Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.
    Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
    Shortcuts
    Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions.

    We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Article alerts


    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Peer reviews

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Jordan Peterson[edit]

    The article on Jordan Peterson is clearly written by cultish fans intent on burying his numerous positions which conflict with reality, including his overt climate denial, his promotion of anti-vax ideas, his pro-Putin, pro-Russia stance, his right-wing talking points, and his continuing struggle with mental illness and drug addition. Strangely, none of this is found in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave up on the article, too much of a mess. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. While I'm quite thoroughly aware of Peterson I question whether I have the patience, time or willingness to probably end up at an arbcom enforcement discussion that trying to fix that mess would engender. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't read the lede without getting the urge to tag every line, sometimes several times.[who?]. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we at least throw on a NPOV tag? —blindlynx 19:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think maybe an RfC on the article to rewrite the lede might help, and, if issues persist, a WP:BLUELOCK. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, there's a particular slant to Ralston College, the place he's chancellor of. Reconrabbit 19:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm carefully making a few small edits to the article to at least push it a bit in the right direction. We'll see what happens. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is way too long. I would suggest to cut all the "views and works" stuff into a daughter article, and just put a summary in the main article - which seems largely innocuous. We can then clean up the daughter article, with a lot of deletion. Wdford (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Neuro-linguistic programming[edit]

    Recent flurry of activity including new articles:

    --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did some maintenance on the articles for the books. The Structure of Magic needs some attention still because of the way it presents the subject, and both need reception. Reconrabbit 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories[edit]

    Ok, this is always going to have fringe sources. But should it really have them in further reading? Barry Fell, Pohl, Sorenson, Ashe[1], Huyghe who is editor of the publisher[2], Mallery (see Piri Reis map#Amateur claims}, Farley Mowat? Looking at the references, I see that the reference "Reconciling Conflicting Phylogenies in the Origin of Sweet Potato and Dispersal to Polynesia" has a PubPeer discussion (I can see a big tag at the top of the article and at the reference) here, I'm not sure we should be using it. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Integral theory[edit]

    Some eyes more experienced in fringe matters could be used at Integral theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed a lot of unsourced material, but it got restored. Some sources got added, but not enough. Many of the cited sources appear to be self-published or otherwise inferior. Skyerise (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reincarnation needs updating[edit]

    Virtually nothing about this century, a section on the last two. I found this today [3] which could be used. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon[edit]

    New editor restoring deleted text, interesting edit summary for one edit: “ Restores the apologist perspective that had been up for years. No basis given to remove it, other than the individual hates the LDS Church )” Special:Contributions/Pombedo11!. There was a discussion at Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have gone through the article and removed a lot of "Apologist perspective" sections. In some cases I retained the perspective but removed the "Apologist perspective" headings. In most cases, however, the perspective presented amounted to hand-waving WP:SYNTH of sources that fail to mention anything about the Book of Mormon, or were cited to primary sources, or relied on religious belief. I removed all of those. There was an over-arching tone of "if something can be interpreted in a way that resolves the anachronism, regardless of lacking evidence, then that must be the correct interpretation."
    The only problem I see is that the lead now summarizes the typical methods of rebuttal by Mormon scholars but the article body doesn't really elaborate on that, so the lead now has an orphan summary. The article could use a separate section with selected examples from the content I removed. What the article doesn't need is a he-said/she-said point/counterpoint format like it had before. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tesla, Inc.'s founders[edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tesla, Inc. § Rfc regarding Tesla's founders. I think that there is a relevant topic on whether or not the view that there are 5 founders is a fringe view, which would decide whether we should replace the founders parameter altogether with a link to the section about Tesla's founding. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    George Knapp again[edit]

    Heavy rewrite by User: ‎DuncanGT [4] including unsourced and making it appear that Knapp got awards for his UFO stuff. Tried to revert to earlier version but failed for some reason. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified them and saw they've had a ct alert for fringe. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source in the lead now is " "I-Team: A look at how Bob Lazar interviews match up with Pentagon's admission of studying UFOs". KLAS." - written by Knapp himself. I think at least a page ban might be in order but I did a minor revert, not of this editor, a while ago. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyksos in Armenia[edit]

    This is about [5], please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please can you let me know what is the problem of this article? Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an expert upon the Hyksos, but my intuition that the edits were far-fetched was confirmed at [6].
    In case you wonder, Disruptive editing: ethno-national advocacy, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct is a valid reason for indeffing editors. See [7]. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment, but there are some facts that show the connection between Armenia and hyksos, surely we don't consider them as a final one, but we should at least mention that facts showing or guiding readers to study Armenian sources too. Can we write shorter content and only about the facts approving that connection, or you will delate it? Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not actually aware of a single scholarly argument that the Hyksos were Armenian being taken credibly, but I admit that my history around the Hyksos is weak. Would you be able to provide some sources that meet WP:RS for this claim? I agree with @Tgeorgescu here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an English scholarly testimony: https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc18.pdf, page 47, line 2. We should give the readers all the possible versions to know about their history. May be this will be a factor to help researcher to study the topic more thoroughly. So I consider it true to inform the reader about the variant of Hyksos's Armenian possible origins with reliable sources. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I daresay the state of scholarship has moved on quite a bit from 1939, the date of your article. And in that article, the author is arguing for a sort of confluence between the Hurrians and Hyksos peoples--but not an equivalence of the two. Rather, he says there is linguistic evidence of Hurrian influence in Hyksos king names (I have heard this before, but never followed up on the claim). Associating the Hurrians with Armenia and the broader Lake Van area is not controversial at all. But the sourcing you have provided does not say what you want to put in the article, and would be far too little for what be a fairly extraordinary claim. But that's just one old shepherd's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A single source from 1939 isn't going to convince anyone to upend our entire understanding of history and, by extension, rewrite the article.
    "We should give the readers all the possible versions to know about their history."
    This isn't how wikipedia works. We don't need to present theories with no mainstream acceptance or evidence because it appeals to a nationalist sense of pride. If you wish to inform readers of the true state of the scholarship, this isn't the way to go about it. I daresay accepting that the Hyksos aren't Armenian is probably a more scholarly way to go about it... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, then I will write the statement in another format to give the readers opportunity to study the weak pages of our history. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a credible source it's going to instantly be removed. The idea that the Hyksos were Armenians is, likely, a nationalist fantasy without any credible sourcing behind it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wide studied are done in Armenia and, unfortunately, they are still in Armenian, but surely there are English sources that shows it and hope soon Armenian sources will be available in English too. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah… it’s not a real thing. I appreciate that many feel it is in Armenia, but it’s a similar situation to the Altaic language family in Turkey: widely popularly believed to be true, factually bunk. If Armenian scholars had meaningful evidence the Hyksos were Armenians one would think that some of that evidence would have been put forward to the wider archaeological community. Please do not try and edit this back into the article. It may warrant a mention that some nationalists have attempted to link the Hyksos to the Armenians, but any statement of that beyond it being a nationalist fantasy runs up against WP:ECREE. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote most of the article and I know the current scholarly consensus pretty well. The Hyksos are believed to have been Semitic speakers from the Levant, definitely not Armenians. Also, they weren’t an ethnicity.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: the Hurrian connection has been thoroughly debunked. The Hyksos have Semitic names.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I know about the Hyksos: the word means "foreign rulers" (of Egypt), and they were of Semitic origin. They were later expelled from Egypt. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Student editor I think could use some help at Phoenician Ship Expedition[edit]

    Never a terribly good article in any case. I’m off to bed now but if anyone fells like advising them it would be nice, otherwise they may just get reverted. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliably published book with a fringe chapter, The Geology of the Atlantic Ocean[edit]

    The first chapter has a lot of fringe, eg [8] Searching that you can find:

    "... Celts Perhaps earliest expeditions were those of Celts whose presumed records in Ogam script occur at many places in eastern North America ( Fig . 1 A), where the new- comers could have became established as hunters and farmers . The ..."

    '... Celts , Iberians , and Libyans were associated in their explorations and settlements in the New World . Occasional presence of Egyptian Numidian , Hebrew , Basque , Roman , and "se scripts or words shows , reasonably enough , that..."

    "... Libyans , all of whose ship routes lay nearby ( Fig . 1 ). Greek visits to the New World are uncertain . Al- though many short inscriptions in Greek are known and some words of Algonquian appear to be derived from that language , these ..."

    "... Celtic ships . A stele in Yucatan denotes in Iberian the route of an expe- dition under the command of a Hanno , prince of Car thage . In fact, most of the identified sites have inscrip- tions in Celtic or Libyan as well as in Iberian ..."

    "... Libyans were much influenced by the Greeks after Alexander's conquest of Egypt in 332 B.C. In fact, western New Guinea cave - wall inscriptions made in 232 B.C. by two Libyan captains , Maui and Rata , describe Eratosthenes ' ( of...a" which I think is from this fringe document.[9]

    I don't think any of this is being used as a source for articles, but should it be discussed at RSN? Doug Weller talk 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is not used as a source, what is the point? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling The book itself is used in various articles, not that chapter. My question is that given the clear lack of proper editorial oversight, should this be taken to RSN as being unreliable for all of the book? Doug Weller talk 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my bad. For some reason I thought the chapters had individual authors. They don't. This is all written by two authors, which for me casts doubt on all of the book. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes more sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSCONTEXT reminds us that context matters for reliable sources. Kenneth O. Emery was a marine geologist, and Elazar Uchupi was likewise trained in geology. A source that is reliable for certain claims (like the physiography of the Atlantic Ocean, a matter Emery and Uchupi seem trained and reputed for) can be unreliable for other claims (like trans-Atlantic oceanic voyages before the 1400s, a matter I would turn to archaeologists and historians for). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even for most scientific claims a book first published in 1984 is too old in context. Those are eminent scientists of the 1960s-1980s, not today. We really shouldn't be widely using this source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordo Aurum Solis[edit]

    After 12 years this article is still almost wholly sourced to Llewellyn Worldwide, itself a bad article. There are a few web links but they seem the same where they work. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably better at WP:NPOVN, but now there's even a better place for such a primary source-based trainwreck: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Aurum Solis. –Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy McPherson[edit]

    Guy McPherson is a professor in AZ who makes predictions. In 2007, he predicted that due to peak oil there would be permanent blackouts in cities starting in 2012. In 2012, he predicted the "likely" extinction of humanity by 2030 due to climate-change, and mass die-off by 2020 "for those living in the interior of a large continent". In 2018, he was quoted as saying "Specifically, I predict that there will be no humans on Earth by 2026". He has been interviewed on film, tv, radio, etc.. and is frequently the go-to person if you want an extreme version of climate change, peak oil, etc... He has a following.

    He has been described by climate scientist Michael E. Mann as a "doomist cult hero." Michael Tobis, a climate scientist from the University of Wisconsin, said McPherson "is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe." Andrew Revkin in The New York Times said McPherson was an "apocalyptic ecologist ... who has built something of an 'End of Days' following." The lead section summarizes these POVs, saying he engages in "fringe theories".

    On the talk page, User:PESchneider, who has a disclosed COI with McPherson, has requested we remove "fringe theory" because this is a pejorative phrase and not in line with BLP, that McPherson bases his work on science papers, etc..

    Should we characterize McPherson as a fringe theorist in the article, or some other wording? -- GreenC 17:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, near term human extinction is a fringe theory. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His speech on near term human extinction is on the blacklisted site globalresearch.ca according to his user page. His memories were published by PublishAmerica, now America Star Books and probably self-published. He doesn't have a COI with McPherson, according to his use page he IS McPherson. His userpage is a copy of the article as he first wrote it[10] and I believe at least that part should be deleted.
    The list of his books on his article is too long and and written entirely by him which explains the number of books written by iterations of PublishAmerca, a book published by the now defunct TayenLane publishing (see [11]. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He wrote the existing one sentence description in the lead. I guess he's still technically there as [12] lists him as a professor emeritus, but he no longer seems to be teaching there.[13], THe last part of his list of accomplishments there is interesting.[14]. "America's Registry of Outstanding Professionals" seems very dubious although used in three articles.[15] A couple there seem ok, eg American Men & Women of Science. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Original research and fringe (Shakespeare authorship question; Islamo-Arabic contributions in history of science) at Safa Khulusi[edit]

    There is a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original research and fringe at Safa Khulusi which is relevant to this noticeboard. Please participate there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the massive restoration and told them to discuss on the talk page, as well as briefly commenting there. Based on their behavior and that this is a new account, I'd suggest looking into the page history to see who added that material originally, and seeing if the latest account might be connected. For example, this account seems to have added a lot of material back in 2011 and 2012. See also this ANI thread and this SPI about that user. Crossroads -talk- 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, both the old accounts and the new one seem to be heavily focused on the Eric Ormsby quote (the "large quote" Boing was talking about in the ANI; cf. [16][17] vs [18][19][20]). Very likely the same user. Not sure if it's worth an SPI (accounts are going to be stale), but a clear consensus on the article talk or the NORN thread may help to prevent future disruption. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reichstag fire[edit]

    I think that the article has WP:FALSEBALANCE; see Talk:Reichstag fire#Consensus. Historians may disagree with me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Suissa and Sullivan[edit]

    Since a big part of the argument is whether it's acceptable to cite a fringe source for non-fringe content, this may be of interest. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yakub (Nation of Islam) has a new infobox[edit]

    Which reads as though he was real. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No infobox is best infobox atm until I can find a better one. Apologies for the confusion, I just wanted to put the photo NAADAAN (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregorian Bivolaru[edit]

    Paranoid conspiracy theories are being stated in the voice of Wikipedia, see [21]. Note: this is a different issue from that reported at WP:NORN. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I took a quick run at that article before I saw you'd linked it here, and I cut that bit out entirely because it was definitely fringe/conspiracy-esque, but there's still a lot of the same kind of conspiratorial thinking about the subject's persecution left, and a lot of it was added today. EasyAsPai (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I'm not saying that WP:SOURCES written by Ion Cristoiu and Gabriel Andreescu would have been misleading or "wrong", just that they have been superseded by more recent events. Cristoiu and Andreescu were perfectly entitled to write about the abuses of the Romanian state and the villainies of the press, but the full truth became obvious much latter, when Finland and France issued European Arrest Warrants for Bivolaru, and the French authorities did arrest him in France (again).
    Meaning: following a standard pattern that some occult forces use in their attempt to control and destroy any spiritual movement and any authentic spiritual guide, including Gregorian Bivolaru is a paranoid conspiracy theory. And that source is hagiography. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1224512119"