Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Not on any specific wiki-articles, but I recently saw this "article" pop up in my email alerts for something entirely unrelated. If you want to see an odd exercise and stringing together odd jargon (so bad to the point I don't think it's AI even), it's an interesting read.

More to the point though, this is just a good reminder that Google Scholar is not always indexing reliable sources and sometimes gets very afar from that goal. This was an academia.edu upload, so really just self-published, but I'm seen a few cases in the last year of someone assuming because it was on Google Scholar it must be a good source, so this is maybe a good example of why that isn't the case if anyone ever needs it. KoA (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, creationism-linked articles are a nuisance in GScholar. Sometimes they also index Wikipedia mirrors but that's not so common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Heh, my academia.edu notifications have been dominated for the past 5 years by two guys, one of whom is a historian of the middle east and an acknowledged expert in ancient middle eastern languages who simply cannot let anything wrong go uncorrected, and one guy who's a plumber (I'm not even joking) who think he's figured out a new way to translate Ugaritic, and simply cannot accept that he's wrong about anything.

It's essentially an unmoderated science forum that draws cranks looking for respectability, but it's also an easy way for legitimate paper authors to share pdfs and thereby cut down on the number of "can I get a copy of your paper?" emails they get, so it's not just cranks.

Just as with any other search engine, discretion is required when using goggle scholar. Papers hosted at academia.edu as well as multiple other sites, such as a number of pre-print hosts, simply aren't good sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Google Scholar tends to find many more reliable sources than a general Google search or Google News, but is not an indication in itself that a source is reliable. As MjolnirPants says, discetion is needed, just the same as with Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Aye, the completeness is the big advantage of GScholar. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't compare it to Google searches, but instead to other academic indexing services like Scopus (more selective than GS) and Web of Science (probably the most selective of journals). Not sure how much predatory open-access journals have drug all those down though. A lot of times if I see someone mentioning Google Scholar stats, I'll go to Web of Science for comparison that's often very different (but also me getting off the main subject here). Easier to find reviews citing a primary source too if that's the point of contention though on WoS. Both are good at filtering out the junk that GS includes though as well as much more minor journals that usually aren't carrying much weight (or IRL reliability for peer-review).

At the least, I've never seen anything this bad on Scopus or WoS, so if someone have access at least, it's often best to check those first before GS. KoA (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Errr, i don't think scholar crawls some major academic presses? Or does it? Seems like there's always more to find by going to WPLibrary. I don't think it picks up all from Cambridge, Oxford, or JSTOR, but maybe crawls Taylor & Francis? Would have to check. It crawls WP tho, so anything already linked from here or other sites it should have indexed. fiveby(zero) 01:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Google Scholar doesn't just crawl sites. Major academic presses maintain partnerships with, and direct feeds to, Google Scholar. I used to work for HighWire Press about 10 years ago, developing journal websites for several major academic publishers (mostly medical/bio journals, such as from SAGE, Royal Society, American Association for Cancer Research, and several others). Included in building a website for a new journal was to establish and maintain direct feeds to Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, etc. I recall being in meetings with people from Google Scholar to discuss improvements. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't seem to get the search results that would be generated if all or most of the academic presses were following that procedure? Will have to pay more attention. It would be wonderful to have a single search engine, comprehensive and flexible and free. I seem to get overall more failure from scholar than success in finding sources, and use it for just a quick look. fiveby(zero) 10:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the academic presses hosted by HighWire do this. I cannot speak for other journal hosts like Elsevier, Springer, Macmillan, etc. but I wouldn't be surprised if the major competitors to HighWire do this too. There's a reason those services are expensive. The cheap services (of which there are many) likely don't do this. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Google Scholar links all kinds of trash articles, tons of predatory articles come up with almost every search. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Gang stalking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some questionable changes to a stable consensus version by someone perhaps on a mission. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Not just 'questionable', but blatant cherry-picking, misrepresenting a description of how those who believe themselves to be victims of 'gang stalking' perceive it as an objective description of actual events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought I was immune to this "triggering" that everyone is talking about these days, but just seeing the title of this section sent shivers down my spine. At least the article seems to have a half-decent lead now. Someone please keep an eye on this, because I tried to deal with this topic years ago and can't take any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now. The Truth Is Out There. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The Terrible Trio of articles that for years have attracted particularly motivated editors and need constant watching: Gang stalking, Electronic harassment, Microwave auditory effect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll add it to the other two. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 15:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and someday you may be inducted into the OWEDTRWSMRTMC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

How can you fail to be convinced by calm, rational, and evidence-based comments like this? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

after collecting your thoughts they come back and down you by humillating me and manipulaing my thoughts Now I understand the basis of my superpower. If only I could make money at it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Consult with User:Sgerbic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Naw, don't consult Gerbic. She refused to marry me. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 13:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Who wouldn't?   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Roxy! I explained ... dogs and cats living together in sin ... can't have it! And also ... I am in the Epstein files. Rome (Wikipedia troll) wrote to Deepak Chopra about me and cc Epstein. Chopra responded "It's ally disgusting". So sorry Roxy. Sgerbic (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting read: (gang stalking discussion starts at 11th paragraph)

"People today with gang stalking delusion are able to find one another and reinforce and amplify each others' delusions, to their own detriment... There's many examples of harmful delusions being worsened through online community reinforcement: there's pro-anorexia forums, incel forums, bitcoin, and "race realism" and other all-consuming junk science.

That's where LLMs come in. While the internet makes it far easier to find a toxic community of similarly afflicted people struggling with your mental illness, an LLM eliminates the need to find that forum. The LLM can deliver all the reinforcement you demand, produced to order, at any hour, day or night. While posting about a new delusional belief to a forum won't generate responses until other forum members see it and reply to it, an LLM can deliver a response in seconds.

In other words, there's one job that an AI can absolutely do better than a human: it can reinforce our delusions more efficiently, more quickly, and more effectively than a community of sufferers can."

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Western esotericism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is about . Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Reported at WP:AIAV. Orbital strike in 3...2...1... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe in western esotericism. What’s so wrong with that? ~2026-16717-30 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the TA for a week for edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I did the initial reverts of the IP editor's removal; however I will say there doesn't seem to be much mention of the relevant pseudoscience in the body of the article, just the one shout-out of Theosophy/Anthroposophy under the "18th, 19th and early 20th centuries" section. DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup, because "pseudoscience" is a relatively new concept (it appeared since 1844 in the scientific literature). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess my question is whether the pseudoscience mention is really due in the first paragraph of the lead, given that the body has just one statement akin to "Theosophy/Anthroposophy, which are descendants of Western Esotericism, are pseudoscientific". I'm not experienced with WP:FRINGE but my impression is that "occultism" would be more accurate than "pseudoscience" here when describing "stuff the Western esoteric tradition has influenced" DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I would really like to see an argument that the statement "Western esotericism It has influenced, or contributed to, various forms of pseudoscience" is false while maintaining that it has contributed to religion and science. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the statement is false, I'm sharing my impression of the scholarship regarding Western esotericism, which is that the tradition's influence on "pseudoscience" is a significantly less-notable fraction of its influence on "occultism" - this is demonstrated by the extent of coverage devoted to these topics in the body of the article: the single sentence I mentioned above, which is sandwiched between discussions of the tradition's influence on occult movements.

With regards to "science", I really wouldn't know, and I don't think anyone interested in this subject cares about the influence of, say, Hermes Trismegistus or Aleister Crowley on modern academic science specifically. But I would like to point out that, for many of the ancient/early modern writers at the ground floor of "Western esotericism", there was not really much difference between the study of religion as such and what you and I would call science: see Pythagoreanism or Hermeticism. The latter is a good example of an -ism with elements that can surely be called "pseudoscience" from a modern academic perspective, but is likely better described by "occultism" or "mysticism". It would be anachronistic and certainly undue to call the work of Paracelsus, for example, pseudoscientific. DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Esotericism, in and of its self, is non-scientific rather than pseudoscientific. But it's broadly true that it has contributed to whole fields of pseudoscience (ghost hunting, esp, and pseudoarchaeology are big ones). If there isn't much meat on that in the body it's certainly room for article improvement. However, assuming it is in the body, it is appropriate to have a one-word mention in the lead while that improvement commences. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I have started a discussion on the talk page regarding the relevant policy. A useful comparison is Daoism, where the lead contains only a brief mention of "new religious movements" when mentioning modern FRINGE offshoots. That article's lead does not mention that these new religious movements are filled with pseudoscientific practices, for example qigong. I believe that's warranted as it would be undue to place "oh yeah, and modern practitioners do pseudoscience!" next to material covering over a thousand years of intellectual/religious history. DiodotusNicator (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but comparing the presentation of a 2000+ year old religion to that of an NRM is not going to win much sympathy from me - especially as Wikipedia should follow sources and not your WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not an NRM? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 "Western esotericism" is not a "new religious movement", and labeling it as such only demonstrates an unwillingness to read our own article on the subject. Seriously, have you even read the lead? DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Asprem, Egil (2015). "Dis/unity of Knowledge: Models for the Study of Modern Esotericism and Science" (PDF). Numen. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library. guys already got 3 works cited in the article so i assume a decent source if needed. fiveby(zero) 02:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this is interesting stuff and IMO, supportive of my argument above that "pseudoscience" is probably not due in the first paragraph.

• "...the only role left for esoteric cultural systems is as antique curiosa that only misguided “pseudoscientists” would continue to take seriously...Yet historical evidence reveals a much more complex picture. Long after the Enlightenment, attempts to synthesize esoteric and scientific knowledge have been carried out not only by “fringe‐science” amateurs or occultist obscurantists lacking a proper understanding of modern science, but by cutting‐edge professional scientists as well."

• Note "occultist obscurantists" - this is what I mean by saying "pseudoscience" could probably be better replaced by "occultism", as it's specifically these occultist obscurantists' mumbo-jumbo about aether and whatnot that's being referenced by "pseudoscience" in the disputed lead sentence. The influence on occultism is way more notable than the influence on modern occultists' pseudoscientific theories (which are, IMO, not particularly notable at all.)

• "...the fact remains that those who produce the New Age science discourse are not coming from some pseudoscientific margin far removed from the world of academia, but straight out of our best institutions of higher education."

• I would also add that what this sentence describes has been going on since Ficino published his translations of the Hermetica, Plato, and the Neoplatonists, examples include John Dee or the Cambridge Platonists

DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable argument, but i'm on shaky ground. I think you might have a tough row to hoe making it here were editors are constantly dealing with both the "fringe‐science" amateurs and the professional scientists. fiveby(zero) 03:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm interested in reading what @Tgeorgescu or @Guy Macon think of this source, and whether they would accept replacing "pseudoscience" with "occultism" in the lead paragraph as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. The article covers over two millennia of intellectual history and contains a single sentence about pseudoscience. DiodotusNicator (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Let's look at another source:

"ALONG WITH NOTIONS OF ESOTERICISM, scholars have frequently employed the concept of 'pseudoscience' to describe forms of knowledge production in Nazi Germany. Indeed, these two concepts overlap in important ways. Both refer to approaches that contemporaries regarded as legitimate pathways to understanding concepts of Volk and Rasse, but that postwar scholars have since interpreted as evidence of the irrationality of Nazi ideology. Moreover, both implicated a wide range of pursuits that historians now characterize as unscientific. But where practitioners of esotericism often valued it as a form of 'antiscience' with a focus on deriving knowledge from a nonmaterial realm, scientists used the term pseudoscience pejoratively to describe any approach falsely claiming scientific authority through a nominal or flawed engagement with empirical methods. In practice, of course, these distinctions are not always easy to draw, and the overlapping valency between such esoteric fields as parapsychology or dowsing and putatively pseudoscientific praxis in the Third Reich raise questions about the ways in which culture, politics, and social convention have historically played a role in determining what science is and which approaches are acceptable or unacceptable."

There is also the aspect of what the True Believers claim to by part of esotericism. See . --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

IMHO, I think Western esotericism and occultism are synonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

For a rather dry academic introduction into what western esotericism actually is, I would recommend The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction (OUP, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke); he defines occultism as a subtype of western esotericism, which is closer to the scholarly consensus, but I've seen scholars dispute even that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Goodness me, Aleister Crowley is involved and I must run away from his word salad nonsense that's just made up crap. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 13:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Ironically, this is a great demonstration that you would gain real knowledge from reading the source. Crowley and other modern FRINGE stuff like Theosophy is a tiny and recent fraction of the material being covered. The word "esotericism" might be completely corrupted at this point, but the study of "Western esotericism" has undergone a scholarly reappraisal over the past few decades because of how inextricably intertwined this stuff is with any other intellectual history/historiography. See Isaac Newton's occult studies for an example. DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

or Chaos magic for total nuttiness. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 09:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Here, take a red pill from Hermes Trismegistus. a fun read maybe but can't find online access fiveby(zero) 15:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Asprem, Egil; Strube, Julian, eds. (2020). New Approaches to the Study of Esotericism. Supplements to Method & Theory in the Study of Religion. Vol. 17. Brill. the titles of their publications sure look interesting. Asprem looking at pseudoscience and conspiracy theory and Strube far-right politics. fiveby(zero) 10:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There is lots more to learn from The Clangers, and I can speak the lingo. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 15:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Still pissed at you for making me change my username, now suspect you of being either British or suffering from exposure. fiveby(zero) 17:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It's really striking to me how much condescension this subject attracts compared to the study of historical Daoism or Sufism. DiodotusNicator (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure we could provide some condescension there also if required. It's just the tone of the board here and having fun. fiveby(zero) 18:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

My fault you changed your username??? I deny it. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 18:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, Daoism has been around for more than 2000 years while the major corpus of Western Esotericism emerged after the British occupation of India with precursors dating back to the late-Renaissance. These are not comparable religious movements and it shows a lack of insight into comparative theology to suggest otherwise. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow. I have a superpower caused by Western Esotericism. I shall call it the retrograde-name-changing-power. ahem. - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 21:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

"the major corpus of Western Esotericism emerged after the British occupation of India"??? No, that's certainly not the case @Simonm223. The major corpus is universally understood to be the work of various pre-Socratics, Plato, and Neoplatonists, the alleged "Hermes Trismegistus", and the translations of Marsilio Ficino. DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not tag me in replies. I generally am not active on WP on weekends and will get back to you om my own schedule, thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I will post some relevant citations to the article page momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

They are now listed, with links, in the appropriate discussion thread at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Not really? The vast majority of the western esoteric canon has been around since prior to the 1800s. For an example in the GC textbook I mentioned that covers the major varieties, only 3 of the 12 chapters cover post-1700s movements. The rest is focused on ancient hellenic movements, renaissance era, up to the middle ages... PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the subject of conversation? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

He makes a joke which Americans might not immediately get showing how British he is (hope so anyway, otherwise that was a pretty bad personal attack on my part.) Not an invalid criticism tho. Often specialized fields are opaque to outsiders, lingo and reasoning not easily understood. And i've been seeing some indications that the study of western esotericism is a relatively new field. Or maybe newly respected, with earlier study done mostly by practitioners. I was wondering what history of science had to say on the matter and been trying IsisCB. Examples of course but now one making an argument for any larger connection. They may still be grumbling about having esotericism slip in through the proto-sciences. fiveby(zero) 17:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the stuff you linked flat out confuses me. I mean it is obvious rubbish with no underlying meaning (no meaning at all actually) but wiki editors consider that it actually merits an article. The project would be vastly improved if it just all got deleted. There are huge categories of this shite, all interconnected by their word saladiness. Perhaps it's me. - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 17:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Should have linked his "How Schrödinger's Cat became a Zombie". You want word salad take a look at the situationists. They found academic writing dense so decided to do it purposefully. Made up terms, switched definitions around—they didn't want anyone to understand what they were writing. And the WP articles of years ago maintained source to text fidelity. Poor soul of the editor who cleaned all that up. Information on all branches of knowledge tho right? fiveby(zero) 19:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I find quantum physics hard to understand, on which we also have many articles, interconnected by their word saladness; would not suggest we delete them just because I personally struggle with the material. Sure, there are many jargon terms, but that is in every field, but that doesn't mean it's nonsense with no meaning (the meaning being fairly clear to me in all pieces linked in this discussion) any more than the study of Islam or Judaism are nonsense for having specialized terms. No matter how stupid you personally think it is, the western esoteric tradition has had a profound influence on many extremely notable people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Unbelievable scenes in this thread. An entire subfield of academic intellectual history experiencing a surge in publishing across major academic presses should "just be deleted" from an encyclopedia that prides itself on sticking to the scholarship. Absurd! DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

For what it is worth, FTN is the worst board on this entire website. Do not take it to heart. If you post about any topic here that is actually need of fixing to not be fringe, people will just crack jokes about how stupid they think the topic is instead of trying to solve the problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that's unfair. Editors here do a tremendous amount of work solving problems in mainspace. I appreciate your and DN's responses with explanations on the reading, but maybe we've all been too conversational and not focused on content. Your question on the talk page remains unanswered: Do you have reliable sources on western esotericism that state this? From this board you have one source mostly supporting your content position and (admittedly not too in-depth) literature searches resulting in a "no" answer for your question. Take the win. fiveby(zero) 15:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I edit about strange topics, but I am determined to do so from a non-fringe POV, and to root out the fringe POV pushing that is endemic in many of these fields onwiki. Every time someone posts a concern here about a topic even remotely obscure, especially if related to culture or religion, it always turns into people here mocking the subject matter as worthless because they personally don't care enough to learn about it - see above, where Roxy suggests that because they personally do not understand the topic, we should delete all articles about it, or previous threads, e.g. the one I started on neo-Templarism a while back. Eventually one person did consult the academic literature and confirmed my concern, so I found consensus to fix the issue, but the vast majority of comments were WP:NOTFORUM violations about how dumb they thought the whole topic was (all the meanwhile fringe POV pushers added 1800s sources from freemasons to establish their conspiracies about the Knights Templar having never gone away, which the posters here saw no issue with). That is what you get if you post about anything here more obscure than say, aliens, or traditional chinese medicine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I remain steadfast in my views about this claptrap. - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 04:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

And I remain steadfast in my views that this is the worst board on this entire website and, as you said, "the project would be vastly improved if it just all got deleted". PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed yes, and I continue to work towards that end. The thought occurs that if this board is the very worst however, how do you benefit from coming here? Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 08:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not easily offended and have a limitless appetite for tedium and so there's no negative to me personally; why wouldn't I? My presence ensures there is a greater diversity of thought here than there would be otherwise and if someone else does show up with a concern about fringe POV pushing in a cultural or religious topic, I am happy to read up on the relevant literature to give my input, so it won't be just people cracking up about how they WP:DONTLIKEIT and letting fringe slip by. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not certain that a meta-discussion of this noticeboard's mission is apropos to the topic at hand. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I did warn you. fiveby(zero) 15:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It is relatively new to having a specialized academic field about it, 30 or so years ago. I don't think that makes it illegitimate. There are multiple journals just focused about it, the premiere one being Aries, published by Brill Publishers. There is a nonexistent amount of scholarship prior to that but it more fell under the purview of religious studies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, if they can convince the historians of science to take a different look at alchemy then it is a contribution (i think that's what happened, late 90's brought changes to history of science also). Not saying it is illegitimate. But now they are reexamining the 'western' in western esotericism and debating whether that was a valid demarcation to begin with. Extending their look at science beyond the Renaissance, Asprem creating models for some kind of cultural exchange and possibly abandoning the term "pseudoscience" in favor of "rejected science"? Not sure about that i'd have to go back and look. I'm not even sure that what i've been reading is not a "fringe" group within the field. I think you and DiodotusNicator are probably right on the content issue, but was trying to find an outsiders view. No luck tho. fiveby(zero) 21:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

There is debate in every field and particularly in modern fields with regard to the social sciences there is debate over whether the constructions they claim to study are even valid; nevertheless, they discuss the constructions. For example, substantial portions of the scholarly study of terrorism are critical or completely against applying the concept of terrorism. I don't think that's an issue.

I think there is a good argument for distinguishing the two; pseudoscience has been used for both science that was never taken as valid anywhere besides the fringes, and science that was accepted widely in the past, but has since been rejected, e.g. alchemy. I think it is a fair concept to distinguish fields since rejected but formerly accepted from those that were never accepted anywhere. There are different considerations that must be applied to each esp when discussing the former from a historical perspective. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Asprem is certainly not fringe in the field, he is the editor of Brill's Aries (journal). Hanegraaff is another of the main contemporary scholars, for example his Esotericism in Western Culture: Counter-Normativity and Rejected Knowledge, covering what you and PARAKANYAA are discussing here, was published May 2025. Many of the currently-publishing scholars are pushing against the "Western" part as you've described. DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Saw Hanegraaff, he called history of science Whig prior to the alchemy reconsideration. Aries is still in the Isis Current Bibliography so i guess they are paying attention. fiveby(zero) 22:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

According to Hanegraaff, Western esotericism is neither rational (as in rationalism), nor religiously orthodox. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Gregg Phillips#Top US Fema official claims to have teleported to a Waffle House before --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

yeah......me too. fiveby(zero) 03:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

OMG I had to read that. What an awesome headline! Sgerbic (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Rolling Stone the WP:BESTSOURCE here: ...Gregg Phillips has a problem. Sometimes he finds himself "teleporting" into ditches, or even into a Waffle House. fiveby(zero) 13:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is not an RS on politics, and the author does not appear to be exceptional. WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I was looking more at their expertise on culture, will leave it alone tho. fiveby(zero) 21:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with PARAKANYAA. In particular, I don't like the way the Rolling Stone folded in criticisms of Kristi Noem and Donald Trump as if Phillips had some sort of control over what his bosses do. We already have better sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Talk:Dhurandhar: The Revenge#RfC on film description in the lead sentence.

More article watchers are also welcome. Thanks Wisher08 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I usually avoid RFCs like this, but I chimed in anyway. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Given this page:

• Wikipedia Turned a Journalist’s Search for His Mother’s Dementia Cure Into a Takedown --neutralpov.com

and this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Max Lugavere

I would encourage editors to watch the Max Lugavere page for a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Golden Milk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We could use more eyes on Golden Milk. There are a number of related issues, such as whether this deserves a standalone article and the need to change the title to WP:SENTENCECASE. It's recently been converted to a standalone article that has become a magnet for tangentially related claims about the health benefits and traditional uses of tumeric and curcumin. I take it those other articles have been dealt with successfully and now there is an effort to insert unsupported claims into Golden Milk. Pinging @Zefr, who has made a valiant effort to address these issues. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Myceteae - I don't see the purpose of your Special:Diff/1345525903 which now color-highlights (on my screens) the term 'golden milk' as if it should attract a reader's special attention, whereas it is justifiably here on FTN as a fringe topic. Thoughts? Zefr (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zefr: We have two redirects, Golden milk and Golden Milk that point here, as well as a couple other related redirects. The purpose of these visible anchors is to take readers who may search for this or click an incoming link directly to the relevant content. Otherwise they have to read through the much longer Turmeric#Culinary section to find this brief mention. This is in the spirit of the guidance at WP:RSURPRISE. However, I decided to use a visible anchor instead of bold text as suggested by WP:RSURPRISE and WP:BOLDREDIRECT. This is because, for the average reader of Turmeric or Turmeric#Culinary, this term does not warrant special prominence or attention, and should not be bolded or highlighted. The word golden milk should only be highlighted for readers who navigate to Turmeric#Golden milk, either through a direct link, entering the URL, or via one of the redirects that point here. Browsers and settings vary, so the highlighting is not guaranteed for all readers who navigate directly to Turmeric#Golden milk, but it should at least take them to the line of text where this topic is described. This is meant to help readers searching or clicking 'golden milk' without drawing undue attention to it for the majority of Turmeric readers. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, but that would seem like a lot of work for editors like you redirecting to non-notable and fringe topics. Zefr (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I was happy to spend a little time cleaning up, refining, and tagging the related redirects Golden MilkGolden Milk, Golden milkGolden milk, Turmeric milkTurmeric milk, and Turmeric latteTurmeric latte. This helps readers and, hopefully, other editors. Golden milkGolden milk gets hundreds of views each month. For readers who search this or editors who wikilink it in the future, it shouldn't require any extra work as the redirect "just works" to point directly to the relevant, if limited, content. Also, golden milk doesn't seem to be per se fringe, but there are many fringe claims about golden milk and turmeric broadly. I appreciate all your work on this @Zefr and I'm happy to explain my thinking. 😊 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone edit the lead of this article to remove the claim that this purveyor of new age woo is "an anthropologist". also the lead (and article) is lacking in content for what he is now most known for: having been leader of a sex/drugs/death cult and the ~six "witches" / brain washed cult followers who disappeared after his death. Also the Tensegrity / Clean Green nonsense should be appropriately framed as its nonsense cash grab cult. Thanks! ~2026-19689-43 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I see one familiar name in the edit history, but none from here, strange for a/the father of the American New Age movement. I don't know about removing 'anthropologist' but a more prominent and assertive statement that the works were fiction seems due based on an offhand look. Probably leader of a "little new religious movement" would be better wording than sex/drug/death cult but maybe the article content could provide a more accurate description along those lines. fiveby(zero) 17:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking for RS that would throw into question whether or not he was an anthropologist. Since he earned degrees we would need something pretty strong. There is a quote in the body where the value of his scholarship is questioned. But a bad anthropologist is still an anthropologist. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Braga could be a start, looking for more. de Mille at SBM and from the further reading section. fiveby(zero) 18:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, even if he was bad at anthropology, I don't see how he's not an anthropologist. And we don't say cult in wikivoice per MOS:LABEL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Kostićová, Z. M. (2021). "From Academic Anthropology to Esoteric Religion: The Development of Carlos Castaneda's Writings". Aries. 23 (2): 206–232. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
• Jennings, Richard. "Intro". Sustained Action: Investigating Carlos Castaneda and his legacy.
• Braga, Corin (Winter 2010). "CARLOS CASTANEDA: THE USES AND ABUSES OF ETHNOMETHODOLOGY AND EMIC STUDIES". Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies. 9 (27): 71–106. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
• Sampson, Wallace (June 25, 2009). "An Original: Richard de Mille, Carlos Castaneda, Literary Quackery". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved January 13, 2023.
• de Mille, Richard (1990) [1980]. The Don Juan Papers: Further Castaneda Controversies. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 0-534-12150-0. Available to borrow at archive
• Hardman, CE (2007). "He may be lying but what he says is true: the sacred tradition of don Juan as reported by Carlos Castaneda, anthropologist, trickster, guru, allegorist.". In Lewis, JR; Hammer, O (eds.). The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Cambridge University Press. pp. 38–55. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

Limbic resonance says "Limbic resonance is the idea that the capacity for sharing deep emotional states arises from the limbic system of the brain."

Limbic system says "There is controversy over the use of the term limbic system, with scientists such as Joseph E. LeDoux and Edmund Rolls arguing that the term be considered obsolete and abandoned. Originally, the limbic system was believed to be the emotional center of the brain, with cognition being the business of the neocortex. However, cognition depends on acquisition and retention of memories, in which the hippocampus, a primary limbic interacting structure, is involved"

Triune brain says "The triune brain was a once popular model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain and behavior... The triune brain consists of the reptilian complex (basal ganglia), the paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the neomammalian complex (neocortex), viewed each as independently conscious, and as structures sequentially added to the forebrain in the course of evolution. According to the model, the basal ganglia are in charge of primal instincts, the limbic system is in charge of emotions, and the neocortex is responsible for objective or rational thoughts. Since the 1970s, the concept of the triune brain has been subject to criticism in evolutionary and developmental neuroscience and is regarded as a myth."

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 53#psych-woo-cology: Limbic resonance
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 111#Limbic resonance
• Talk:Limbic resonance#Evidence?
• Talk:Limbic resonance#Is this new age woo?

Some of the sources are ... interesting. And not in a good way.

• The Wise Heart: A Guide to the Universal Teachings of Buddhist Psychology
• Mindfully Green: A Personal and Spiritual Guide to Whole Earth Thinking
• Harvard Business Review on Breakthrough Leadership
• The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness
• Hope in the Age of Anxiety

See WP:MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Some pretty obvious OR which needs cut. Do it and see what's left over, or did you have another plan? fiveby(zero) 15:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I had in mind, plus clearly labeling it as pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Just redirect all of these to the book article and cover it there. That is what we said we should do last time someone brought this up here. But no one bothered to do it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this, unless someone can provide some evidence that the concept is notable on it's own.
As a sidenote I'm amused to see that this article was deemed fit to use for a DYK back in 2009:

...that limbic resonance is a process of "internal adaptation whereby two mammals become attuned to each other's inner states"?

Perhaps not among the best of things the project has resulted in. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 12:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Our standards for DYK in the 2000s were basically nonexistent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Talk:Conspiracy_theory#Adding_a_section_on_conspiracies_later_confirmed.

Volunteers wanted for a potential time sink. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Crank scientist who thinks that CJD/BSE are caused by a virus? Why? Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Why do cranks have crank ideas? Not really a question for this noticeboard: we just have to deal with the consequences... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

IP Editors trying to push a discredited theory. See The persistence of folly: a critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part I. The excesses of an improbable concept --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Genuine question: which side are you trying to say is discredited, here? The article seems to be 50-50 sociogenic/traumagenic, but doesn't treat either as "discredited". PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Does "Consistent evidence of blatant iatrogenesis appears in the practices of some of the disorder's proponents. DID is best understood as a culture-bound and often iatrogenic condition" seem 50-50 sociogenic/traumagenic to you? How about "There is no proof for the claim that DID results from childhood trauma"?

For those who are unfamiliar with the topic, I recommend:

• The Debate Over Whether Dissociative Identity Disorder Is "Real" --Psychology Today

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Psychology Today is not a WP:MEDRS. Katzrockso (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Nor does MEDRS apply to comments on talk pages. Psychology Today is fine for giving a Wikipedia editor an overview of why dissociative identity disorder. If you prefer a MEDRS source, I refer you to Alters in dissociative identity disorder: Metaphors or genuine entities?" in Clinical Psychology Review. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The condition remains in the DSM-5 as a legitimate, non-iatrogenic or culture bound syndrome; whether right or wrong I find it doubtful that any disorder currently in the DSM is fringe. It could be wrong but it is not yet discredited. That one piece from 2004 (outdated) is not a reflection of total scholarship. Searching recent academic discussions it seems 50-50. And by your logic, isn't the current article pushing fringe, because it gives quite the weight to the traumagenic model. And I do oppose the edits of the IP because they're pushing the contested model as the only model, but there is no accepted model. Personally, I doubt the traumagenic model, but I don't understand why you call the edits pushing a discredited theory that... the article already pushes? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discredited theory is not the traumagenic model. I consider that to be disputed, not discredited. The discredited theory is the theory that people can can split into 'alters' -- independent personalities that can take control of a person's behavior-- and that 'alters' of DID patients exist in a factual sense.

See Alters in dissociative identity disorder: Metaphors or genuine entities?

Key quotes:

"As physiological studies on alter activity often lack proper control conditions, most of them are inconclusive as to the status of alters. To date, neither memory studies nor psychobiological studies have delivered compelling evidence that alters of DID patients exist in a factual sense. As a matter of fact, results of these studies are open to multiple interpretations and in no way refute an interpretation of alters in terms of metaphors for different emotional states."

"Ross, one of the leading advocates of the trauma-dissociation account, contends that 'the most important thing to understand is that alter personalities are not people. They are not even personalities... The patient pretends that she is more than one person.' Likewise, Putnam noted that 'a reading of the North American clinical literature -- as opposed to the sensationalized popular press accounts -- quickly demonstrates that reputable clinicians do not believe that the alter personalities represent distinct people.' "

Also see Dissociative identity disorder: validity and use in the criminal justice system

Key quote:

"Dissociative symptoms are seen in several mental disorders but the idea that personality can split into ‘alters’ that take on an independent existence is inconsistent with research in cognitive psychology. These phenomena are only seen in patients who have been coached, or in defendants who have little recourse to a medical excuse for their behaviour"

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Daniel Amen

Recent activity here attempting a radical shift in POV, so could use eyes. (Should be on the watchlist of fringe specialists in any case.) ... 12:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is Single-photon emission computed tomography also at issue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Our article on Daniel Amen calls the use of SPECT controversial, but I can't find the controversy in our article Single-photon emission computed tomography. What do MEDRS-compliant sources say? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe SPECT is controversial per se, but claiming that the pretty pictures gives you insight into psychological state is WP:FRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Sathya Sai Baba, which is seeing POV pushing by single purpose accounts. Zalaraz (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Survey: Firstpost: This is an RfC here regarding Firstpost which is listed as generally reliable (genrel) at WP:ICTFSOURCES (Indian Cinema Task Force) but is being disputed for failed fact checks for other areas. Gotitbro (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

PS: Its coverage of fascism (particularly Eco's Ur-Fascism) has been noted by academics, and it largely appears to be a handy reference for media in India among scholarly sources covering that space. Gotitbro (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)