Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

At Jason Arday two editors have removed an article written by Ibram X. Kendi as a source citing WP:FRINGE. Is this to be considered an appropriate use of the Fringe theories policy? Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, yes, linking it to lynching is fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

According to what scholarship is Kendi off in his analysis? Did you read the article in question? Or are you just going by the misleading edit summaries of the people who removed the source? Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact that Lynching is an extrajudicial killing by a group, and there has been no evidence presented that this was anything other than suicide. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the material in question. No one is saying that the death wasn’t suicide, they’re commenting on the circumstances that preceded it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

But that is how lynching is defined; this is what makes the suggestion fringe, it is using a term that applies to murder for suicide. Also such a suggestion might violate wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Slatersteven, are you familiar with the concept of analogies? Expressing an opinion that something has similarities to something else is not a claim that they are in fact the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The terminology of lynching has been heavily attached to Arday's situation by academics and media.

• https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/-modern-day-lynching-jason-arday-s-death-ignites-debate-over-race-and-academia-in-britain/4031731
• https://theemancipator.org/2026/08/15/ideas/the-media-lynched-jason-arday/
• https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/was-jason-arday-lynched-by-the-media-8941fe6a

THey don't mean a physical lynching; the terminology has expansive use in the USA around such things happening to black people. "Lynching" does not just mean an extrajudicial mob murder by handing or worse.

I heard both a Yale and Harvard professor (forgot names) on NPR last week talking around these exact lines and it's definitely all over media now. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a situation where an attributed claim citing Kendi would be appropriate. It’s honestly rather laughable seeing a scholar with Kendi’s level of institutional recognition described as “fringe”, but this is presumably an opinion piece rather than peer-reviewed scholarship given the recency of Arday’s death, hence the attribution. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The article stated tha Several commentators likened Arday's treatment to lynching, including in The Emancipator,[136] Socialist Worker,[137] Inside Higher Ed,[138] and The Irish News.[139]. Which is verifiably true. As to whether it is due to include such analogies isn't a question for this noticeboard. And no, anti-racism studies aren't fringe as such, though like any other academic subject, there may be fringe views expressed by those involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If there were an argument regarding WP:DUE being made by those removing it I would not have engaged this noticeboard. Both editors explicitly invoked WP:FRINGE while one of the two claimed that presses from Northern Ireland should be not be used to comment on the UK because they are foreign (which is a remarkable failure to understand basic geography). Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Is that editor opposing Scottish and Welsh sources too? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:24, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If they're denouncing the Northern Irish as foreigners, they may even reject The Guardian as a Northumbrian publication... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to inform them that they clearly don't understand Wikipedia policy on 'fringe' with regard to this matter, and that suggestion that Northern Ireland is a 'foreign country' with regard to the UK are to say the least, controversial, and most definitely not in accord with current political/diplomatic/legal realities, as much as some would prefer otherwise. And since when have we restricted opinions on anything to sources from one country? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

At this rate this might end up at AN/I: Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

per this diff, the language really isnt saying anything fringe, its saying the death has been likened to lynching. I dont think FRINGE applies, and the language is far more innocuous than what fringe would imply. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The use of inflammatory language within opinion and commentary is pretty mainstream these days isn't it? There are probably good arguments to exclude that content as it stands, and maybe some to keep it, but FRINGE is just a distraction here i think. Misuse and misunderstanding of the guideline which will just lead to a bunch of unproductive discussion. fiveby(zero) 16:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant to WP:FRINGE. It's not "anti-racism studies", it's a collection of opinion pieces backing up an attributed claim that several people have likened it to lynching. We're not saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that "it was like lynching" but reporting on a strain of commentary. The question is whether e.g. commentary by Kendi in The Emancipator is worth including, not whether it's a mainstream or fringe perspective, because again, it's a metaphor used in commentary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The answer to the question posed in the title of this section is, in general, no. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. This is certainly not fringe and the removed material seems relevant to this topic based on weight. Also anti-racist studies might be a useful lens to add to this tragic topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The editors for this Jason Arday article are Fringe. They have been deleting every edit that falls outside their political narratives, including putting Arday's death in the opening paragraph. They have polluted the article with allegorical claims about DEI, and the most popular topic board for the article is "Race realism".

That article needs urgent review for serious conduct issues. SkylordreignKLA (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Jason Arday: This article has substantial neutrality issues. And needs a deep cleaning. Experienced editors should really take a look. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McMartin preschool trial

Satanic panic / satanic ritual abuse fringeness/reliability issues at play. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

While the Afd is pretty ridiculous, there may be a basis to take a close look at the article. There are some dodgy sources such as Court TV's crime library which is heavily cited. Probably overuse or misuse of journalistic sources. And there may be some basis to uncritical use of Satan's Silence and especially The Abuse of Innocence. Should probably have a close read of:

• Cheit, Ross E. "The McMartin Preschool Case (1983–1990)". The Witch-Hunt Narrative: Politics, Psychology, and the Sexual Abuse of Children. Oxford University Press. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

which argues that both the panic and witch-hunt narrative are incomplete.

It is ironic that those who saw the inappropriateness of the original moral framework were not more suspicious of the stark opposite view. Not surprisingly, both caricatures are inadequate representations of the complicated underlying facts. This chapter ends, then, with the puzzle posed by the juxtaposition of the considerable evidence of guilt in the case with the rise of a witch-hunt narrative that denies all of the evidence. Just as one must ask how supporters of the prosecution were able to ignore the seemingly obvious problems with the case, it is important to ask how case critics have been able to minimize or deny all of the evidence of guilt.

fiveby(zero) 17:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Cheit's book doesn't show up in google scholar (and i don't see him cited in satanic panic), but there is considerable discussion about it: 19 results just searching Sage. Probably should be careful here. fiveby(zero) 17:23, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, i just now noticed you comments in the Afd PARAKANYAA and see you're already on top of this. But I don't think Emily Bazelon in NYT nor Cathy Young in Reason are really qualified here:

• Wood, J. M.; Nathan, D.; Beck, R.; Hampton, K (2017). "A Critical Evaluation of the Factual Accuracy and Scholarly Foundations of The Witch-Hunt Narrative". Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 32 (6): 897–925. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

is the most critical of the book, but besides Wood that's two journalists and a defense attorney. But there is a whole issue of Journal of Interpersonal Violence devoted to discussing the work. fiveby(zero) 18:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I think Satan's Silence is a rather well-regarded book among scholars. I have a half-finished draft on it from many moons ago and the scholarship seems quite positive.

If we had journalists and only journalists discussing a book and all the journalists were negative I do think that is a reason to regard the book carefully, but the scholarship being very critical is what pushes me over the edge; it could be usable in some cases but it's certainly not enough to declare other, much better regarded books as unreliable, especially given its thesis is so provocative and bordering on WP:PROFRINGE. I mentioned the journalist reviews primarily because they were linkable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion among those who are not familiar with the subject: when you say "the book" in the second paragraph, you mean the Cheit book, not Satan's Silence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. My apologies for my lack of clarity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no doubt that at time of publication Cheit's work went against the grain of a large volume of academic scholarship (which the author admits). I like the review by Karen M. Staller:

In The Witch-Hunt Narrative, Cheit has subjected a generalized claim, largely produced by journalists, to scientific scrutiny. In doing so, he has contributed mightily to the academic literature on key legal cases associated with WHN. I have argued that this core study is rigorously executed and important. Cheit has unpacked these legal cases in all their complexity and messiness. He has unearthed their chronology and offered corroborating evidence. He has resurrected their evolutionary paths and re-invigorated academic examination. In doing so, he has challenged the veracity of dominant narrative tropes. He has warned us that simplified presentations—those that obliterate complexity—do a disservice to everyone. Having done so, one can only hope that journalists and academics—including those Cheit has singled out for criticism—will re-examine their own work in light of his impressive scholarship. That said, where Cheit’s book seems to veer into more problematic territory is when he attempts to extend the WHN’s reach to academics and their research. He has not attended to this part of his investigation with the same meticulous detail as that of his investigation of the media.

— "The Methodology of The Witch-Hunt Narrative: A Question of Evidence—Evidence Questioned" Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

And there is a very good discussion in there about standards of evidence. The usual WP way of including Cheit in the article would be something like this: According to Cheit there was "considerable evidence of guilt in the case" which would be a misuse of the source. As Staller says: ...Cheit’s thresholds are set for the exclusive purpose of answering his research question... As far as Satan's Silence goes i haven't really looked at it, but according to Staller Cheit is less successful in challenging the academic views which seems as you say to be general acceptance of SS. But Paul and Shirley Eberle's The Abuse of Innocence might be a different story. That is a primary source, it and most of the journalism sources in the article should not be used as secondary sources within the article. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, that does leave the question about what we are supposed to use as sources, if you don't think we should be using news ones. The scholarly sourcing I have seen focuses on its ramifications, but not the sequence of events themselves, which it is not really possible to write an article off of. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Ha, that's a question all right, and i don't know that you or anyone else wants to read my answer! Suffice it to say that i really like finding and evaluating sources, but really don't like the way Wikipedia (as the resulting process, community, and P&G's) works, what it views as original research, or the way it views sources. So just take my opinions for what the're worth to you. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ross E. Cheit has turned PROFRINGE this year. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

What am i missing? fiveby(zero) 19:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Cheit argues that "the original [McMartin preschool] charges were not baseless" I remember the day those original charges hit the news. The accusation was that everybody working for the preschool was guilty and that they had molested children 115 times without anyone noticing. My bullshit detector immediately went off. Thinks about how implausible it is that not one person wasn't willing to sexually abuse children. Imagine that you are a single child molester. You want to find other child molesters to hire so you can have a preschool that is 100% child molesters. How do you find them? Do you put an ad in the paper listing "must be willing to rape little children" as a job requirement? It simply wasn't plausible -- even on the day they arrested everybody -- that not a single employee wasn't willing to molest children. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought HG was saying that our author had gone off the deep end with a publication or post somewhere in the past year?

As far as your comment goes that quote is from the abstract, and if you read the chapter (there's a TWL link above) you are kind of making Cheit's point here: I remember the day those original charges hit the news. The accusation was...

On February 2, 1984, a local television station broadcast a detailed story about allegations that were emerging from the supposedly confidential interviews at CII. Although the investigation had been going on for months, there had been no stories in the media. The story immediately became national news even though nobody had yet been indicted and the Grand Jury had not been convened. The interviewers at CII had apparently come to believe that most of the children they had interviewed between November 1983 and January 1984 had been sexually abused by various teachers...

that is precisely his point, the case was already fucked up by then and the evidence he's talking about is pre-CII (Children’s Institute International)

the early investigation—before CII started interviewing children—uncovered significant evidence of abuse. (emphasis added)

his point being that the early evidence is overlooked due to what you say, everything about the case which "simply wasn't plausible". You might consider him wrong in his assessment of that early evidence (as Wood, the two journalists, and defense attorney do) but i think you're misrepresenting Cheit's argument. fiveby(zero) 23:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. If this chronology is correct (it seems to match this less detailed chronology from the LA Times), on September 7, 1983 Ray Buckey was arrested, on October 17, 1983 The District Attorney's Office brought in Children's Institute International, on February 3, 1984 KABC TV reported it (that's when I first heard of it), and on March 22, 1984 Ray Buckey, Peggy Buckey, Virginia McMartin, Peggy Ann Buckey, Mary Ann Jackson, Bette Raidor, and Babette Spitler were indicted.

Maybe I couldn't find it, but prior to October 17, 1983 it really looks like the only "evidence" the police had was the accusations from Judy Johnson. I can see why that was enough to notify parents and to make sure Ray Buckey didn't have contact with children, but the DA didn't present any evidence before the March 22 indictment. Which of course is normal; police don't give out such details while they are still investigating.

Cheit published his book in 2014, so maybe he was able to find pre-CII evidence other than Judy Johnson's accusation, but I sure couldn't find any. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Evidence from the medical examinations of five children and interviews with six pre-CII. But it really important here to ask "evidence" of what exactly. When Cheit says "evidence" it is that which calls into question a Witch Hunt Narrative (WHN) and:

• not "evidence" which justifies a belief or leads to a conclusion
• not "evidence" for assigning guilt or blame (which is how many WP readers would interpret it)
• not "evidence" from a legal standpoint of beyond reasonable doubt (tho he does relate his standard to survival of a pre-trial motion to dismiss—a very low bar)

but evidence which should not have been ignored by proponents of WHN or omitted from their accounts of the case. And that's a pretty low and easy standard to meet—it's a very easy job sometimes being a contrarian. That's why i said above a naive quote here would be a misuse of the source and to be careful if the it is used for article content. fiveby(zero) 18:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant that our article has turned PROFRINGE. Sorry for being unclear. Here is the cumulative diff: .

Since the 1990s, Cheit has cataloged strongly-corroborated cases of recovered memories

reappraised the evidence, proceedings, and media coverage of CSA cases widely publicized as 'witch hunts'

And so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is a review of his book:

• Review: The witch-hunt narrative: politics, psychology and the sexual abuse of children, by Ross E. Cheit (PDF version)

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Crap, hate it when i talk myself into article work, considering the comments below i've some penance to do. The recovered memory part is the worst. fiveby(zero) 16:43, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Just an observation that the nominator at the AfD has been edit warring across several contentious topics, which would probably be worth looking into. Looks like MrOllie is involved in a few of them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the common thread is this editor's apparent rejection of the the majority opinion of Recovered-memory_therapy or the idea of false memories generally, which ends up roping in all kinds of cases if you don't accept the possibility that those memories could be false. I mentioned the McMartin article as an example at Talk:Recovered-memory_therapy#RMT_does_not_exist some time ago, which may have indirectly contributed to the waste of time AFD that eventually got filed. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

The nominator has worked on stuff that while sort of related in that it deals controversies surrounding child abuse allegations & evidence, don't seem to be related to RMT. Notably Shaken baby syndrome / Talk:Shaken baby syndrome. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

FYI, the Afd closed keep. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• James Lacatski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New WP:FRINGEBLP of Doctor of Engineering who believes the government is hiding covert programs of alien technology, research into otherworldly powers, UFO propulsion, and various paranormal stuff. He may or may not pass WP:NPROF. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Hrm. Is this (currently cited in the lead for a key point) a reliable source? It's structured like a normal news website, but the tone of that piece is certainly eyebrow-raising in a way that makes me want to double-check. Perhaps just their Mystery Wire section is a problem. Also, it says at the bottom that All facts in this report were gathered by journalists employed by KLAS. Artificial intelligence tools were used to reformat information into a news article for our website. This report was edited and fact-checked by KLAS staff before being published, which makes me suspect that it's mostly AI generated. --Aquillion (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Mystery Wire, George Knapp, article based on this interview. fiveby(zero) 18:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Mystery Wire is Knapp. Knapp is not a WP:FRIND source when it comes to UFOs: , , , . There are some other problems with sourcing. A link to a JSE article reviewing his work is used to legitimize it, never mentioning the review ultimately rejects his work as unsubstantiated. . - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It sort of seems like there should be an overview article here: Knapp, Lacatski, Kelleher, Bigelow, Reid, Skinwalker, AAWSAP/AATIP are all connected in some kind of UFO promotional industry. I don't offhand see enough for a real biography of Lacatski. fiveby(zero) 18:16, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

That topic wouldn't exactly be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirected to Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. fiveby(zero) 21:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Allegedly their LLM platform solved it:

1. https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/32d9f210-8b73-45e0-91bc-82a30aef8a9a/navier-stokes.pdf
2. https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler

It made it into Wikipedia here already:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations&diff=1373953064&oldid=1364796649

FYI. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:33, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical but the BBC is covering it now so it is probably worth mentioning, but not credulously accepting, the claim: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7zygy3rl2o --DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes we need to be careful. As now mentioned in the Wiki article, there is a priority dispute. There is a possibility that the OpenAI solution may have used the training data from Alpöge and Buckmaster's sessions in Codex. Specifically, Buckmaster says: "I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer". Terrence Tao appears to credit Alpöge and Buckmaster. Burrobert (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, at best we can say "OpenAI says it has found a solution". Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Can't say I can see why this is a matter for WP:FTN. What's the fringe theory? If the LLM has solved the Navier-Stokes problem, it has. If it hasn't, it's bullshit and hype (and possibly plagiarism), not a 'fringe theory'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is, it has already been added as a fact, and thus there may well be a need to keep an eye on the situation, as it's clearly not been accepted (and they are tellingly not claiming a prize), thus putting it firmly into the "unproven claim" territory that is the home of fringe theories. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Allegedly, the proof has been validated by the Lean proof assistant which is fairly reliable. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Mathematics, along with the physical and social sciences, involves making claims that have yet to be proven (or at least accepted as proven) as a matter of course. Yes, we have to be careful about how such claims are reported (more so where billion-dollar corporations are involved), but we deal with that through normal Wikipedia processes. This is not a 'not-proven claims' noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

As ever, Wikipedia should follow reliable sources, not lead. As of today we should report that ChatGPT claim to have solved the existence and smoothness problems, but are not claiming any prize. If and when reliable sources confirm anything then we should say so. I suppose this has been posted here because fringe theorists tend to be attracted to major unsolved problems, particularly if they have large prizes attached. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Some reliable sourcing suggesting foul play wrt solution including scientific misconduct, supposedly. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openais-latest-math-breakthroughs-commit-research-misconduct-experts-say/ User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

In any case, the point is that continuum mechanics fails to be a good approximation to reality in certain cases. Modelling down to the molecular level is unavoidable. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The Navier-Stokes equations were only ever an approximation for that reason, and the Millennium Prize problem relates to modelling of incompressible fluids, a further simplification (no real fluid is actually incompressible). The prize relates to a question concerning the equations, not the real world they approximate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Sahaja Yoga (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Newly-active account pushing for changes for which there may be WP:FRINGE aspects. More eyes welcome. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Jesus "Jose" Escamilla (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

For those who collect such things on their watchlist, here is a bio of a ufologist that was sadly bloated with personal and promotional trivia. The result was to obscure the source of his notability (this stuff) and instead imply his claim to fame was as a musical genius and film production mogul. Can probably still use some cleanup but: Before and After. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Ran into this while researching Talk:List of reported UFO sightings#"Greifswald Lights" (1990).

• 1990 Greifswald Lights --Global UFO Archive

This doesn't look like a usable source to me, but (like Wikipedia) it could a place to look for sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of content the whole site is obviously AI generated. At least with organic crankery there's something in it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think notices placed here need to involve an encyclopedia article or a draft or foundation for one. If one presented both a source and an article with a use case, it would belong on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Even taking inspiration from a wholly AI-generated site for what to look at introduces the systemic bias of AI into the work

When HurricaneZeta was showing me how to use OpenAI Deep Research tools, my philosophy was that missing a source due to the fine differences between Google's SEO and someone else's, or otherwise incidentally missing, was a disservice. It makes sense to give the AI a chance to uncover something for thoroughness when it is a small branch of your search effort.

Visiting a website that is wholly AI-generated is something else in my opinion and is sabotaging your search

It was legitimate in the past to look at imdb for an outline and to start collecting better sources. In the age of AI, any external user-generated content without the same rigor we apply, whether it be at imdb or anywhere else, could be produced according to AI biases and without adequate human input. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

In the example above. the page alerted my to some German language sources that I would never have found while doing a web search. Once I knew that they existed, I was able to do a machine translation, and if needed I could have asked for help from someone who speaks the language. I don't see how not knowing that a source exists helps me. Of course I have to do a diligent search and avoid only evaluating sources that I found in a single place, but the source is either good or bad, and it doesn't matter whether I discovered it on Google, Bing, Grok, ChatGPT, a Wikipedia talk page comment, some deranged neo-nazi/marxist, or a 3AM truth social post by a deranged head of state. Sometimes bad people link to good sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Well yes, I agree with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Lonnie Zamora incident (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Persistent IP adding "See also" links and commentary describing how they feel other UFO incidents are similar to Zamora's. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

User:LuckyLouie disagrees on content as an editor on the pertinence of a notably related article. Their conviction about this is strong enough to revert 4 times: [rv1] [rv2] [rv3] [rv4] this despite talk on the article talk page that well establishes the logic for the see also addition which abides by the WP:MOS for see alsos. ~2026-49715-60 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

In the interest of moving forward on writing an encyclopedia I have edited the article to referecne notable UFO reearcher J. Allen Hynek who notably wrote about the similarities of these cases: Lonnie_Zamora_incident#Similarity_to_previous_landmark_case ~2026-49715-60 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

And I have reverted you: see my edit summary, and obtain consensus before restoring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

GcMAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is Yet Another Unproven Cancer Cure. The quacks who promote it say it cures cure for cancer, AIDS, Autism, Multiple sclerosis, Rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus and a boatload of other conditions. Recent attempts to whitewash the page by an editor who may have a COI --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• RFK, Jr., is focusing attention on electromagnetic fields. Here’s what the science says about exposure --Scientific American

We should keep an eye out for increased fringe pushing at articles such as Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Mobile phone, Wi-Fi, and 5G. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

We're living in a nightmare. Carlstak (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Nah… it just seems like a nightmare because of all the electromagnetic waves. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I think he's having DMT flashbacks.;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I have been working near high power radio transmitters all my life, and the glowing purple squid in the corner says my brain is just fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

You see jeff too? Tell him and his adorable 8 glowing tentacles i say hi User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Jeff says thank you for the roller skates and propeller beanie. Really completes the look. He calls you a Very Stable Genius. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with the machine elves who are always there for me. They say they know RFK Jr, and they think he's weird. Carlstak (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia! I woke up this morning not realizing that I needed to learn about machine elves, but I totally did! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_confessional_biblical_scholarship BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Recently I edited the page of John C. Sanford to make the lead a little more detailed to explain that his advocacy for ID postdates his work as a geneticist. In this rephrase, I did remove the word "pseudoscience" though I see that this has been a bit of controversy and an edit war with an unregistered editor apparently not familiar with Wikipedia's policy on the matter. Anyway, Hob Gadling has added the word back into the lead section, which in my view is less elegant wording, but that's not really to my question here. I am wondering moreso if there is some merit in handling different forms of pseudoscience differently; ID is not like flat earth in that the main supporters of it are sane and many have actual legitimate scientific expertise. The word pseudoscience is indubitably accurate for ID (something which is not scientific presenting itself as science), but it is also quite antagonistic. In my opinion, such antagonism seems of little-to-no benefit. For the reader already persuaded of ID, they will likely stop reading there. For the reader already aware that ID is pseudoscience, it provides no extra benefit. For the reader unsure, while it makes Wikipedia's position quite clear, it also signals such a hostile attitude that it will likely inhibit an honest evaluation of the content of what we're saying. There is surely a way to say that ID is nonscientific without being so abrasive. Happy to hear alternative opinions though; this is a tricky issue, as someone who spends a lot of time around YEC and ID believers, I've had a tough time navigating offline too. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 09:49, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Calling Intelligent design "pseudoscience" is already generous and the sanity of the supporters is an open question. Readers unsure about the situation will get a realistic assessment. If the reader is not interested in that assessment then there is nothing we can do anyway. Hiding the fact that pseudoscience is pseudoscience isn't going to help anyone. --mfb (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

It is possible to be accurate without being insulting. My goal is not to hide anything. I would like to know who benefits from frontloading belittling and antagonistic language. I am concerned that this has the functional effect of concealing, due to the turn-off of hackle-raising terminology. If you want someone to listen to you, leading with a direct insult is not a good strategy. We can point out clearly and unambiguously that someone is wrong while still being tactful. I see no downside. It also occurs to me that, since rejection of evolution is so widespread popularly, it is particularly important to handle it well. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 11:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

"Best practice" on Wikipedia is, per the policy WP:RS, to support statements in Wiki-voice with reliable, independent, secondary sources. The Intelligent design page includes many, many such sources that identify it as pseudoscience, so explicitly identifying it as pseudoscience on the John C. Sanford page is both appropriate and perfectly consistent with the project's policies and guidelines. That an editor - you, me, or anyone else - considers a reliably sourced descriptor about a topic to be "abrasive" or "antagonistic" or "insulting" borders on irrelevance, because we are obligated to follow the reliable sources. I suggest continuing with the related discussion at the article's Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason I posted here rather than on that talk page is that my concern is broader than Sanford's article itself. I'm questioning the application of the policy on ID for two reasons: Firstly, handling ID the same way as flat earth is just not warranted on the merits of the case; clearly the two are not comparable in terms of the reasonableness of the belief. Secondly, due to the widespread popular perception that mainstream science is wrong on this issue. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, is it not? Per WP:AUDIENCE the target audience should have an effect on our tone; we can mirror the content of reliable sources without mirroring their tone. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The two proposals being compared are

1. The planet is a disc rather than a globe
2. A magical creature made every single organism in the world

These are roughly comparable in their incredible qualities. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The first difference is that hundreds of people seriously believe the first (and a lot who pretend to believe it the same way I pretend to believe in The TRUTH About Black Helicopters!) while billions seriously believe the second.

The second difference is the lack of scientific evidence for or against intelligent design. Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521) is said to have written "The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.", even though the Earth's sphericity was well-established when Magellan's voyage occurred. Show me anything like that that disproves the existence of an unfalsifiable deity. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Guys, let's not turn this into a debate about ID itself. Your opinion of whether it's credible or not isn't relevant. The question is whether it is justified to treat ID equivalent, tonally, to flat earth. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

We can certainly demonstrate, without difficulty, that evolution - the thing creationists deny - occurs. I'm not saying all religion is equally credulous to flat-eartherism. But creationism is. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism is. Plenty of scientific evidence against a ten thousand year old earth. Now show me some evidence disproving theistic evolution creationism, which has far more believers. It's the difference between disproven and unfalsifiable. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The subject who led to this discussion John C Sanford is a young-earth creationist. This god-of-the-gaps stuff is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Does the title of this discussion say "Question about best practices regarding Intelligent Design" or does it say "Question about best practices regarding Young Earth Creationism"? The first is unfalsifiable. The second is proven wrong. They require different best practices. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Recently I edited the page of John C. Sanford to make the lead a little more detailed to explain that his advocacy for ID postdates his work as a geneticist. is the first line of this thread. The discussion is clearly about specific material on Wikipedia and is not a general forum for the difference between disproven and unfalsifiable pseudoscience and their relative merits. Please stay on topic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from saying "Please stay on topic" when someone talks about the topic in the title of the section. Your methods for deciding what is and is not on topic are suboptimal. Also, I wasn't the one who falsely stated that belief in (unfalsifiable) intelligent design is the same thing as belief (disproven) in a flat earth. You should be criticizing Simonm223. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

One is falsifiable (and has been thoroughly falsified), the other is unfalsifiable (the fact of evolution doesn't necessarily mean that all of it wasn't the design of a supernatural being). Something unfalsifiable of course, cannot be science, but I think an unfalsifiable claim and a falsifiable, falsified claim, can reasonably considered to be in different categories. HierophantOfOmens (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I see now this point has already been thoroughly made by Guy Macon. I was trigger happy hitting "reply". HierophantOfOmens (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Flat earth and ID are as pretty much as daft ideas as can be held. The appropriate way to deal with them is as with other WP:FRINGESUBJECTS (policy). Any assertion that ID is not fringe is patently absurd. Bon courage (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:Fringe theories clearly states Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. I am by no means asserting that ID is not fringe science, but it is certainly not a fringe belief among people in general - take a look at Level of support for evolution. Since we are writing for a general audience, this should be taken into account in the way we handle it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  That they are not 100% alike is not really an argument for omitting highly relevant, important context. Something like a quarter of the population believes in Astrology as well. We have to be based on sourcing, not on popularity contests. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I am not asking for any context to be omitted. I would seriously like to see less people buy into the bogus ID arguments. I do not see that the current approach is helpful towards that goal, nor does it seem consistent with WP's goal of writing for a general audience. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 13:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Writing for a general audience does not mean indulging popular misconceptions and ignorance. Bon courage (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  +1 Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  We're here because you deleted context and got reverted, though. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think if the goal is to increase the number of people in the general public who disbelieve in creationism then making sure to clearly note that intelligent design is pseudoscientific is even more critical. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's not Wikipedia's goal. Nor should it be. Our goal is to accurately report whether reliable sources call intelligent design pseudoscientific. Which they do. If they didn't, we would report that. Disproven pseudoscience exists. So does unfalsifiable pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wow! I was not expecting such a hostile reaction. It does not appear that my concern has been understood here. To reiterate: I am not in any way trying to argue that ID is not pseudoscience or that calling it that is inappropriate in all contexts. ID is absolutely pseudoscience. It is not science, yet ID advocates claim that it is. That is literally the definition of pseudoscience.

  Anyway, not too interested in debating things I don't believe in - if no one else thinks it's appropriate to adjust our language to be more audience-sensitive, then so be it. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 15:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Think i understand your concerns and to some degree share them. But i do believe editors here are sensitive to the audience with the assumption being they have the critical thinking and reading skills of a middle-schooler. Based on the average reader showing up to complain on talk pages about certain articles this is probably an accurate assessment. Maybe it is a little bit of habit also, most of the writing they do is on talk pages trying to convince the inconvincible. But lets face it, these days it is probably closer than not to a description of the "general audience". fiveby(zero) 17:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Our articles are based on what RS thinks, not on what most people feel. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is a distinction between what is said and how it is said. Obviously, it is the first priority to faithfully represent what RS say. That is not incompatible with being aware of what priors the readers are likely to have. Good science communication (heck, any kind of communication) requires you to adjust how might say something depending on the audience. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 19:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Everyone understands your argument, but hiding accurate information for fear of causing offense is not the kind of adjusting based on the audience we should be doing in an encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's perhaps worth noting here that neither of the websites cited on John C. Sanford to demonstrate (accurately) that ID is pseudoscience () actually use the word "pseudoscience" - it is obviously possible to explain the concept in other ways. I just spent a bit of time perusing AAAS's website articles on ID and they are overall considerably less rhetorically harsh than Wikipedia is. For instance, while ID is filed under "pseudoscience" on their webpage, I didn't find any actual articles on the topic which use the term.

  If I did a bad job (and yea I think you're right, I did) getting that across in my edit to that page, that doesn't invalidate my underlying concern. Good communication is especially important when you're communicating about something which is known to be controversial among your audience. Being offensive when it can be avoided is not good communication, and the various science communication sources we are citing to demonstrate that ID is pseudoscience show considerably more acknowledgement of that than has been expressed here. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 20:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  A rational reader could be critical if some nonsense (like ID) is relayed without sane context. Again, it is not Wikipedia's job to pander to the ignorant and misguided. Bon courage (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Read wp:notcensored. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikilink to intelligent design; leave the word "pseudoscience" out of random proponents' bios. This thread has blown up into an argument over a strawman. OP never proposed not calling ID pseudoscience in the ID article (though they probably could have been a bit clearer about what exactly they were proposing). ID does not need to have the word "pseudoscience" slapped onto it every single goddamm place it's mentioned in the encyclopedia! Calling it that in its own article and linking to it is sufficient. You all need to understand that when you beat readers over the head with these labels, it makes WP appear like it's run by a bunch of zealots and fanatics that are no different than religious fanatics, just from a different angle, and that causes WP to lose credibility. Most people generally don't trust sources that come off like it was written by fanatics frothing at the mouth over the subject they're writing about - no matter what POV they're taking! And none of this is about "pandering" to anyone, or actively trying to convince anyone of anything, it's about making a product that doesn't look like it was written by a mob of overzealous hooligans. HierophantOfOmens (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

No because of NPOV: "Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". Bon courage (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The reason I wasn't so clear on what exactly I'm proposing is that I wasn't intending to propose anything concrete. I was inviting a discussion on how we can improve handling of WP:FRINGE on this issue and whether the status quo is really in line with best practices for science communication, in particular WP:AUDIENCE. Disappointingly, that discussion has not occured. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:25, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Try discussing all of that in a separate section instead of talking about intelligent design and then being disappointed when all the replies are about intelligent design. I suspect that you will have more success. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

If you want to change NPOV, the place to discuss it is at WT:NPOV. But the idea that Wikipedia should be 'hands off' and non-judgemental in its language when mentioning ID, Holocaust denial, chemtrails, COVID-as-bioweapon, fake cancer cures, (etc etc) is unlikely to get any traction – as is the notion that ID is some kind of special, more respectable fringe topic which needs different handling. Bon courage (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

the main supporters of it are sane and many have actual legitimate scientific expertise. There are sane flat earthers with legitimate scientific expertise. Just not in geodesy. There are also no ID supporters who have legitimate scientific expertise where it matters in the context of evolutionary biology. Even those who declaim some expertise in such, your Behes and your Sanfords, are really just cultists who are advocating for the equivalent of a psychoiatrist-cum-scientologist or the antivaxxing doctor. jps (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2026 (UTC)