afp.com.39GZ79D (see to which paper they refer in the statement "papiers scientifiquement contestés") Johnk89 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While this does show that their research is at the very least controversial, if not outright false, this still isn't totally OK for me because neither discusses the movie or Durkin. These sources would have been kosher for the articles about the scientists who made up the results. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowiecki I think the conversations get mixed. I posted this only about your concern whether Dr. Chatzistergos' paper has support from other scientists. Neither of those links mentions the great global warming swindle movie.

In the meantime I also noticed that Dr. Chatzistergos got an award about that paper , which I think also shows how this wrk of his is supported by experts in the field https://link.springer.com/journal/11207/updates/27783240 Johnk89 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement that his paper is valid, no doubt.

But if you want it in that article specifically, the other question is important as well. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has: The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. Looking around for other articles where this content might be appropriate i'm having some trouble following WP's content so adding a few links:

• Willie Soon (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Solar activity and climate (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch (possible an under-watched and neglected article needing updates?)

• Solar activity and climate#Solar variation theory
• Solar activity and climate#Correlations to solar cycle length (mentions Chatzistergos)

• Solar variation (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch (redirected to Solar cycle in 2015)

My question i guess is if a reader were to stumble upon concerning variants of "solar variation theory" elsewhere what WP article should they be directed to? fiveby(zero) 17:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial#Playing up the potential non-human causes, History of climate change science#Solar variation, History of climate change science#Solar activity? fiveby(zero) 17:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the primary target would be solar activity and climate article. Climate change denial can be valid if we can demonstrate that their papers are being used to sow doubt/deny that global warming is there or that it's human-caused, and the AFP source is a good discussion of this phenomenon. Solar cycle is too general to include debates over shoddy science. Same for history of climate change science. It will be also OK to discuss these papers in the articles about the researchers themselves. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just wanted to make a note here that I decided to try and cut down the regurgitation of the film contents from something like 1600 words down to a more reasonable length, which I think it's close to now (still want to trim by maybe another 150 or 200 words, but honestly I'm tired of this article) however would still appreciate if there is any comments about what else might be cut or added. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just saw this wherein Rebecca Watson details a fascinating connection between Lyndon LaRouche and BlueAnon. I noticed that the article could do with a little more care. @Chetsford seems to be laudably engaged, but I see a lot of sources out there which could help to expand the article.

Something to put on your watchlists, anyway.

jps (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a COI edit request at the talk page. A volunteer has responded to my request. The funny thing is that the volunteer has less than 850 edits at this moment, in total (all Wikimedia servers).

Edits in the past 30 days: 817. That means they have 32 edits which are not from the past 30 days.

And no, mentioning objective facts does not mean being aggressive. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tgeorgescu, I’m not sure what your complaint is. I started volunteering a month ago and have found I enjoy it.

I am not sure what you’re complaint is here? Dahawk04 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

30 days beyond 32 edits is an extremely short time for learning the ropes of Wikipedia. Are you a world-class genius, or just had another account before? tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's this got to to with WP:FRINGE? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, I should have posted at WP:ANI. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. the Wikipedia Community had a Nobel prizewinner who could not learn the WP:RULES properly. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. Unless you have a specific complaint to address with the content of my edit I don’t see the reason to engage here. @Malinaccier are you able to support here? Dahawk04 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having another account before, and not disclosing it, runs afoul of the WP:RULES. If your present account is a WP:FRESHSTART, you had to disclose it to the admins. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In short, this is a pointless complaint post because your COI edit request was appropriately denied by Dahawk, because a non-journal published and non-peer reviewed paper is indeed not an RS. Do we need to do anything else here or can we wrap this up? Silverseren^C 18:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not their rejection which bothers me. It's whether they are a banned editor who has returned under a new account. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An accusation with no basis. And also irrelevant. If you want me to re-certify Dahawk's denial of your edit request, then I can do so. But the outcome will be the same. Silverseren^C 18:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are past discussions wherein newbies were questioned by admins why they learned the rules so fast. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Search all pages for "learned so quickly". You will see some precedents for my point. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To give you just one example, Daphne Lantier has learned the rules very fast, and could write very professional answers. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was asked to weigh in here, I will say that I agree with Dahawk04's assessment of your paper's suitability as a source right now. I bet when it is published that people will be happy to cite it on Wikipedia. This is frustrating in academic fields with working paper cultures where the publication process takes a long time and people cite working papers based on known reputation (I know from experience). Maybe a few others will weigh in, and there will be a consensus to cite the paper anyway. As for whether Dahawk04 is a sockpuppet or fresh-start account, I don't think it is likely. I recently reviewed Dahawk04's edits and found the typical number and type of mistakes I would expect to find in a new and well-meaning editor who is learning the ropes quickly. While I think people do throw this accusation around often and it is undoubtedly true in some cases, I doubt it is here. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I didn't say that their judgment about WP:RS was wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the user turned out to be a sockpuppet or undisclosed returning editor, this is not the place to complain about it. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A nee editor is.editing this on behalf of the author I told the author he couldn’t edit it himself. They are now complaining on the talk page about being reverte. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which in some ways is a followup on my post above on Dan Gibson as it turns out he publishes his own books. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Cryptid has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 6 § Cryptid until a consensus is reached. Note: Cryptids is also under discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have a one-on-one disagreement as to whether The Age of Disclosure is correctly referred to in Wikivoice as a "documentary" or a "documentary-style film". I'm of the opinion it's the latter, however, the other editor does — admittedly — make a compelling argument for the former and is close (but not quite at) convincing me. Additional input for or against changing the genre would be welcome to break the impasse. The discussion is here. Chetsford (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the film interviews real people who give honest testimony (say what they believe is true rather than it being scripted by the filmmakers), then it should be called a "documentary". I don't think the labels mockumentary or pseudo-documentary fit the film either, because the filmmakers didn't set out to create a work of fiction. Just because people appearing in a documentary are wrong that doesn't make the film any less of a "documentary". For example, Grizzly Man thought he had a special relationship with the bears, and the film documents that, but we wouldn't label it "documentary-style". Same thing here, the film documents opinions of people who believe aliens are visiting Earth (or whatever, I haven't seen it), and therefore should be labeled a "documentary". That's just my $0.02, this isn't a hill I'd die on. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, Grizzly Man thought he had a special relationship with the bears, and the film documents that, but we wouldn't label it "documentary-style"." That's a great point. On the other hand, Herzog didn't [I don't think] approach the film from the premise that Treadwell had a special relationship. In this case, the filmmaker isn't merely documenting people who believe in space aliens but (according to the reviews) is presenting their belief as proof of alien visitation to Earth. I think (perhaps) a more apt comparison might be to Above Majestic [2] a self-described "documentary" which presents itself as documenting the "fact" that Nazis escaped to the Moon with time travel technology in the 1940s and that anthropomorphic Reptiles are massing on Antarctica in preparation for an invasion. This is billed, not as mockumentary (a la A Mighty Wind), but as real-world fact that should be taken seriously by viewers. Chetsford (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy is a common reason for creating a documentary, and doesn't prevent a film from being one. Turn on your favorite streaming website, go to the documentary section, and be prepared to learn the truth about why the new world order works closely with small town governments to hide the impact of the sudden bigfoot population boom. 166.205.97.71 (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but testimonial-driven documentaries like this don't really "document" anything. I think the genre is being abused at this point. When this kind of thing happens in other disciplines (music, art, theatre, etc.) the rule of thumb is to avoid naming the genre in favor of a nuanced approach. I have seen a number of UFO "documentaries" within the last 25 years, and none of them managed to document anything. The only one I saw that seemed to meet the documentary genre category was the one about Bob Lazar, which did, in documentary style, follow him around and document his life. That's the only one that comes to mind that meets the categorical specification, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the film about people who believe aliens are visiting Earth, or is it using their statements as evidence that aliens are visiting Earth? Brunton (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer should be: how do RS refer to it, on balance? A quick search shows RS are AFAICT unanimous in referring to it as a "documentary". About the only source I found that says "documentary-style" at all is this, which only uses the term once in a general sense encompassing other films, and through the rest of the article simply refers to AoD as a documentary.

Unless there's some compelling RS that trumps all this (and I have found none), there's no reason not to call it a documentary, whatever the subject matter. Void if removed (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the answer should be: how do RS refer to it" There are no RS. We really only have two or three sources that affirm its genre independent of RSOPINION. And of those, I'd posit The Hollywood Reporter is not RS to describe whether a movie is "documentary" or "documentary-style" if it's editorializing that there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and biology by the entirety of mainstream science. Chetsford (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a documentary is full of FRINGE nonsense or not doesn't mean we have to go out of our way to say it isn't really a documentary in some way - it just means its claims have to be placed in the proper context. Honestly, I think film reviews are absolutely fine for establishing genre. Even skeptical sources like this call it a documentary, I see no reason to do otherwise, especially absent any sense of a consensus of sources calling it anything else.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a load of unmitigated nonsense, for example, but it is still a documentary. Void if removed (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a documentary, as was Loose change, since it documents people expressing a conspiracy belief. The category that is applicable is :conspiracist films. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do RS call it a "conspiracist film"? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go with what RS say, The Last Dragon (2004 film) springs to mind. Something can look like a documentary, and not be. But it will be called by RS Docufiction or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we only have WP:RSOPINION describing the film's genre. A movie reviewer for Variety is RS for the opinion of the movie reviewer. However, the premise of the film is that space aliens are visiting Earth, and I'm not sure a movie reviewer for Variety is RS for anything other than their attributed opinion. It's unlikely someone who writes cheeky send-ups of rom-cons is a reliable source to affirm whether the film's editorial premise -- that space aliens are rocketing to Earth to secretly watch humans -- is non-fiction ("documentary") or fiction ("documentary-style"). Chetsford (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we go with what RSes say. But also this is a solution in search of a problem, "documentary" is the media-analog of the print genre "non-fiction"; the term has never connoted "factual". Feoffer (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the THR article, which compares it to Unsolved Mysteries and Ancient Aliens, while we're not bound by other articles we can see that weird fringe stuff, we can see that something can both be a UFO film and a documentary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits that removed the “documentary” category from Age of Disclosure because all 19 sources currently cited in the article refer to it as a documentary film. V138565954 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example of how reliable sources are wrong. In this example of 19 sources referring to the film as a documentary, these citations are not using the academic sense of the term, they are using the commercial and marketing category for "documentary" film. Wikipedia needs to differentiate between these two definitions. This discrepancy between what reliable sources say and how a term is used comes up a lot. The most recent example that we've seen since 2015 is the term "populism", which is increasingly used by reliable sources to mislead the public in many different ways. Even though the media uses the term to argue that the policies of an autocratic leader are popular, it turns out that political scientists have analyzed the data in some depth and have found that their policies are not popular at all. Rather, these leaders create the appearance of popular support for their ideas. The media never goes into this in any depth, hence the discrepancy. In the same way, the news media here uses the term "documentary" in a shallow, marketing sense, in that these UFO films are sold as documentaries to the public. However, reliable sources about film do not define the category of documentaries as including these. For example, in order for a film to meet the basic standard criterion for a documentary, it must present some aspect of the world that is factual and observational. 99% of these UFO films do not do this (with the Bob Lazar film the only major example that can be classified as a real documentary). I can go on, but on Wikipedia, we should not be relying on marketing definitions but on academic ones. Most of these UFO films combine equal parts docufiction and equal parts docudrama. They are not documentaries. In fact, quite contrary to the documentary format, most of these UFO films have substantial portions of their visual narrative dedicated to recreating an imaginary retelling of events using a flashback. This is contrary to how a documentary works, although people will inevitably point me to something like a Ken Burns documentary. Well, those flashbacks are based on reliable anecdotes of first person observers to historical events. UFO films are not. If anyone wants to see what a documentary film actually looks like, go watch Berkeley in the Sixties. The filmmakers were obsessive about creating a film that only portrayed real world events. If you watch the film, you will see that they combined the testimony of the participants with actual photographs and film clips of the events under discussion. This kind of detail-oriented, only the facts documentary is difficult for people to understand who have been erroneously led to believe that a documentary is a marketing style, not a cinematic form. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some attempts to edit-war fringe jargon into the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that “non-human intelligence” is fringe jargon is misleading and inconsistent with Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality policies.

The term non-human intelligence (NHI) is widely used in mainstream, reliable sources when discussing Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), particularly in relation to U.S. government investigations. It has been used by current and former officials, including those testifying before Congress, and appears in publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, and official government documents (e.g., AARO's terminology explanations and whistleblower testimony summaries). The term is also used by the Department of Defense and referenced in legislative language, including in drafts of the UAP Disclosure Act.

Accusing editors of trying to “edit-war fringe jargon into the article” without policy-based justification may violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Disagreements over terminology should be resolved by discussing the sources, not by labeling good-faith edits as fringe or improper.

Wikipedia policy requires us to represent reliable secondary sources accurately and in proportion to their prominence (see WP:DUE). Since non-human intelligence is the exact terminology used in the film, cited sources, and government-related discourse, excluding or replacing it based on a personal interpretation of what’s fringe would itself be a neutrality violation. V138565954 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V138565954 - in the remaining time you're with us, it would be helpful — if you're going to use AI assisted responses in Talk page discussions — if you could first edit them slightly so they don't just throw every policy against the wall. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF by dismissing my post as AI-generated and implying I won’t “be around much longer.” This is needlessly hostile and unproductive. V138565954 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I did not "dismiss" your comment as AI-generated, I merely made the factual observation it was AI-assisted and requested you edit future AI-assisted comments for readability prior to positing; a request you can action or ignore at your leisure. I also never said you won't "be around much longer". Perhaps you confused my comment with someone else's? Chetsford (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V13, the term "non-human intelligence" is used in a lot of our articles! We don't ban the phrase, but, for now, we do have to attribute it the person claiming its existence, until the RSes report its relationship to UAPs as a fact. Philosophically speaking, the term has merit, broader than "alien/extraterrestrial", including everything from a superintelligent AI to some natural phenomenon with intelligence on the order of single-celled life or even mere proteins. Just needs attribution. Feoffer (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I would say that the "term has merit" in the contexts you are describing. Superintelligent AI, for example, is arguably still "human" intelligence. There is no consensus definition for what makes something "non-human"... and "intelligence", well, that's even more fraught as a concept.

SETI as a scientific endeavor, in fact, has been moving away from the attribution of intelligence. There is some argument that we should be focusing more on "Technosignature detection" and leave the whole question of intelligence behind.

Of course, none of this is even on the minds of the UFOlogists who are going around pretending to be serious scientists. They don't engage with the mainstream discourse at all.

jps (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-human intelligence" is not "mainstream" in a documentary context referring to extraterrestrials. The only context in which non-human intelligence is mainstream is when referring to animal intelligence. I have written extensively about extraterrestrials on Wikipedia, but I know BS when I see it. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Scientific commentary" does not really contain any scientific commentary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the topically-similar films produced by Steven M. Greer, and even Chariots of the Gods, are described on WP as documentaries. That a film presents utter bollocks seems, for good or bad, independent of cinematic categorization. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A documentary is a documentary, however wrong it is is irrelevant. It is not a mockumentary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "documentary" means something dealing in facts and information about a subject.[3] There is rise in a kind of "fake" documentary as a vehicle for propaganda / misinformation / nonsense. Prime examples are Vaxxed and Died Suddenly, and PROFRINGE editos understand well the value of referring to such as a "documentary".[4][5] I don't know about this particular UFO case, but a Theresa May-style "a documentary is a documentary" approach ill-serves the Project's need to be clear about WP:FRINGESUBJECTS if it unduly dignifies the fringe. Bon courage (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptors on both films you linked are situationally extremely poor as it is structured in a way that implies they are narrative films. Both are also poorly written leads not compliant with WP:LEAD! Not what I'd use for good examples. The OED defines a documentary film as one intended to "document reality, primarily for instruction, education or maintaining a historical record" - that the creators are wrong does not make it not a documentary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When quotes are taken out of context and other thoroughly dishonest tactics used, as with Vaxxed and Died Suddenly, a film is clearly not "intended to document reality". But we leave that sort of judgment to reliable sources anyway, instead of deducing them ourselves from dictionary definitions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Books on topics like this appear in the non-fiction section of bookshops. That doesn't imply they are true, only that they assert their truth. Same here, being full of bullshit doesn't stop it being a documentary. There have been films advertised as "documentary-style" but that's the film makers' description of the stylistic techniques used in the film and we shouldn't use it without source support. Zero^talk 04:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain I've ever been in a bookstore with a "non-fiction section", though perhaps I'm not patroning the correct bookstores. I've been in bookstores with sections like Biography, History, Self-Help, Astronomy, etc., but I don't think I've ever been in one that has a section labeled non-fiction. When I've seen UFO books in bookstores they're usually segregated into a UFO section or a paranormal section and not in the Astronomy or Biology section, even though they are asserting what they perceive to be the truth about astronomy or biology. Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it many times, so I guess we don't go to the same bookshops. It's also a common classification for online bookshops, see Barnes & Noble for example and note that "alternative beliefs" (cute name) is listed under nonfiction. Zero^talk 11:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, lots of bookstores have nonfiction sections. Even better, think of your classic library: You have fiction books ordered by author, you have nonfiction ordered by the now-archaic Dewey Decimal. Feoffer (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Some activity at the article appears due to off-wiki instigation [6] and [7]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize I may be in the minority here, but I am sick and tired of these UFO films pretending to be documentaries. I spent the late 1980s studying documentary film, and except for the more recent film about Bob Lazar, which indeed, is a true documentary film that follows him around and documents his everyday life, none of these UFO films are documentaries in any way and should not be named under that category. Except for the Lazar documentary, which meets the criteria for the genre, almost every UFO "documentary" is staged and scripted, employs darkened, poorly lit interview rooms, and simply recounts strange stories bordering on campfire ghost stories in hushed tones and bad CGI recreations. We need to stop calling them documentaries. Reliable sources are wrong. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "proposes" a conspiracy theory is the right word here. According to our sources, the film takes a much stronger stance and commitment to its extraordinary claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My impetus for this question actually concealed an ulterior motive, in that I'd been working offline on an article for Above Majestic and was struggling whether it would really be appropriate to call it a "documentary film" in Wikivoice given the subject-matter. For better discursive facilitation, I've moved the in-progress article into a draft here (it's not ready for mainspace yet, as I need to add a few more sources). Based on my read of the consensus that's evolved, we have concluded that use of "documentary film" in Wikivoice is appropriate versus "documentary-style film" in extreme fringe cases such as this provided that is the terminology used by movie reviewers? Chetsford (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Above Majestic as described in your draft appears to be a documentary, but I'm not sure I concur with the precise rationale. In general, authors / filmmakers / publishers get to declare their own work's genre, not reviewers. The "non-fiction" science fiction is an entire literary genre, but we still report their genre as non-fiction despite all the RSes that debunk them as obvious hoaxes. Also, "Documentary-style" doesn't mean FRINGE, much less "extreme fringe"; the term is used for works that mix documentary content with non-documentary content such as musical shows or extensive staged fictional re-enactments. Feoffer (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a boisterous discussion about whether and how it should mention climate change, and what sourcing would be (in)adequate to do so. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bruce Rind, of the Rind et al. controversy, has been recreated. I have nominated it for deletion again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Rind (2nd nomination). Crossroads ^-talk- 20:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not intended as a serious proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine has been declared as a "fringe organization" due to its promotion of hate.[8] Can we declare other hate groups as fringe organizations? For example, the Republican Party (United States) promotes hatred against trans people and is clearly out of step with science on topics such as global warming. However, editors continually cite statements by Republican-affiliated authors in articles to promote anti-trans/anti-science/anti-etc viewpoints. Declaring the Republican Party as a fringe organization would mean we no longer need to give them a platform in our articles when they attack trans rights/gay rights/climate change/etc. Thoughts? I personally disagree with declaring organizations as fringe organizations based on the promotion of hate, but if the community is going to agree that's acceptable, we should start looking at other examples. This thread is intended to get opinions from editors in other WP:CTOPS to see if declaring groups as WP:FRINGE based on the promotion of hate/unscientific viewpoints is in agreement with our core content policies. By looking at other examples, we can determine what the boundaries of this rule are. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think you may be comparing apples and oranges. WP:FRINGE specifically applies to claims of expertise: "...an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views...Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view." SEGM makes claims to expertise, but cherry-picks findings and openly promotes hate; thus, they're fringe. The Republican Party does not make any claims to expertise (in fact, they're proudly hostile to expertise of any kind). Their views do not reflect those of experts, particularly with respect to science, but they do reflect a large swath of American culture. It's hard for me to see how WP:FRINGE applies to culture. I think this is a bit of a nonissue because we shouldn't be citing politicians of any party for claims that are technical or scholarly in nature. We go to the scholarly sources, or hard journalism, for that. Politicians should only ever be cited for their own or their party's positions, not for facts (except ABOUTSELF). And as for your apparent desire to deny Republicans a platform, I think that's a terrible idea. The stuff they've been saying over the past few months is so reprehensible that it needs to be documented here, or somewhere. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hate does not make something “fringe” - indeed, sadly, there are times in history when hate is quite mainstream. To be considered “fringe” a topic needs to have non-acceptance within a relevant field. In the case of political parties, the relevant field would be political science. Given that the US Republican Party is one of the two main parties in US politics, with millions of party members, it is ridiculous to call it “fringe”. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well... arguably the US Republican Party supports quite a lot of WP:FRINGE claims in spite of its large membership. Recall that WP:FRINGE does not ask us to count how many people support an idea. Rather, it asks us to look at whether the claims are accepted or even paid attention to by the preponderance of sources and expert evaluators. Not all claims held by Republicans (or any political party) are relevant solely to political science. In the realm of healthcare, for example, the relevant epistemic fields would be medicine and, indeed, a lot of the party positions and general beliefs espoused by that particular party are WP:FRINGE in that regard. jps (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Ah, but a lot depends on which field of expertise are we talking about. Are we discussing a topic from the perspective of medicine? Physics? Theology?Political science? History? Economics? Geography? Etc… Viewpoints can be “fringe” in one field, a “minority view” in a second, and quite mainstream in a third. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Is that true? Can you give an example? This is the second time in a day that someone has maintained that position, but I cannot for the life of me think of a single example of such. Relevant epistemic communities in conflict over an idea is not anything I have encountered. jps (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] The closest I can come up with is that there are some philosophers who might take quantum woo a bit more seriously than physicists in regards to questions about consciousness, but those philosophers are not particularly respected within philosophy even. They may suffer more fools gladly in philosophy spaces, but they don't shy away from the "fool" identification -- especially when it comes to claims that are reliant on expert knowledge of physics, for example. jps (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] WP:FRINGE says "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight." LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that's quite what Blueboar is arguing, but if it is, then, yes, I would agree that such a comparison would be a total misapprehension. Can't tell you how many engineers have confidently declared that they can debunk evolutionary biology in favor of creationism, for example. jps (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes… and to give an example that ties this all back to the issue of “hate speech” - when we are discussing ethnicity and race from the perspective of physical sciences, claims that “Arians” are in some way superior to other “races” would be 100% fringe, and the opinions of Nazis can be ignored as irrelevant. However, when we are discussing ethnicity and race from the perspective of political history (especially the history of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s) those same claims are (contextually) not “fringe”, and the opinions of Nazis become very relevant and can not be ignored. In this example, we don’t ask whether we discuss these abhorrent views, but rather how to appropriately discuss them, and place them in context. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't think this works. In the context of political history the claim that there is such a thing as a biologically deterministic Arian race is fringe. How is it possibly not? After all, the claim is being made that it is a biological determinant. That acceptance of the fringe claim had political ramifications is something that is not a fringe statement, but I don't think anyone is making that kind of comparative political argument. To bring the discussion back around, I don't think anyone here is arguing that we delete the article on the US Republican Party on the basis of their adoption of fringe beliefs. But we are certainly empowered to identify such beliefs qua beliefs according to the way we would any other idea that was WP:FRINGE in the way our guideline describes it. jps (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I do not think political history should handle biological claims and their fringeness (not that "there is biologically an Aryan race" is not fringe), but I fully agree with the rest of your comment. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] This is deep in the weeds at this point, but the problem is exactly as you put it: sometimes we need to say what people are saying and then let the reader know whether what they are saying is true or not. Wikipedia, being birthed with a bizarre mild allergy to truth has a hard time being clear about this, and, to be fair, such rejoinders can make for awkward writing as we sometimes see when documenting Donald Trump's speeches and including things like "untrue statement", "misleadingly stated", or "not based in fact" after every other claim, for example. But it seems reasonable to me that we make sure that even when a fringe claim is attributed it is not given a pass. We would never countenance Wikipedia saying in Wikivoice, "there is biologically an Aryan race", but if we say, "Joseph Goebbels said, "biologically there is an Aryan race" it ought to be easy for the reader to be able to identify that as being false or, if you prefer Wikipedia bowlderizations, WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] But "Aryans are superior to other races" and "Nazis think Aryans are superior to other races" are different statements. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Let me give another example… the Christian Eucharist and the question of Transubstantiation. If we explore this topic from the POV of Science, transubstantiation does not exist. Scientists have run all sorts of tests, and can detect no physical change in the bread and wine. Scientists would say it is fringe. If, on the other hand we explore the concept from the POV of the field of Theology, there is huge debate on whether there is a change in substance (even though it can not be detected by science), a metaphorical change (it changes in “essence” but not substance), no change (it’s just an analogy)… and on and on. None of these views is considered “Fringe” by Theologians. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] But all theologians except for the WP:FRINGE ones accept that there is no change in the chemical composition of the host at the point of these rituals. In that respect, they are in-line with the scientific explorations 100%. What they do instead is offer separate definitions for what "substance" or "essence" means that differ from the way scientists casually use the term which, if you do that, well, you can play all sorts of games. It's rather the inverse of when people talk about "energy", "force", and "power" interchangeably in a colloquial fashion in the context of, say, the social sciences while physics has precise definitions for these terms. They really are talking about different things. Contrasting this with certain Republicans' claims about "biological sex" and I can clearly see the difference in how these arguments are being couched. jps (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] In addition to what jps said, we should not listen to theologians on claims about matter and physical change, which fall under scientists (specifically, physicists). We can listen to them on claims about religious metaphors and religious analogies, along with experts of other situationally-relevant fields. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] What an absurd suggestion. WP:FRINGE isn't intended as a means to make opinions we don't like invisible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] The whole FRINGEORG thing was a spasm which failed to get any traction in a re-write to any WP:PAGs, and is likely to be on the table as part of an upcoming Arbcom case. I think the Project would be better served by continuing to relay on the WP:PAGs as they are, rather than trying to introduce concepts which are probably incompatible with them. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Identify the things that organizations support which are WP:FRINGE claims. Couch them appropriately. But "fringe organization" is not a categorical determination that is particularly useful for purposes of encyclopedia writing, in my estimation. jps (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Chess, this is a notice board for discussing the promotion of fringe theories and the sourcing thereof. Can you point to discussions where editors have been citing the US Republican Party as a source for medical claims about transgender people? If you can’t, can you explain how your post here isn’t an example of WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour that is worth bringing up at the ARBCOM discussion on transgender health issues?OsFish (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] There is also a reading of the OP where they may be concerned with WP:COAT, so I don't think the choice is either that we have people citing Republicans as authorities on these subjects or that it is just shit stirring. If someone starts to insert the attributed claims of Republicans and does not allow for WP:PARITY rejoinders, for example, that could still be a problem. Anyway, let's see if there are examples. jps (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] If it were a COAT claim, the OP surely would have linked to the article in question they think is being derailed. But they didn’t. The OP asks if it’s allowed to do something in general (ban descriptions of Republican Party views from inclusion in Wikipedia articles) that the OP then says they think is a bad idea to do. No one else as far as I know has suggested anything either way on the topic. So it’s not clear how this discussion is about improving the encyclopedia. Have I missed something here?OsFish (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't know, but @Chess requests notifications so I have pinged them. I think it is reasonable to ask for examples, but I think it is a tad aggressive to demand it under threat of sanctions. jps (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I think you may have misunderstood. I’m not threatening sanctions. There is currently an ARBCOM discussion about whether or not to take a case on transgender health issues. Part of that discussion is framing who and with what scope the case may cover. So I literally meant that it may be worth bringing up such behaviour as the terms of any case are being discussed, and no more. Rather than a threat, it’s a plea to stop this sort of silliness before it becomes a more concrete behavioural issue. I would rather people got on with building an encyclopedia without fuss.OsFish (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I get that you meant this as a contextualized notice about external discussions, but having been party myself to ARBCOM cases in the past (granted more than a decade ago), I know that it feels like a threat to bring up this sort of thing, even if it is not intended as a kind of sanction. I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to make such a point, mind you. I'm just saying that it strikes me as being a bit more heat than light. jps (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] There is a bit more context I don’t want to link to here for the sake of peace about the editor in question making (thus far) unfounded battlefield style accusations in the past couple of days. So my intention is a short sharp fish slap. I don’t want my time wasted by escalated drama. OsFish (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Could someone please link the ARBCOM case? Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sure. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia OsFish (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] People affiliated with the Republican party are cited on topics such as Gulf of Mexico to go against the consensus of the International Hydrographic Organization. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] That’s rather a long article. You didn’t provide a diff. Which scientific claim are they cited in support of? OsFish (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Check the talk page. Authors affiliated with the Republican Party are heavily cited by editors for the rename to the Gulf of America. For instance, state govt of Florida.[9] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Chess That’s a link to a discussion that does not appear to be about a scientific claim. The dispute over the legal naming of the Gulf of Mexico isn’t a topic that meaningfully comes under FRINGE. Your OP wasn’t about geography. It was about transgender health. Is it safe to assume that you don’t actually have any cases where the Republican Party is cited as a source of scientific information about transgender health? If so, are you sure it isn’t a good idea to drop the stick?OsFish (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Do you think there is wording in that Gulf of Mexico page that would need to be changed or excised? jps (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Chess, this is the second time you have climbed this noticeboard dressed as spiderman to strawman how FRINGE works and it's tendentious. In February, you started a discussion called Is being anti-trans WP:FRINGE?[10] This is the same point-making time wasting where a group of editors has to tell you that's not how anything works. OsFish put it incredibly well right above me. You claim The Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine has been declared as a "fringe organization" due to its promotion of hate. It was due to it's promotion of medical misinformation and WP:FRINGE nonsense. Declaring the Republican Party as a fringe organization would mean we no longer need to give them a platform in our articles when they attack trans rights/gay rights/climate change/etc. This is nonsensical. We already don't.... When RS say they have promoted climate change misinfo - we mention that in articles about them and climate change misinfo. At a stretch, the climate change article, contextualizing it as misinfo. As others well pointed - we can and should and do mention when RS say people promote misinformation and FRINGE views. But we don't put those FRINGE views in medical/scientific articles. If we do, because they're very notable FRINGE views, we mention they're bullshit The climate change article doesn't give any credence to the idea that climate change isn't real - but it does have a section Climate change#Denial and misinformation I'd recommend you hat this thread before an admin does. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] As a FTN regular who is not deep in the editorial back-and-forth in this topic, I understand the exhaustion you are expressing that these discussions are causing needless grief. The idea that WP:FRINGEORG should be a thing is one that I do not agree with, but I have noticed a substantial group who disagrees with me. While I think it would be good to make a determination that this kind of approach in rhetorical labeling of organizations vis-a-vis the WP:FRINGE guideline is unproductive, I am not sure it is entirely necessary. I guess that's why I think it is better that these discussions be given some leeway at noticeboards instead of being shut down immediately. That said, I would not object to an admin closing the discussion -- though I don't think that such an eventuality should be considered a black mark against the OP. jps (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] For context, I don't think a novel WP:FRINGEORG section (as some proposed) would be a good idea. My idea for it was to extend WP:BLPFRINGE rather than be something completely new: ie There are people and organizations who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. (emphases on proposed addition). WP:PROFRINGE already covers it imo - don't cite things to adherents In my opinion, the focus on WP:FRINGEORG at the SEGM case became largely an attempt to skirt the question "is this organization known for FRINGE nonsense" by focusing on not liking the shorthand "fringe organization" - an attempt to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. At the RFC, concerns about "FRINGEORG" were almost entirely raised by those voting SEGM's not known for fringe bullshit. At the RFC, I suggested that the closer not even use the term "fringe organization" and just focus on "SEGM is an organization known for it's promotion of fringe theories and etc.." so this wouldn't be a recurring target, but alas And thank you for the sympathies on the exhaustion - it has been. That SEGM RFC was supposed to put the topic area to rest somewhat. But atm there's a discussion at RSN (which drew Chess here) about whether an article by SEGM's cofounder can be used to debunk better MEDRS in wikivoice - with many saying "but it's peer reviewed"... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] The discussion at RSN is whether or not we can start banning peer-reviewed sources because an author is a member of SEGM. I want to know if we can ban news/govt/etc sources because an author is a member of the Republican Party. If we can agree that McCarthyist blacklists relating to membership in "fringe" organizations is unhelpful, we should stop creating them in general. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Let me fix that for you: The discussion at RSN is whether or not a paper by SEGM's founder and some others without expertise in trans healthcare can be used to say in wikivoice that criticisms which multiple peer-reviewed RS, MEDRS, and MEDORGS have made of the Cass Review are baseless Some are framing the argument as whether or not we can start banning peer-reviewed sources because an author is a member of SEGM. I'd guess that's because RSN says Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports but dying on a hill of abstraction about mcarthyism and etc is easier than straightfacedly arguing I want to say these better RS are wrong based on what this hate groups founder had to say. And both WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE make clear "peer review" is not some golden bullet or overpowering trump card. By MEDRS standards - the majority of peer reviewed work is unreliable because it's not a monolith. By FRINGE standards - there are explicit notes that FRINGE nonsense sometimes gets past peer review. [11] There is a difference between the Republican party and organizations created solely for misinformation in a specific field. If you were genuinely asking this question, and not pulling a WP:SPIDERMAN or trying to strawman other editors, you'd ask if membership in organizations like the American Institute of Homeopathy, American College of Pediatricians, and the Informed Consent Action Network was a mark against reliability for an author. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Is membership in the American College of Pediatricians a mark against reliability for an author? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] If writing about abortion, sex education, LGBT issues, trans healthcare, or vaccines? Absolutely. 100%. Do you disagree? MEDRS and RS explicitly call them out for misinformation constantly. The organization exists to push FRINGE views. It's members often self-publish /vanity press publish books making medical claims like endorsing conversion therapy. Do you think membership in the Flat Earth Society is a mark against reliability in the field of astrophysics? You have been over-complicating how WP:FRINGE works. As a rule of thumb: If you want to say something in wikivoice AND RS and MEDRS overwhelmingly disagree AND one-few sources (RS/Not), by members of organizations known for FRINGE bullshit, agree Don't put it in wikivoice and Don't present a WP:FALSEBALANCE Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't think we should be looking at membership in proscribed organizations as a way to determine whether something is unreliable. As you acknowledge, most of the sources are self-published or vanity press. The Republican Party's official platform or press releases can already be considered unreliable. However, we shouldn't be saying "if an otherwise reliable source was written by a member of the Republican Party, blacklist that source". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] My view is that "guilt by association"/WP:FRINGEORG, as a rule, is absurd. Designating certain organizations as wrongthink and blacklisting people affiliated with them is McCarthyist. Based on the feedback I am receiving here, there is clear community consensus against this proposal as a general rule if you ask non-transgender healthcare editors. One of the things I will discuss in the ongoing ArbCom case is that editors in the transgender healthcare topic area judge sources based on ideological alignment, and this is out of step with the broader community. I can't show that without community consensus and input from other editors that judging sources based on perceived transphobia or other opinions, though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Chess, You have asked a question about the Republican Party as a source for scientific claims about an unspecified aspect of transgender health. You haven’t provided any diffs. No one can address what you mean by “guilt by association” with the Republican Party without such diffs. Which article are you talking about? OsFish (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] editors in the transgender healthcare topic area judge sources based on ideological alignment - no evidence for that. You just mistake "scientific consensus" for ideology and strawman what people are saying. At the SEGM RFC, you argued it's more productive to debate fringe theories rather than fringe organizations. When presented with an RFC asking Is the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness WP:FRINGE within the bounds of mainstream medicine and international human rights? - you said This is just about banning bad opinions, in my view[12] after arguing at the RFC before that Value judgements don't make a source WP:FRINGE, as other editors have described at this board. You strawmanned that people were arguing the NHS is FRINGE because they opposed affirmation and supported gender exploratory therapy - despite the NHS going on at length about how to affirm trans kids and not endorsing GET. So frankly, there are evidently very clearly FRINGE views in trans healthcare that you argue are just different values Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Let's quote your opening statement from the SEGM discussion: This organization has been classified as a hate group by the SPLC (who describe it as the "hub" of anti-LGBT misinformation), described as outside the medical mainstream by the Endocrine Society's spokesperson, and explicitly described as fringe in peer reviewed literature on misinformation. The American Academy of Pediatrics won't host their panels. It's members frequently support trans healthcare bans in court including ones effecting adults (opposed by every major medical organization in the US), co-author papers with members of pro-conversion therapy christian fundamentalist organizations such as the American College of Pediatricians, and claims kids are catching trans from the internet en masse. It opposed bans on conversion therapy for trans people and argues that conversion therapy only applies to LGB not trans people (a position contradicted by every medical org in the world). The Republicans have promoted hate, have supported trans healthcare bans in court, and opposed bans on conversion therapy for trans people. They meet many of the criteria you outlined for an organization to be fringe. Are you willing to extend the blacklist to other groups meeting the same criteria? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] If we inverse the bolding on what you quoted, nearly every sentence is about medical claims. Does the Republican party claim to be a medical association? You are making a category error: SEGM is an organization which claims to be a medical society but is explicitly called out in RS for publishing / only existing to publish FRINGE bullshit. A small minority of which passes peer review and is still bullshit. Editors constantly try and push such FRINGE views citing works by them self-published or externally published - always to contradict what the majority of RS say about a topic. Please note how this can apply to other similar orgs. The American College of Pediatricians is a small splinter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and formed in protest of the AAP saying gay marriage doesn't harm kids. They are known for anti-LGBT misinfo across the board, in addition to abortion misinfo, etc. Or the Informed Consent Action Network, created to spread FRINGE views about vaccines The Republican Party is is not that. It's a political party. It's concern is gaining and maintaining power over the state. It is indeed known for pushing FRINGE views about a lot of things medically speaking. But a congresswoman calling people "tranny" in congress or a demagouge ranting about "gender ideology" or a senator saying gay marriage harms kids are not the same as a published articles in scientific journals. You started this thread with the claim However, editors continually cite statements by Republican-affiliated authors in articles to promote anti-trans/anti-science/anti-etc viewpoints. You've yet to back it up because that doesn't happen. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] "Guilt by association" is not something I see indicated very often at Wikipedia with regards to WP:FRINGE, but it does happen occasionally. This is especially true when a suggested source is used which, for example, has an ideological commitment to a fringe position. So, for example, in spite of Jason Lisle having a PhD in astrophysics, we do not consider his opinions on astrophysics align with the same kind of reliability that we would an astrophysicist not employed by Answers in Genesis. This is as it should be. However, I will admit that there are often plenty of other WP:REDFLAGs to be had when evaluating sources for their WP:PROFRINGE character, but we shouldn't pretend that like associations with other promoters of fringe ideas isn't a consideration. jps (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Why hasn't this completely WP:POINTy silliness been closed yet? Seriously, getting upset because a fringe hate group gets defined as, well, a fringe hate group doesn't really do anyone any favours. I mean, "Designating certain organizations as wrongthink ... is McCarthyist..." ... in this context? really? No. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] As far as I can tell, Chess seems to have internalized that theres no consequences to doing these obnoxious pseudo-swiftian fake proposals that try to make his 'enemies' look bad and waste everyone's time. Not the first time, won't be the last! Parabolist (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE thread against Chess. 05:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess (talk • contribs)

There is an ongoing discussion on whether to merge a list of "Grooming gang" incidents in the UK into the main article. It may be of interest to users of this board.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the merge discussion (which had no heading nor proposal) to Talk:List of grooming gang incidents in the United Kingdom#Merge proposal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very unhappy Hancock fan. Getting boring now, repeating over and over we are violating NPOV. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The responses are sounding more and more like a bot as time goes on. Repetitive overly agreeable and unable to actually understand what is going on. VdSV9•♫ 12:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about [13]. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what the dispute is about? We have an article on a typical Iron Age weather god of Edom and the Sinai Peninsula, who was part of a pantheon of deities which includes El, Asherah, and Baal. What does monotheism and similar anachronistic concepts have to do with old Yahweh? Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the claim The earliest believers in Yahweh were monotheistic. I.e. the claim that Yahweh was from its very beginning a monotheistic god, rather than a polytheistic god. [14]. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But to sum up, it's clear that the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs are not strict Yahwists, as we will come to understand that term. The P and the E sources preserve this insight; and they preserve it in their insistence that the Patriarchs worshiped God as El, but at the time of the Exodus, God revealed himself as Yahweh. There's an interesting passage in the book of Joshua, Joshua 24:14-15. Joshua was the successor to Moses. He presents the Israelites with the following choice: "Now therefore revere the Lord," using the word Yahweh, "revere Yahweh, and serve him with undivided loyalty. Put away the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt"--put away the gods your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt--"and serve Yahweh. / Choose this day which ones you are going to serve, but I in my household will serve Yahweh," serve the Lord. Only later would a Yahweh-only party polemicize against and seek to suppress certain… what came to be seen as undesirable elements of Israelite-Judean religion, and these elements would be labeled Canaanite, as a part of a process of Israelite differentiation. But what appears in the Bible as a battle between Israelites, pure Yahwists, and Canaanites, pure polytheists, is indeed better understood as a civil war between Yahweh-only Israelites, and Israelites who are participating in the cult of their ancestors.

— Christine Hayes, [15]

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the earliest Yahweh cultists we cannot possibly use Biblical sources. The Hebrew Bible is unfit for illustrating early beliefs about Yahweh because it's an oft-revised text, the earliest extant versions of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls ie very late. Earlier Jewish texts are well preserved in Elephantine for example the so-called (Elephantine papyri) there is both an absence of references to what would later become the Hebrew Bible and monotheism present in these texts documenting the religious life of a large and well-established Yahwist community. Archeology from Israel tells pretty much the same story. We can't know the exact origins of the Yahweh cult or what its first originators actually believed but we can look at the oldest sources and there we see Yahweh cultists behave like followers of any other near eastern deity, they merge him with other foreign creator gods like Khnum, take readily from other cultic practices like Plutarch points out greatly from Dionysian ones and worship divine consorts and other gods readily beside Yahweh. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"What do you even mean? Ancient Judaism was monotheistic, polytheism was an addition to it" I mean, that clearly reveals the religious zealous bias. Of course all the recent religio-fashist propaganda will have some people genuinely believe that religious history is fact not fiction or "just another opinion". We cannot do "deconstruction" of kids and teens (partly even adults) being brainwashed. So best we can do is report them if they violate rules or guidlines frequently, such as missing proper citations or adding a protection to the article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon has an edit war about this topic now. 107.119.53.38 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Colonialists burned so many Maya books that their historical record has become highly fragmented to the point that you can't rule out that our colonialist theological narrative might be true." Wow. Is this what passes for archaeology at BYU? Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's continuing today as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats an interesting take and yes BYU's standards for scholarship when it comes to anything related to the Church go completely out of the window. Its frustrating because they're good for so many things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has taken it to AfD, see WP:Articles for deletion/Archaeology and the Book of Mormon (2nd nomination). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the AfD from a procedural perspective. It seems like the nominator wants a merge or a redirect rather than deletion - which might actually be the best course of action - but I'm asking them why they went the AfD route to accomplish this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas about the "Centro de la Cultura Popular Canaria" which is being used here? I can't see how it can be called an RS. I could go to RSN I guess but though I'd asked first, the whole article is a bit odd. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a publisher of books on the history of Canary Islands. They have been publishing books since the 90s. In addition to the book cited in the article, they have published a bunch of others. I don't see a reason why the book or the publisher wouldn't be an RS. Why do you think it isn't? What concerns do you have? TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ Sorry, meant to come back here and say I've established it's a reliable source. It was the comment about Freemasonry that got me worried. Thanks anyway. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… the masonic symbolism claims are fringe BS… but I think it is presented as the opinion of the authors, and not as fact. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not quite. The Myth and Reality piece is an article in a Springer book edited by Clive Ruggles. The man who bought the land in 1854 became a Freemason in 1873, and that could be behind the orientation. I’ll rework the article tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Carl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP from the race & intelligence topic area is a perennial flashpoint, especially regarding how to weigh the inclusion of primary opinion pieces versus journalism (including student journalism). The disagreements have descended into edit warring. Experienced editors are invited to contribute to the discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it controversial to lead with a summary of mainstream sources? An edit war is happening here. 107.119.53.130 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nominated it for deletion. the article is complete nonsense as is, and WP:OR of sourcing that either talks about mormonism or about genetics of native americans.

there is no mainstream scientific article that talks about both. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it also appears Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Official_LDS_Church_position is plagued with similar issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Generalrelative (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]