Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

    If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
    Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion.
    Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Articles for deletion

    • 08 Sep 2025 – Kevin Knuth (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Chetsford (t · c) was closed as keep by Stifle (t · c) on 16 Sep 2025; see discussion (6 participants)

    Redirects for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Is BYU reliable for Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

    [edit]
    Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is BYU reliable for Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

    17:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

    Naoki Higashida and Facilitated Communication

    [edit]

    I think we need some clarity and fresh voices in this discussion of Naoki Higashida and Facilitated Communication in this discussion of writing a BLP for Higashida. Please. [Talk:The Reason I Jump#Should this article be moved to Naoki Higashida?] Sgerbic (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I also invite people to weigh in on whether facilitated communication is a fringe theory vs. a significant-minority or questionable view. Some relevant excerpts from WP:FT:
    • "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately"
    • "fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support"
    • "there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. Poorly conducted research, research fraud and other types of bad science are not necessarily pseudoscientific – refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation"
    • "Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists."
    When I look at the research literature on facilitated communication, I don't see the field as a whole treating it as a fringe theory, and instead see it as something accepted by part of the field and dismissed by another part of the field, but where ongoing research is still published in peer-reviewed journals, and where even critiques propose specific kinds of future research that might be useful. For example, this 2010 abstract from critic Mark Mostert says:

    By 2001, Facilitated Communication (FC) had largely been empirically discredited as an effective intervention for previously uncommunicative persons with disabilities, especially those with autism and related disorders. Key empirical findings consistently showed that the facilitator and not the client initiated communication. I analyze the extant efficacy literature since 2001, noting that it reveals similar trends to past findings. However, the FC literature since 2001 also shows increasing acceptance of the technique, ignoring empirical findings to the contrary. Further, more recent pro-FC literature has moved beyond acknowledging that FC is "controversial" to a working assumption that it is an effective and legitimate intervention.

    This strikes me as something that stops short of being an FT, and I'd like to hear others' thoughts about how you distinguish between fringe and minority/questionable. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to weigh in too much because I definitely have a conflict of interest here, but to be clear: there is no evidence for FC. FC literature has tried to rebrand it under other names and to conflate it with AAC and has had some degree of success. That does not mean there is any evidence for FC. I think there is an unintentional fringe aspect that has crept into some articles where AAC is treated as dubious and possibly fringe. There is a huge body of evidence that AAC works. Actual AAC methods can be used across a broad range of situations, in different places, and with different people. FC (under its various brands) only seems to work when the facilitator is present.[1] Rjjiii (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The important distinction is between the general evidence for FC and the fact that, in any specific case, it is still possible that it worked. I think this is why the authors of several skeptical pieces are not sure that he did not write it, but only lean towards not believing it. LogicalLens (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that that distinction is key. There is no evidence that FC works in general, but there is equivocal evidence that it may have had some positive effect for specific individuals. For example, in Mostert's 2001 review of studies since 1995, he discusses previous reviews, and says things like:
    • "Green’s summary of 25 published CP [control procedure] studies and technical reports showed that only 12 out of 226 possible subject responses could be considered unexpected demonstrations of skill above chance, although even these responses could not rule out other causes than FC."
    • "Jacobson et al., (1995) ... reported that among 126 subjects [in controlled studies], there were only 4 possible instances of FC success. However, even among the four possible successes, they noted significant problems with replication and methodology that could have produced false positives."
    • "Simpson and Myles ... reported that across 14 CP studies involving 43 FC elicitation tasks, only 2 tasks showed any possible FC effect."
    And then for Mostert's own review, he says "The CP– studies, all of which reported one or more control procedures, reflected 53 outcomes refuting FC and only 2 outcomes supportive of FC. For CP+ studies reporting one or more control procedures, 9 outcomes refuted FC and 8 outcomes supported FC. ... The divide between the results of studies incorporating control procedures find very little to no support for the efficacy of FC, studies employing fewer control procedures produce mixed results, and studies ignoring control procedures almost universally find FC to be effective."
    There is a meaningful difference between 0 and non-zero (e.g., 12 ≠ 0) and between "none" and "very little." More to the point, none of these researchers are treating FC as fringe, even when they find it ineffective. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What the FC brigade are doing is reversing the burden of proof. "Sure, there's no proof it works in general, but I demand that you definitively disprove each of my anecdotes."
    Precisely the same technique is used by charlatans of all types, notably acupuncturists and homeopathists in my personal experience of dealing with them. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the fact that, in any specific case, it is still possible that it worked How are we operationalizing "fact" in this statement? jps (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The studies cited above by @FactOrOpinion do not demonstrate that there are no cases in which FC works. They still have doubts, but it is a fact that it is still possible that there are some cases in which it works.
    I do not see cuing in the Video, at least nothing that would be sufficiently complex to encode language. If you still believe it, it is your job to provide high-quality sources that plausibly explain how this is still a form of FC. Otherwise, continuing this discussion will not yield any results.
    What is the problem with having a biography article that clearly states the controversy, beginning in the lead section? I do not get around thinking that the resistance is mainly because some people cannot believe that autistic people deemed so disabled can, in some cases, have complex thoughts. LogicalLens (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The studies cited above by @FactOrOpinion do not demonstrate that there are no cases in which FC works Of course they don't! No amount of studies can logically ever show such a thing! Do I really have to tell you that Wikipedia does not require unfalsifiable claims to be falsified?
    I do not see cuing in the Video <irony> Ah, that decides it. After all, you are the final judge of what is true and what is not, and if you reject it, reliable sources can go fuck themselves.</irony>
    You really need to read a few more Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an unfalsifiable claim. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you prove experimentally that "there are no cases in which FC works"? How can you be sure that in some case that happened in 1990, it did not work? Or that there will not be a case where it works next year? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The research that's already been carried out provides weak evidence falsifying it. That was my point when I said "There is a meaningful difference between 0 and non-zero (e.g., 12 ≠ 0) and between 'none' and 'very little.'" FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    weak evidence falsifying it Yikes. This isn't how empirical evidence for claims work. We start with the null hypothesis. The job of the investigator is to provide evidence showing that the claim is not falsified. Not the other way round. jps (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not the claim that Hob Gadling asked about. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. Null hypothesis: "there are no cases in which FC works". The null hypothesis can never be proven, but it can be refuted by a case where it does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But what you originally quoted and claimed was unfalsifiable is "The studies cited above by @FactOrOpinion do not demonstrate that there are no cases in which FC works," not "there are no cases in which FC works." Those two claims are not equivalent. Do you understand the difference? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure you are the one who is confused. Maybe read a little more carefully and see if you can figure out why. jps (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I am confused. Since you think I am confused, you should explain why. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to do that because when Hob tried, you went into what I consider to be a tailspin. jps (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try. People can often accomplish things that are hard, and given that I don't think I went into a "tailspin," it shouldn't actually be hard to explain to me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll leave it to Hob. jps (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what you originally quoted and claimed was unfalsifiable is "The studies [..] FC works," Wrong. I did not say that the sentence starting with "The studies" and ending with "FC works" was unfalsifiable.
    I said No amount of studies can logically ever show such a thing.
    Showing a thing is the same as falsifying the negation of that thing.
    The negation of "there are no cases in which FC works" is "there are cases in which FC works."
    That is the unfalsifiable claim, and the demand that studies should falsify that unfalsifiable claim was unreasonable.
    I am sorry that I overestimated your logic capabilities and hope it is clearer now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you meant that the statement "there are cases in which FC works" is unfalsifiable, I agree. I thought you were referring to the full sentence, as you referred to "they" (i.e., "The studies") and "No amount of studies..." It's not my logic capabilities that failed; it's the referent of "claim" that was unclear; you also misunderstood the referent of "It" in my response (and that's my fault for not wording my response more clearly, as I'm aware that the referents of pronouns are often uncertain). Glad that it's straightened out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these studies suggest that FC may work in some cases, although the authors have questions about whether other factors might explain the results. That is different from the general fact that a study with a limited number of subjects can never completely rule out the possibility that there is no case in which it works.
    The second point: My claim is that he is not using FC or any related technique in this video. The reliable sources stating their estimation that he likely did not write the book do not take this into account. LogicalLens (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "This reliable source did not take into account an idea I had" is not a reason not to use an RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The RS are not claiming that he did not write the book, but that they consider it unlikely that he did so.
    2) The video was published after the most relevant reliable sources. LogicalLens (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, dear rookie: Your analysis of a video, whenever published, is not stronger than an actual RS. Please study the Wikipedia rules more thoroughly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not say which video they analysed, and it was almost certainly not the one we are talking about. LogicalLens (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not talking about a video. We are talking about improving Wikipedia articles using reliable sources, because that is the purpose of this page. If you talk about something else, such as videos and your conclusions from them, you are in the wrong place. Please use the non-Wikipedia part of the internet for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most reliable sources say they consider it more likely that he did not write the book than that he did, but do not rule it out. So, what is the problem with having a biography article that clearly states this, just like it is currently handled in the article The Reason I Jump? LogicalLens (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would a reliable source that does rule it out look like? Is this a standard that can be met at all? jps (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of LogicalLens's analysis of the video; it's a matter of timing. Fein and Kamio's commentary was published in October 214. They included a DVD of Higashida as part of the data they considered, which they described as "a DVD of him with his mother." The video that LogicalLens is discussing, titled "What You Taught Me About My Son", was broadcast in Japan in 2014 (and I haven't been able to establish the date more precisely than that). Fein and Kamio did not name the DVD they used. AFAIK, What You Taught Me About My Son is not available for purchase on DVD, though Kamio could have recorded it from the broadcast and then printed it to a DVD. But they go on to write "In one scene of the DVD, he copies a flower and prints English words (e.g., aquarium), so he clearly has good motor control, printing and copying the flower quite neatly." If I'm remembering correctly, What You Taught Me About My Son does not include any section showing him doing this; I could go back to the video and double-check (or you could; it's available here). Also, What You Taught Me About My Son includes many scenes that are not of of "him with his mother." So it's unlikely that the video they analyzed was What You Taught Me About My Son. They certainly couldn't have analyzed the follow-up broadcast with Higashida, What You Taught Me About Happiness, which wasn't recorded and broadcast until 2017. Also, both videos are themselves RSs (documentaries broadcast on public TV in Japan). FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like the creationist who says that when they post a new article in their creationist journal that the mainstream researchers have to respond. They don't. What would be convincing would be WP:Independent sources saying otherwise. You don't have that. jps (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A ludicrous analogy. There is good evidence against FC having worked with lots of people, and limited evidence in favor of it having worked with a few people. But there is nowhere near the level of evidence against FC that there is in favor of evolution, and no evidence in favor of creationism. Also, LogicalLens wasn't saying that Fein and Kamio had to respond. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a ludicrous analogy. FC is pseudoscience just like creationism. I understand that every pseudoscience believer or promoter or soft-spot-haver objects to comparisons to other pseudoscience to which they object, but the similar patterns are unmistakeable to those of us who have been in these spaces for a long time. Sorry. jps (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a ludicrous analogy. And I'm not a "believer in FC," since I recognize that in most cases there is no evidence for the messages having been authored by anyone other than the facilitator. It's puzzling that you still don't understand my actual beliefs given our long exchanges. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I care not one bit about your beliefs. I care about your actions. And your actions continue to be WP:PROFRINGE in favor of the claims of FC believers. jps (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't care about my beliefs, then don't lump me in with "every pseudoscience believer." My actions continue to be pro-differentiation between what we know and what we do not know. Among other things, Sgerbic has claimed more than once that it is possible for someone who cannot author something themselves to be visually cued to type paragraphs' worth of text authored by a facilitator, where some of the text includes compound and/or complex sentences (and I'm switching to "compound" and "complex" in their grammatical sense, as that's easier to distinguish). What baffles me is that you and Sgerbic, who claim to be pro-science, are so willing to accept that claim without good evidence, instead of saying "we don't know." FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pro-science? You don't put yourself in that category Fact? Good to know. Sgerbic (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pro-science. Distinguishing between knowledge and not-knowledge is part of science. It's not the first time that you've attempted to attribute beliefs to me that aren't mine. Please stop, it's counterproductive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this talk about videos improve the article? What are you suggesting? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, there is no article on Naoki Higashida, only a redirect to The Reason I Jump. I started a discussion on the latter's talk page about whether that article should be moved to the former title and more BLP content added, or if instead a separate Naoki Higashida article should be created. The videos could improve that article, as they're RSs for some content that may not be in other RSs (hard to know whether the info is/isn't in other RSs without reading more RSs about him). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    these studies suggest that FC may work in some cases: please offer your evidence from the studies that this is a case. A quote, for example?
    The reliable sources stating their estimation that he likely did not write the book do not take this into account. Please let us know how you determined the reliable sources did not take "this" into account.
    This looks to me like WP:PROFRINGE WP:OR on your part.
    jps (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1) For studies: see this[2]
    2) They are either not mentioning videos, mentioning that videos do not exist, or only refer to videos where is mother touches him. In the video linked several times, he is not being touched. It could still be rote memorized, but this is not certain and would only justify covering the doubts, not censoring his biography. LogicalLens (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never heard of memorization ever being used in FC. But non-touch happens all the time, it's called RPM and S2C. Also we don't see the mother's hands in the video. Sgerbic (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At, for example, 2:40, it is quite clear that she does not touch him. LogicalLens (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your analysis of a video is still not stronger than an actual RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The full video is itself an RS. So is the NZ audio interview with Mitchell that Beals refers to, in which he states that Higashida is not being touched. You believe that it's possible to visually cue someone to write complex sentences, but you've never provided any research evidence that this is possible. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is on people who think its not possible to provide evidence for such. The Bayesian priors are weighted highly in favor of cueing being the explanation given the reliable sources. jps (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BS. The onus is on the people who say it's possible to meet the burden of proof for their claim. I haven't said it's not possible. I've said that I doubt it's possible, and my having doubt is evidence for my actual claim. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I doubt that you are a real person, do you have the burden of proof to show that you are a real person? jps (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your doubt doesn't create a burden for me, BUT if I claimed to be an actual person, then yes, I have a burden of proof for it. Sgerbic made a positive claim that it's possible for someone to cue non-verbal autistic people to type complex sentences. She has said this repeatedly. She has a burden of proof for the claim she made. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Implied in this example is that you said you were an actual person. You've got a completely messed up understanding of burden of proof. When someone makes an unreasonable demand, the burden of proof is on them. See, e.g., Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative. 19:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC) jps (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you wanted me to understand from that article section. Some negatives can be proved and some can't, just like some positives can be proved and some can't. Whether a claim is positive or negative is not what determines burden of proof. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Telepathy Tapes podcast and associated videos have provided us all with a trove of accounts of complex vocabulary, and in some cases complex sentences, being cued by facilitators. Unless, of course, you accept the Telepathy Tapes' explanation for this phenomenon, which is... telepathy. 2601:47:4A03:B8F0:F766:D206:7BE5:8249 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link to a "Telepathy Tapes" video where you assert that this is occurring. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This should suffice. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-telepathy-tapes/id1766382649
    The examples begin with episode 1 and continue throughout all 10 episodes. Most of the videos are paywalled, but you can pay for them if it's important to you to see them. 2601:47:4A03:B8F0:F766:D206:7BE5:8249 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to listen to hours of a podcast. I asked you to link to a video. Choose one of the ones that isn't paywalled. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and do that yourself. More importantly (given the limited selection of non-paywalled videos and the possible selection bias in what was made public), listen to *an hour* of the podcast. Or read about it. Or get transcripts of it and read those. Or not. Up to you. 2601:47:4A03:B8F0:F766:D206:7BE5:8249 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Your claim, your burden of proof. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I count five people now who have disputed your burden of proof understanding. Maybe reconsider your position. jps (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    whether facilitated communication is a fringe theory vs. a significant-minority or questionable view Clearly fringe - increasing acceptance has no impact on that. There are lots and lots of incompetent people, especially in health-related jobs, who will believe any random crap with extremely flimsy justification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that "increasing acceptance" within the research community is evidence against it being fringe. Mostert wasn't talking about people in "health-related jobs." He was talking about the people writing the research literature (aka researchers). Perhaps you're conflating ineffective and fringe. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the Mostert abstract. FC literature since 2001 also shows increasing acceptance of the technique, ignoring empirical findings to the contrary. Further, more recent pro-FC literature has moved beyond acknowledging that FC is "controversial" to a working assumption that it is an effective and legitimate intervention. Doesn't look different than if he were saying that psy researchers are more and more entrenched in their belief that the paranormal exists, and publish "positive results" ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Such an increased acceptance "within the research community, when it is a research community of a long-discredited as bunk intervention pretending it works, or, dare I say it, a fringe science research community, is no evidence against it being fringe. VdSV9•♫ 17:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostert is talking about peer-reviewed research literature, not some "fringe science research community." Can you present a lot of peer-reviewed research taking paranormal activity seriously? Mostert himself doesn't rule out research on FC:

    A long-standing claim of FC proponents is that the ultimate goal of FC is unsupported facilitation. That is, over time, support should be faded and, ideally, eventually removed altogether (Crossley & Remington-Gurney, 1992). Investigation into differing intensities of facilitator support (e.g., full support at elbow or wrist, support only by touching no support) and the potential for facilitator influence should be more closely investigated... Sixth, most investigations of FC have occurred over fairly short periods of time (e.g. Crews et al., 1995), leaving their findings, in temporal terms, open to question. More studies over extended periods of time (e.g., Myles et al., 1996a, b; Simpson & Myles, 1995b) are, therefore, warranted. In sum, FC proponents must be encouraged to subject their claims to further scientific verification, the claims of anecdotal evidence notwithstanding. If any small part of FC is to ever be found effective or even plausible, it is abundantly clear that only by careful use of controlled experimental methods will this be established.

    I don't even know what field paranormal activity is a fringe theory for, but can you present a mainstream researcher in that field outlining what kinds of paranormal research would be productive? If you can't, then yours is a faulty analogy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you present a lot of peer-reviewed research taking paranormal activity seriously? Yes. The problem is, of course, that fringe discourse communities end up functioning much the same way as the famed Wikipedia WP:Walled garden. The "lot" of this peer-reviewed research shows up published in pocket journals, spin-off and niche discourse, and sometimes make it into more mainstream sources when the peer-review process fails. This is also the case with FC-related therapies, as far as I can tell. There is a nascent group of autism researchers attempting to "rehabilitate" the therapies after some scandals, but their rehabilitation has not happened in the way we would see for things that are actually paradigm-shifting. jps (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what "pocket journals, spin-off and niche discourse" journals are, but let me clarify: I'm talking about mainstream peer-reviewed journals; the same ones publishing critiques of FC (e.g., Mostert's 2001 systematic review was published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders and drew on several FC studies published in that same journal, along with studies published in other mainstream journals). Perhaps you also missed by second question: can you present a mainstream researcher in that field [i.e., the field in which paranormal activity is a fringe theory] outlining what kinds of paranormal research would be productive? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about mainstream peer-reviewed journals; the same ones publishing critiques of FC This is another stumbling block for fringe theories. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is often where some of the best takedowns of pseudoscience have been published, but the journal publishes pseudoscience. There are mainstream psychology journals which have published Daryl Bem. There are attempts in Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders to rehabilitate FC, but they do not rise to the level of paradigm shifts, much the same that Bem's work did not.
    I'm not sure to what end you want me to explain how pseudoscientists interested in parapsychology think there are worthy areas of study, but you might be able to understand the basic outline from our own article on the subject.
    jps (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't asking about "how pseudoscientists interested in parapsychology think there are worthy areas of study." I was pointing out that Mostert is a mainstream scientist who criticizes FC but takes it seriously enough to say what I quoted above, and asking whether there's a parallel with parapsychology. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you quoted above is essentially ""FC literature ignores the data and prefers its belief to reality". You somehow interpreted the same text as "FC is now accepted among scientists" or something. Mostert is not talking about scientists now accepting it more and more. Mostert is talking about quacks and pseudoscientists continuing to accept it in spite of that being unwarranted and not even trying to find evidence for it anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "You somehow interpreted the same text as "FC is now accepted among scientists"" is BS. I did nothing of the sort. If you cannot pay attention to what I'm actually saying, this exchange is pointless.
    As for Mostert, what he's saying is actually more complex. When he says "Investigation into differing intensities of facilitator support ... and the potential for facilitator influence should be more closely investigated," that's not him suggesting "these people are quacks and pseudoscientists." It's him suggesting "I don't see any evidence to support it, but this would be a useful line of investigation" to better understand what's going on. Ditto for his statemement that "More studies over extended periods of time ... [are] warranted." When he says "FC proponents must be encouraged to subject their claims to further scientific verification, the claims of anecdotal evidence notwithstanding. If any small part of FC is to ever be found effective or even plausible, it is abundantly clear that only by careful use of controlled experimental methods will this be established," that again is not a claim that he thinks it's fringe, only that it's unsupported, and that if someone is going to argue that there's research support, this is the kind of research that's needed. Do you understand the difference between fringe and questionable, and do you understand why our policy distinguishes between them? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this would be a useful line of investigation" The last part of your interpretation is not necessarily correct. When people critiquing pseudoscience say that something related to the pseudoscience "should be investigated more closely" it is not always in the service of demanding investigation. Sometimes it is just pointing out a gap in the research. But unless a topic is considered worthy of research, gaps do not get filled. For example, critics of cold fusion may say that the role of a metal lattice in catalytic reactions "should be investigated more closely" they are not necessarily arguing that this is a necessary line of investigation -- only that there is a perceived gap in the sources. And we expect such gaps as per WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire article is available through the Wikipedia Library. You can read the context for yourself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did! I judge your interpretation to be bending-over-backwards to be as WP:PROFRINGE as possible. jps (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I guess you and I interpret the Summary and Conclusions section differently. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A method that has been practiced for several decades and continues to be practiced without ever having been supported by good evidence is quackery and pseudoscience by any useful definition of the word. In your quotes, I see no hint that Mostert thinks differently. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Facilitated communication is one of quackery, abuse, fraud or fringe bollocks. I don't think the various involved professions have yet decided which, or which combination, but I believe nobody in the reality-based community seriously argues that it is facilitating actual communication. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Curmsun Disc

    [edit]

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

    I've been watching and cleaning up our article on the Curmsun Disc for a while now, but the more I dig into its sourcing, the more I wonder if this is a fringe issue.

    At first, I thought this was simply a disagreement between scholars. It happens. But the number of scholars saying that the disc is questionable, if not outright calling it a forgery, is growing. These articles are published by the Associated Press, journals, and some popular science websites, all secondary sources.

    On the other hand, the only two scholars that seem to be sure about the authenticity of the Curmsun Disc are Sven Rosborn and Karen Schousboe. Rosborn's articles are pre-prints on academia.edu and his book, The Viking King’s Golden Treasure, published by Rivengate AB. Every search I've done for "Rivengate AB" seems to point back to this book—a strong indication that it was self-published. Karen Schousboe's articles are all published at medieval.eu, where she is editor-in-chief, so also essentially self-published.

    Both Rosborn and Schousboe appear to have advanced degrees so they may be subject-matter experts, though I'm not sure if they would be considered experts on Viking-era artifacts. Everyone else seems to agree that the Curmsun Disc is not one, however. Thoughts on where to go from here? Woodroar (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    At the least, I think the lead should rewritten to include the fact that several scholars and subject-matter experts doubt its authenticity. (And I don't think the dimensions belong in the lead). VdSV9•♫ 13:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good call on the dimensions. I did edit the lead to say that most scholars doubt that it's genuine but it was removed as unsourced. Woodroar (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The disc is definitely not a fringe subject and the fact that this discussion is even being raised is due to several misunderstandings when interpreting various articles written in Danish, Swedish or Polish. There are only a couple of scholars who claim that the disk is a forgery. The great part working within this area of history (medieval times) think that the disc originates from the time between the 10th and 12th centuries. The conflict in which Rosborn met great resistance, however, is not about the disk itself but about the so-called Gesta, a translation of an alleged medieval chronicle – which no one has ever seen. That is why he’s being questioned by so many. The criticism applies in simpler terms only on his use of the chronicle to interpret Danish history and the disk is actually a different subject. However when history is interpreted by Rosborn then the criticism hits the disc like a ricochet. I will shortly return with a broader explanation and some facts about scholars who accepted the 10th and 12th centuries as the date when the disc was created. If there is any controversy, then it must be Gesta. Ystadsbo1956 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the sources again and double-checked that they were discussing the Curmsun Disc itself and not the "Gesta Wulinensis". Only Rosborn and Schousboe believe that the disc originates in the 10th century and that it is genuine. However, all of their sources are self published.
    On the other hand:
    • Steffen Harpsøe gives later dates than Rosborn, but isn't sure that the disc is genuine.
    • Kurt Villads Jensen and Wojtek Jezierski say it doesn't look like any other Viking artifact and that it cannot be dated.
    • The Videnskab.dk source says (via Google translate) "a large number of researchers that Videnskab.dk has spoken to completely disagree with the conclusions"; Lloyd's of London would not comment on whether the disc was genuine; the National Museum of Denmark says that no proof has been published in science-based articles; Kurt Villads Jensen repeated comments made in the previous source, but also mentioned that it could be a forgery.
    • The Science in Poland source says that Bogucki believes that it's forgery by "antiquity enthusiasts" in the 18th or 19th centuries, and per Filipowiak none of the publications so far have shown the disc to be genuine.
    I wasn't able to find any peer-reviewed journal articles that will say the disc is genuine, which is a good sign that it's fringe. Another is that most of the places covering the disc are Expedition Unknown (hosted by Josh Gates of Ghost Hunters), other fringe sources like Ancient Origins and Ancient Pages, and amateur or non-expert blogs. Woodroar (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I both agree and disagree. Ancient Origins, Ancient Pages has nothing to do with science… And as I mentioned earlier, in this thread, I will soon present more links to reliable sources where scholars made statements about the Curmsun disc. I must add one last point: the fringe issue on Wikipedia evoked strong reactions among scholars on opposite sides. 85.226.242.7 (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I removed the details about the disc's dimensions from the lead, and also added a sentence citing a majority of scholars. I'm still interested in opinions if anyone else has them! Woodroar (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    encyclopedia.com

    [edit]

    FYA, this RfC is glancingly related to the topic of fringe theories. Chetsford (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

    [edit]

    Is BYU reliable for determining the authorship of the book of mormon? Multiple editors are reverting, apparently saying yes, BYU is reliable for claims of the authorship of the book of mormon. Jesus of Cumorah (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the heads-up, but could you maybe take the standard offer and get unbanned instead of creating new accounts? jps (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Plant-based cat food

    [edit]

    Plant-based cat food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs more eyes. Thank you. TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pajeet

    [edit]

    This is an article about a 4chan originated alt-right slur (used to direct racism against Indians and people of Indian origin). I have nominated it for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pajeet) for what I believe was mostly perfunctory coverage from most sources (it is a neologism mostly in currency in the alt-tech (now also X) sphere. The reason I bring this here is because things directly related to the White genocide conspiracy theory are being added to the article. This source (an op-ed) is being used to propose these additions to the article:

    According to Rohit Chopra, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University, the archetype "Pajeet" is typically described as an "uncivilized," "violently misogynistic," and "unhygienic" "dark-skinned immigrant" who is obsessed with cows and refuses to assimilate into white society, where he is portrayed as posing "a threat to the white majority" and their women."

    The source clearly frames these in the context of the racist conspiracy theory but these proposed additions de-contextualized and uncountered appear to not only condense bigotry but to crystallize racist rhetoric (as is clear from the source and others which cover it (e.g. [3]), the slur is associated with anything under the sun to dehumanize those its targetted against) but give undue NPOV coverage to it as well (no other slur-related article covers racist conspiracies related to it from the POV of its purveyors) but also go counter to precedent WP:FRIND. I argued at Talk:Pajeet#Edit to history, that the only thing due from the source would be to link the slur with the conspiracy theory and nothing more (especially not anything from the proposal), others have disagreed but haven't really provided any alternative or given policy-based arguments (I don't think there are any really policies which would make us quote racial bigotry in this way). I ask frequenters here for their opinion, thank you.

    PS: The AfD proposal by me has lead to a barrage of socks attacking me with vile racial abuse. So, indeed I am a bit partial against edits which appear to legitimize racist rhetoric (though this is also generally the case). Gotitbro (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit you reverted[4] is not what you quoted above. This itself shows that you are misleading the observers. The version you reverted[5] clearly mentions the conspiracy theory. Simply listing the tropes and the conspiracy theory is not fringe at all. Also, the cited source is not op-ed.[6] Koshuri (あ!) 11:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Rohit Chopra, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University, the archetype "Pajeet" is typically described as a "dark skinned immigrant" who is "uncivilised", "violently misogynistic", "unhygienic", "fixated on cows" and "unable or unwilling to abide by the norms of his new society". The slur is sometimes also used to attack immigrants of Indian backgrounds for being a "demographic threat" to a "usually white majority population" as a form of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

    Not much different from the proposal at all beyond a sidelined mention of the conspiracy theory, the points raised above wholly stand.
    The source largely appeared to be an opinion of the writer to me, nonetheless the way it is being proposed to be used is not how we go about it (platforming fringe, extremism and conspiracies at enwiki). We also need stellar academic sources for anything fringe (I don't believe this has been satisfied either) and we cover academic views of extremism not give bare references to the extremism itself, this is absolutely not how the proposals go about it. I will wait for uninvolved editors to now comment, so that we aren't going around in circles. Gotitbro (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The given source is not an op-ed. Further, the writer of it is a highly reputed scholar. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly a bit confused about what you mean here. The material you removed says "the archetype [is] typically described as...". It's describing what the racist trope entails, attributed to Rohit Chopra. Unless you're saying Chopra's description of the trope is wrong, how can it be fringe or require countering? Neither Chopra nor Wikipedia is promoting those beliefs. Chopra also appears to be a relevant expert, so the CSOH source seems a perfectly good one to assess the characteristics of the racist trope. Endwise (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is that the way it is framed is POV and undue, picking up racist framing without explicitly describing it as such or linking it to the conspiracy theory from the get go. It is entirely decontextualized and neither are any of the racist usages of the slur particularly relevant for our article (I am yet to find such inclusion of extremist rhetoric at any slur-related article). The slur is used with a myriad other racist phraseology (I have linked the NCRI report above) and I don't believe it does us any good to have fringe material in a way which does not explicitly contextualize it in the frame of the conspiracy theory. Gotitbro (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a conspiracy theory. It is an ethnic slur, and functionally every ethnic slur has stereotypes. Mentioning such is neither POV nor UNDUE. In the talk page discussion, Guido (slang) and White replacement conspiracy theory were given as concrete examples where stereotypes were portrayed, in basically the same manner as the one for Pajeet, which is neutral, and you subsequently ignored them. As per the source, which is very reliable, the stereotypes surrounding Pajeet are not at all fringe. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the specific addition of just the trope lacks the contextualization by Chopra in the CSOH post. Before the description of the trope, Chopra describes its usage in far-right spaces (including social media) by white supremacists. After the description he describes how the slur (and other related slurs) is deployed by South Asians against each other even though white supremacists use it widely against all South Asians. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He notes, for instance, "Even a cursory examination of the history of anti-immigrant prejudice and discrimination against minorities in any society will reveal that these traits have been ascribed to numerous groups seen as outsiders" in reference to the tropes. He is clearly contextualizing the trope in wider racial bigotry. This contextualization is missing from both of those edits. Worse, the edits read as unqualified descriptions being attributed to Chopra in a manner that I reckon Chopra himself will find repulsive. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The material removed is neither incorrect nor presented in a non neutral manner. The source is also fairly reliable and not at all an op-ed as Gotitbro falsely claims. In Talk:Pajeet, a discussion was held about exactly this matter and out of multiple editors, including Gotitbro, Gotitbro was the sole opposition with everyone else portraying a consensus to maintain the statement in the article. Gotitbro subsequently edit warred in the Pajeet article to repeatedly remove mentions of the paragraph, which several other editors wanted to add back as the consensus regarding its inclusion is pretty clear. The user seems to be highly confused about Wikipedia policies EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sole" opposition when the material itself was reverted quickly after it was restored by another editor ([7]). But this isn't about vote count and the core issue fringe is what we are handling here.
    Now that even that this is fringe is being challenged by you, despite all the racialized nonsense listed being connected to the extremist conspiracy theory, we really have a bothersome understanding of fringe.
    PS: About editorial competence the policies have been cited perfectly well discuss those than commenting on editors, and you should be careful of such accusations when not being careful with synth yourself ([8]). Gotitbro (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The policies have already been discussed extensively in the talk page discussion, all of which you have repeatedly ignored EarthDude (wanna talk?) 14:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of 'edit warring' can be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (you are unlikely to succeed) and about 'false' categorization of op-ed, I stated that in passing of what I still believe to be true that these are the opinions of the writer not a research publication of CSOH.
    About ignoring stuff, I have with alacrity responded to every point raised, no policies have been cited in favor of this what has been given is a bunch of disparate quotes of direct racist usage citing a single source without even properly contextualizing or framing it.
    But please keep on commenting on editorial behavior here and bringing up issues barely relevant to the board. Gotitbro (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say the content is fringe yet you do not provide sources or academic consensus that states that Chopra's writings are contrary to mainstream scholarly opinion. Therefore your accusations of "fringe" are not only baseless but also reveal your fundamental misunderstanding of the term "fringe". Wikipedia articles are not written based on personal opinion of an editor, the point remains, your opposition is censorship and lack substance. Koshuri (あ!) 14:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly lay out in the opening statement here that the issue of fringe comes due to its clear association with the violent conspiracy theory not what you say here. The issue is how do you say something is bigoted and extremist without purveying those very things. None of this has been answered, the same paragraph full of extremist chatacterization has been given without context, without clearly showing what it is (a violent conspiratorial racist framing) and without concern for policies and precedent. Neither is this a case of personal opinion nor censorship, repeated reference to these without addressing the core issues at hand is not should be done. I have provided a clear cut proposal, none has come from the other side. Gotitbro (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chopra's writing is not being called fringe. White supremacist and far-right descriptions are being called fringe. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the AfD is going to be closed as keep, so you will want to consider other ways to address the issue. The article should describe fringe theories and note their status as such. It looks to me like we have sources which identify this slur as a slur and the prejudicial and stereotyped nonsense it is based on as exactly that. The proposal then should be to note that the term is a slur and explain how it is a slur with appropriate citations to those sources. jps (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. I believe we already cover these points (slur and how): "The term Pajeet originated from the "Pajeet my son" meme created on the 4chan message board /int/ in July 2015 mocking open defecation by Indians. Prior to 2019, Pajeet was mainly limited to a small number of social media platforms such as 4chan, Gab and Telegram. However, pajeet was then popularized by Islamist extremists and white supremacists to target Hindus. ... In the aftermath of the 2022 Leicester unrest between Hindus and Muslims, anti-Hindu memes were accompanied by "pajeet" depicting Hindus as barbaric and dirty."
    The source (used for the proposed additions) is merely listing its usage in the violent rhetoric of "white genocide" conspiracists. And no proposal as such can de-emphasize that while foremost emphasizing the extremist rhetoric.
    A mere mention to the conspiracist usage as such should suffice, we can do without inadvertently ballyhooing for racists. Gotitbro (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස: Of course, but those desriptions cannot be denuded of their context with which they appear in the source used, as I note above (here and here). UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is surely important. Do you have interlocutors who are arguing otherwise? jps (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talk page we have some South Asian editors who are arguing that we should limit the targets of the slur to those understood by them to be the targets (specific South Asian groups) in contravention of what sources say (all South Asians in general, specific ones when slur used by other South Asians against each other), so yes, we do have commentors wishing to kill the context. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sources are necessarily what win these arguments. If they have sources, consider them. If they don't then refer them to the rules about sourcing WP:RS. If they disagree with the sources and the context in them, then they should show why those sources are wrong with better sources. If those sources don't exist, there is nothing we can do. jps (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that being racist is itself a conspiracy theory. Of course, it is true that racists often espouse conspiracy theories, but the mere act of calling someone an ethnic slur is not really what I'd call a conspiracy theory, or even really fringe — it's simply a bad and cruel thing to do. I don't think that mentioning someone's description of a racist stereotype is "ballyhooing for" it. Like, what, do we need to have "WARNING: being racist is bad" in big flashing letters at the top of every page where we describe something racist? jp×g🗯️ 23:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Percy Schmeiser

    [edit]

    I haven't really dealt much with the GMO topic area in years, very much an early 2010's thing. But a recent thing I ran across brought up Percy Schmeiser and so I decided to check out his article here. And then I ran across this monstrosity. Primary sources all over, including primary court documents that are actively being interpreted in the text. GM Watch, Monsanto.News, Fluxview, every singe hacky FRINGE anti-GMO "documentary" out there being used as a source. You can't even really tell from what's written that Schmeiser 100% unequivocally lost his major court case incredibly badly.

    I honestly can't tell from the article history on whether there was a better version at some point that just got hacked to pieces over time by SPAs and IP accounts.

    It feels like TNTing and starting over would be the best course of action. What do y'all think? SilverserenC 03:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. Spray with glyphosate and re-plant. Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a WP:BLAR to Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser be appropriate? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do question the actual independent notability of Schmeiser to the case, yeah, since all the coverage of him after is about the case, his re-litigation, and such. It's certainly not separate from the case at any point. Bon courage, Hemiauchenia, my concern if I just try to TNT it or Redirect it is that someone will just revert that action and we won't get anywhere. Should I start a talk page RfC there on deciding which action would be best to take? SilverserenC 21:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD can work too. I mean, they'll argue WP:NOTCLEANUP, but on the other hand, WP:TNT is cleanup. jps (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just put up the {{merge}} template and see if there is any pushback. jps (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe propose a merge to Monsanto legal cases? Bon courage (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I've gone ahead and set up a Merge discussion to Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. SilverserenC 02:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. That's overkill, IMO. He clears WP:GNG. Being loudly wrong doesn't really change that, it just makes the job of maintaining neutrality harder. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    slight off topic Seen the latest Veritasium video as well? Or just a coincidence? VdSV9•♫ 15:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    see below. jps (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw that it existed, skimmed its sections, and decided not to watch. It did prompt me to look up Schmeiser though, yes. SilverserenC 21:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of this article, otherwise I probably would have tried to work on it ages ago. I think this is a good case where Schmeiser doesn't WP:INHERIT notability due to their court case, so that would functionally result in a WP:TNT by a redirect anyways. KoA (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]
    Vertitasium recently published a longform documentary that starts out with the shady practices of Monsanto including seed patenting that turns into an expose of the so-called "Monsanto Papers" and the now ballyhooed non-Hodgkins lymphoma link with glyphosate and the jury award. Not quite sure what to make of it. jps (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Deheuvels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) another affected article. jps (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See [9] and [10] for Naomi Oreskes writing about Monsanto's role on disinformation about Roundup (herbicide). Ixocactus (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! I also note this paper from 2021 that I had missed which answers a big question as to plausible glyphosate-carcinogenic mechanisms: [11]. jps (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that this paper, and I'm being charitable, tends to err on the side of "if a study has results that show glyphosate to be safe, it's industry-sponsored, so compromised by COI" and dismiss it. I suggest looking at the response by Tarone [12].
    The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast talked about the Veritasium video and pointed out some issues with it yesterday. I can't find the link right now, but it was about 50 minutes in.
    For the "what to make of it" part: Whenever Derek makes a video about something I know a thing or two about, I find the video very well-researched and even learn couple things from it, but there are some glaring omissions and maybe an unimportant mistake, here or there. That was also mostly true in this case, but this is the first time I see him going full anti-science conspiracy theory video, platforming Carey Gillam's fallacies with no pushback, and a "pulling your heartstrings" soundtrack that made me feel like I was watching Zeitgeist (film series), or something. In case anyone is wondering what I mean by this: Zeitgeist is trash, and I don't appreciate when a film that presents itself as a documentary tries to manipulate my feelings with soundtrack design.
    In the end, I was pretty dismayed. I mean, the facts were mostly all there: glyphosate is great at killing weeds, even if some pests are becoming resistant. And it is incredibly safe in normal and even some high exposure levels. Even the older, less safe and less effective weedkillers (the ones from Agent Orange) were pretty safe if they were pure, the problem was the dioxin contamination. It even shows how this litigation-driven anti-science propaganda has led Bayer to remove glyphosate from Roundup, and go back to the older, objectively worse in almost every measure, herbicides. But the way everything was framed was completely upside down. And, then, a lot of pre-bunking criticism by poisoning the well with a huge shill gambit.
    Maybe it's problematic that it has been advertised as "less toxic than salt" - even though it is true that its LD50 is higher than sodium chloride - because it made some people mistake is as meaning that there is no hazard at any exposure level. So some people didn't take any precautions - even though the usage of PPE have always been recommended, especially for people who work with it every day - and may have had extreme exposures which may have caused health issues. I say maybe, because it's really not so clear. If you work at a salt mine, or a salt factory, you also have to wear PPE and you still run the risk of overexposure. VdSV9•♫ 14:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Decent analysis. Hard to know what to do with all of this. jps (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Holographic consciousness

    [edit]

    For your consideration: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holographic consciousness — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Notoungulata#Using questionable evidence to support megafauna deaths

    [edit]

    Some strange Younger Dryas impact hypothesis-related ramblings, declaring that scientists are stupid for suggesting that the Late Pleistocene megafauna extinctions were human caused (despite this very much being a mainstream scientific opinion, see [13] for a recent review), and that instead these extinctions were caused by asteroid impacts, seemingly sourced entirely to their own opinion. I don't think even the YDIH people generally support an asteroid impact? I've already reverted their comments once [14], but they're not backing down. It's clearly a waste of time trying to negotiate with them, so I am not sure if hatting or something else would be a better solution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Plurality (identity)

    [edit]

    Some attention would be good as the article seems to have received quite a rewrite. For example compare the same article one year ago. See also the article Tulpa.

    My concern is that what was once reflected as the beliefs of an online subculture are now reflected as true. E.g. Each person may have their own thoughts, emotional reactions, preferences, behavior, memory and sense of self, or materialized beings or thought-forms created through spiritual practice, or souls that have departed from their original body to inhabit or co-inhabit another, etc.

    New sources also seem pretty bad. For example, Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences is a predatory journal. Also a thesis, and some other websites like "thegamerstrust.com" and "powertotheplurals.com". Endwise (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. There are past discussions of this issue in the archives of this noticeboard. The concept should be firmly associated with internet culture, I think. As far as I know, advocacy for recognition of this identity is pretty much limited to those spaces, though if there have been movement developments along the lines of neurodiversity rights or other such movements, it would be good for us to document those. jps (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that whole article is trash. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:8403:E588:D005:D071 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    David Berlinski

    [edit]

    In articles about ID figures, we usually point out that ID is pseudoscience. Do we really need a source for that in every article? Isn't it WP:SKYBLUE? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say yes, the main reason being that articles about people notable in full or in part for association with intelligent design most likely attract readers who care about the topic one way or another, and could use a good, solid reliable source verifying the core fact that it is pseudoscience. The other reason is that I am on WP:REDSKY team. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:FRINGE/PS: "Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification." [Emphasis added]. That would suggest "No" as the answer to your question, although it might be argued that intelligent design does not sink to the level of "obviously bogus" required by a literal reading of the guideline. Tevildo (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ID indeed does absolutely sink to the level of obviously bogus. VdSV9•♫ 18:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Azerbaijanis 'mixed ancestry' (again)

    [edit]

    Fringe genetic existentialist nonsense about Azerbaijanis 'mixed ancestry' is back more eyes are needed please—blindlynx 20:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooof this looks thorny. If I were more experienced with these kinds of debates I'd weigh in. Don't we default, especially in the lead, to how a group self-identifies? DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Azerbaijanis#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_13_September_2025

    Using FRINGE to Sanewash

    [edit]

    I have had several instances where editors seem to use FRINGE to keep a person's wacky ideas of their page. This has happened on David Grusch, D. Gary Young and RFKJr. It's possible that editors think they are doing something important by keeping wacky ideas out of the encyclopedia, or being BLP compliant, but that horse has left the barn. Fringe ideas and pseudoscience are now mainstream. I propose editing the WP:FRINGE page to make it clear that if a person espouses fringe ideas we can attribute those ideas to them as long as we contextualize it as fringe. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give some more specific examples (diffs) where consensus is happening with the result of sanewashing at those pages? Letting people know that people hold fringe views in context is the basic thrust of this page. As long as reliable sources have identified a person as holding the fringe views, we can contextualize it. jps (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with jps that you should provide specific examples. A common problem we have is there are no good BLP compliant sources covering the person's fringe views in a way that does contextualise them. We can't generally use other sources which don't mention this specific person and their views even if they do discuss the issues so the best option is sometimes just to exclude mention since these views aren't actually that mainstream if no good sources are covering them and properly contextualising them from a Wikipedia PoV (i.e. WP:UNDUE. In the case of someoone like RFK Jr it's quite like there are so many different fringe which we will have to prioritise significance based particularly on how much coverage these views get even if there are plenty of other views which are sufficiently covered that we would mention them in our article again per WP:UNDUE but in a different way. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1312228306"