Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

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

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Article alerts


    Did you know

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Good article nominees

    Good article reassessments

    Requests for comments

    Peer reviews

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Jordan Peterson

    [edit]

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

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

    @Wdford: I have no stake in this (I'm in the same boat as Simonm223, I don't want to get involved) but here's the section sizes, if it helps. Views takes up 40.24% of the article, so I agree that a split to a Views of Jordan Peterson article (cf. Views of Richard Dawkins, Views of Kanye West, Views of Elon Musk) is probably warranted. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL I didn't take my own advice and ended up vaguely involved at Jorpy's page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now led to a dispute over whether the presentation of Peterson's areas of academic focus and overall impact are appropriately structured in a way that is normal for academic bibliography or whether it's violating WP:NPOV by presenting him as having a much broader area of focus and far more overall academic impact than he really does. The page is now fully edit protected. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yakub (Nation of Islam) has a new infobox

    [edit]

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

    No infobox is best infobox atm until I can find a better one. Apologies for the confusion, I just wanted to put the photo NAADAAN (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Infobox character}} possibly, since he's a mythological figure.--Auric talk 21:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on how "Yakub" is viewed within the religion, Template:Infobox deity or Template:Infobox saint may be appropriate. Both Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox character could probably be modified well enough to make it work for this page. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tariq Nasheed

    [edit]

    User:Kodiak Blackjack has been heavily editing this article. Their latest edit is here[1] and changed "Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American film producer, and internet personality.[1][2] He is best known for his Hidden Colors film series, as well as his commentary and promotion of conspiracy theories on social media.

    tp: Tariq Allah Nasheed is an American filmmaker, anti-racism activist, and media personality.[3][2] He is best known for his Hidden Colors film series, as well as his controversial views and commentary on race relations in the United States, institutional racism, and dating.[4] plus other changes. Do we use newsone.com? I also see some old sources marked unreliable by Headbomb's script , eg YouTube, a tweet, etc. {{ref kust}} Doug Weller talk 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, so I think you could've talked to me about this on my talk page before taking the nuclear option and bringing it to the noticeboard. You know, WP:GOODFAITH and all that?
    I would say the bulk of my edits to the page have mainly been updating references (eg. giving them consistent refnames, making them list-defined, checking for dead sources, archiving, etc.) and resorting the prose from the Career and Views and reception into appropriate subheaders. I added a section to Personal life about his swatting in 2018, a subsection about his YouTube channel to his infobox (a la Jake Paul), and I did change the lede as you mentioned. I understand that when looking at diffs from before and after, the changes to the article seem pretty substantial, but I think you'll find that the majority of the prose is exactly the same as it was, but maybe just in a different place in the article.
    • Re: the lede, I changed it because it's a more accurate summary of who he is and what he does. He is a media personality, not just an internet personality - he had already achieved some notoriety as an author in the early 2000s, before the Internet took off. The NewsOne/Dawson article lists those as what he's best known for, and it's more informative than the NYT opinion piece referenced previously (which is also behind a registration wall), which only mentions him once.
    • Re: the YouTube video and Tweet. The YouTube video is his interview with KTTV about the swatting, which was reuploaded to his channel, and was referenced and embedded in the Atlanta Black Star article. The Tweet from IcePoseidon is his response to Nasheed, which is also embedded in the Atlanta Black Star article, and referenced to link back to/archive the primary source. Both are only supplementary to the actual article.
    Not trying to make any huge waves here. Just trying to flesh out his page. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t doubt your good faith and note I didn’t revert you, came here for more opinions. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. I'm sorry if I came off as a bit overly defensive there, Doug. Anything in particular you want my opinion on?
    • When it comes to the NewsOne article: I don't see any reason not to use it on the page, per se. I found this old RS discussion on the matter from 2023, and the consensus there was more or less "depends on a case-by-case basis, treat it like you would Buzzfeed." As far as I can tell, the article seems to be accurate, and there's a fair bit of information there that I haven't found elsewhere yet, so it'd be a big help when it comes to expanding Nasheed's page.
    • I'm not familiar with Headbomb's script, so I don't know what sources it's flagging as unreliable. Anything besides the tweet from IcePoseidon and the YouTube video?
    • As an aside, I can't find a single reliable source that says his middle name is Allah. I'm pretty sure it's something a vandal snuck into the article for the lulz and it's stayed there since. I'm inclined to get rid of it, but I'd feel like an ass if it was true.
    ...And it looks like most of my edits just got reverted by @Grayfell:. Summoning him here.— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "More opinions" means "opinions from more people". This is not the old "I want a second opinion, doctor" - "you are also ugly" joke. This noticeboard is for notifying knowledgeable people of an ongoing discussion so they can go there and participate in it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, hey, I'm sorry. I didn't really pick up on what he meant by that. My bad. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle name was added here. The ref in the infobox for the middle name was not reliable and somebody at some point removed the name and ref from the infobox but apparently missed it in the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are fringe issues here, for sure. There are also WP:BLP issues, and unreliable source issues, and due weight issues. Some of these changes were, as Kodiak Blackjack says, non-controversial, but this probably isn't the place to go into detail about which work and which don't. Briefly, Nasheed is both a conspiracy theorist (per sources) and commonly a target of other conspiracy theorists. Figuring out how to summarize this is difficult, but downplaying it by removing it from the lead won't work. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd: Okay, thanks. Glad that's out of there, at least.
    @Grayfell: Gonna address this one point at a time:
    There are fringe issues here, for sure.
    He's a fringe topic. Isn't it kind of unavoidable that fringe issues would crop up?

    There are also WP:BLP issues
    So, re: stochastic terrorism, since I assume this is what you're referring to - I don't see how it's not?
    Definition of stochastic terrorism per its own article is:

    "when a political or media figure publicly demonizes a person or group in a way that inspires supporters of the figure to commit a violent act against the target of the communication. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric."

    • ✔️ Ice Poseidon is a media figure.
    • ✔️ He publicly demonized Tariq Nasheed (as per his Tweet, which is also embedded in the Atlanta Black Star article), calling him "evil" and a "professional victim" (in the immediate wake of him getting swatted).
    • ✔️ A reasonable person can assume that this would inspire Ice Poseidon's supporters, who have a history of anti-black racism (per Asarch 2018 and the Atlanta Black Star article) and have been implicated in similar swatting attempts against Nasheed before (per the KTTV interview, which is in the Atlanta Black Star article), to commit more violent acts against Nasheed, a black man, in the future.
    • ✔️ The Tweet uses indirect, vague, or coded language that allows Ice Poseidon to deny responsibility for any resulting violence.
    • ✔️ This took place over social media.
    It's stochastic terrorism. If a reliable source says Alice set Bob's house on fire, Bob says in an interview embedded in the source that Alice set his house on fire, and another source says Alice has a history of childhood pyromania, would it be a BLP violation to link to arson?
    And before you say, "it'd be a WP:SYNTH violation," the Atlanta Black Star article already embeds both Ice Poseidon's tweet and the interview inside it. A reasonable person can still come to the conclusion that it's stochastic terrorism without the additional article from Asarch 2018, in the same way that I can come to the conclusion that Alice is an arsonist who tried to burn Bob's house down without reading the article about her being a childhood pyromaniac.

    and unreliable source issues
    I only added a few sources to the article, those being:
    • The aforementioned NewsOne article.
    • The aforementioned Atlanta Black Star article.
      • The aforementioned YouTube video of the interview.
      • The aforementioned tweet by Ice Poseidon.
    • The article about Ice Poseidon's supporters spamming the N-word in chat, which I directly took from his article.
    • Nasheed's channel, for the YouTube part of his infobox - which I think is fine. I don't see why you wouldn't link to a YouTuber's YouTube channel when the infobox template tells you to.
    • The source from Moguldom about the museum, which based on your edit summary, you didn't think was reliable, but I don't know why.
    If you take issue with any of the other sources, like the Business Insider article, it wasn't me - they were there before I started editing the page.
    I think you might be confused because I did rework a lot of the references that were there originally to incorporate stuff like archived links, consistent refnames, other parameters that were missing, stuff like that. I can see how that would look like a new source in a diff, but they weren't, and - no offense here - but I think you going scorched earth on anything that had my fingerprints on it was a little hasty.

    and due weight issues
    ...Is this about removing "conspiracy theorist" from the lede? Is that what has everyone here all up in a tizzy?
    I'm not trying to whitewash his article or downplay that he's a conspiracy theorist. I'm not on the Tariq Nasheed Defense Squad™ or anything.
    When I started editing the page (and also the way it is right now, because of the reverts), that sentence had (has) no in-line citations following it. It was unsourced. Textbook WP:BLP violation. Of course I was going to delete it and rewrite the lede with something a little less pointed.

    Some of these changes were, as Kodiak Blackjack says, non-controversial, but this probably isn't the place to go into detail about which work and which don't.
    Should we move this to the talk page then?
    I mean, to be frank, I'm not really sure why this is taking place there instead of here in the first place. Is this noticeboard just to discuss whether he should be considered a fringe topic or not? Because if it is... Yeah? He is. Unequivocally. And the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science notice should be added to his talk page. I'm honestly kind of surprised it hasn't been already.

    Briefly, Nasheed is both a conspiracy theorist (per sources)
    Sources that weren't in the lede.

    and commonly a target of other conspiracy theorists
    [citation needed]

    Figuring out how to summarize this is difficult, but downplaying it by removing it from the lead won't work.
    see response to "and due weight issues"

    Look, I get that this is a high-profile page, that's extended-protected, that's related to several contentious topics, that's a BLP and everything that comes along with that, that's also had at least two instances of a literal paid shill trying to edit the article to paint Nasheed in a more favorable light... but I'm literally just trying to contribute to it. I think everybody here is overreacting a little. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A multiple-page contribution on a specific article, posted on a board for notices, certainly counts as overreacting. Can you do this discussion on the article talk page please? One of many reasons: it will be easier to find next year when someone wants to know the reason for the edits that resulted from the discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling ok, mea culpa. But I just don't have the time or energy to handle this sort of thing by myself. I don't seem to know when it is ok to bring stuff here and when it is not. I will add another point, to describe him in Wikipedia's voice as anti-racist is just wrong. I:m sure he considers himself anti-racist. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    mea culpa No! You did the right thing, posting a notice. That is what this board is for. After that, if people move discussion from the article talk page to here, that is out of your control. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling Thanks for clarifying. I think our reply system confused me. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, there are conspiracy theory issues here. Since Kodiak Blackjack removed the term 'conspiracy theorist' from the article's lead, this page is a reasonable place to get more eyes on that specific issue. There are also multiple other issues here, so resolving the 'conspiracy theory' issue alone wouldn't be sufficient to restore those other changes. Since sources do support that he is a conspiracy theorist, and those sources are cited in the body of the article, it is not a "textbook BLP violation' and downplaying that description is whitewashing the article even with the best of intentions.
    As for Nasheed being targeted by other conspiracy theorists, for convenience, a source cited in that article helps explain how Nasheed's work was quoted and subverted by the 2022 Buffalo shooting murderer, which was tied to conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kodiak Blackjack There are sources for conspiracy theorist. Did you not read that part of the article? It’s sourced Doug Weller talk 18:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, I know it's sourced in the article's body. It not being sourced in the lede is my point of contention. MOS:CITELEAD states that The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. This article has two contentious article headers on its talk page, and it's a BLP, so I figured it'd probably be better to lean on the safe side. As I said over on the talk page, I'm fine with keeping conspiracy theorist in the lede, I just think we ought to have an in-line citation after it. — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Kearse, Stephen (December 19, 2018). "Wild Speculation Isn't Worth Much. A 'Theory,' However..." The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2020.
    2. ^ a b Pinkerton, Nick (December 5, 2012). "Hidden Colors 2: The Triumph of Melanin". The Village Voice. Retrieved May 3, 2020.
    3. ^ Kearse, Stephen (December 19, 2018). "Wild Speculation Isn't Worth Much. A 'Theory,' However..." The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Archived from the original on March 1, 2019. Retrieved May 19, 2024.(registration required)
    4. ^ Dawson, Shannon (March 10, 2022). "Who is Tariq Nasheed? Here's What We Know About The Controversial Media Personality". NewsOne. Urban One. Archived from the original on May 19, 2024. Retrieved May 19, 2024.

    Pre-RfC stage @ Talk:Jinn

    [edit]

    As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section. Bookku (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Argument from ignorance

    [edit]

    As a way of reasoning used by fringe theorists, maybe only marginally relevant here. New user trying to force their opinion into the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stab-in-the-back myth

    [edit]

    Another history subject edited by someone who does not believe in what WP:OR and WP:RS say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vegepet

    [edit]

    A dietary supplement for vegan pets. Concerns have been raised that the article contains fringe content, WP:OR and lacks independent sourcing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one very poorly written article. I removed a search query being used as a source, but it probably needs WP:TNT 174.171.79.146 (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was disappointed to discover that "vegepet" wasn't a term for a houseplant kept by someone who doesn't want to oppress animals by keeping them as pets. Brunton (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brunton, sounds like a brilliant business opportunity! It could be the 21st century's pet rock. Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost

    [edit]

    Both Ghosts of the American Civil War and Lincoln's ghost describe ghosts and entirely rely on primary and questionable sources. Both articles focus on supposed "sightings" and largely do not discuss anything else. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine that this stuff was once in the main articles but got tossed out to become content forks. The blatantly credulous stuff is mostly sourced to 'ghost expert' sources, but there are a few travel and local sources that appropriately treat the topic as folklore. A quick fix would be to rename the articles American Civil War ghost stories and Abraham Lincoln ghost stories, and then merge Lincoln into the first. Note that both article creators have since been blocked, one for continual copyright violations, so there may be copyvios lurking. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

    [edit]

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the UFO crowd again

    [edit]

    If interested the latest from these peeps is now out. I only watched the first few minutes and they have a stick and aren't letting it go. Possibly they will be making more trouble for the editors they feel are targeting the UFO/UAP disclosure they so want to happen. The interviewee for this specific show says he has a list of editors and their real life names and professions and apparently is planning on exposing them. Oh and @LuckyLouie is Mick West, of course he is. I went on this YouTube channel last month and tried to explain and have a discussion with them, it was a 3-hour interview and they removed over an hour of content. I would say it was a waste of my time, except I'm always interested in trying to help people understand, plus it was fascinating to get a peek into their mindset. You can find it on their channel if you are interested along with their other nonsense about how Wikipedia works, when it is obvious they have no clue how it works. I only raise this issue as of course I know we are attacked all the time, but this seems to be at least for a few people to be escalating. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W1lohseihc]. Sgerbic (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, they're irrational. They think that Satan + Illuminati are covering up the truth about UFOs, in order to let the Reptilians rule unabashed. E.g. there was a guy who killed his own two children because he thought they have "serpent blood". tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some are very irrational. But that does not mean that they can be disruptive here on Wikipedia AND cause headaches with their "outing" of editors real life names vs user names. Plus the nonsense when they get it completely wrong like Louie and West. Sgerbic (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we now have "true" Guerrilla Skeptics going after Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia... Ladies and gentleman, Siphonaptera (poem). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I love it when one of them hits the nail on the head and states "...I notice patterns in everything..." which is the problem, e.g. apophenia, with many fringe theories. Paul H. (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Early history of Palestine making fringe claims

    [edit]

    [2] The early history section here makes some religious claims in wikivoice. 107.116.165.24 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, this is a religious account of the history which is not supported by archaeology. It's fine to mention the traditional account but we shouldn't say it's true, especially not over the archaeological account. Loki (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That section was written by one editor.[3], User:Kharbaan Ghaltaan. Out of about 26 sources I see just one academic one. The rest run from poor to dreadful, eg [4] Can anyone read this one?[5] It loads and then I get a blank screen. Lots of use of encyclopedias, Britannica etc.
    Just found this[6] that the editor also wrote, in fact they have written 53% of the article editing it 90 times.. A lot of the article is no longer about the State of Palestine but the history of the area and should be removed. Any objections? Doug Weller talk 08:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, go ahead. Loki (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lightning Process

    [edit]

    I don't edit fringe medical topics often but recent edits, particularly about a BBC Radio 4 piece ([7]), seem very egregious and would appreciate somebody with more experience of this sort of thing to have a look. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes, there was some WP:PROFRINGE twisting there. I've poked it a bit. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TRIZ

    [edit]

    Maybe this is the wrong noticeboard, but what is TRIZ? The lead is very promo-y and this article cites lots and lots of self-published stuff. Zanahary (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on a quick read, I don't think this is a fringe theory...just a very poorly-written article about a quirky/fad engineering-psychology method. Not my field, so I'm probably not the one to improve the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a method that gained enough prevalence to keep getting works published about it decades after its inception. By definition full of jargon and difficult to define in a way useful to anyone not already embedded in marketing. There are some sources in Russian. Also see Category:TRIZ and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject TRIZ Ontology. Reconrabbit 14:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again

    [edit]

    About two months ago, there was an apparent consensus that this is a fringe topic, without sufficient sourcing to keep in mainspace, and it was draftified. An IP editor has been repeatedly attempting to reintroduce it to mainspace without fixing the problems. Based on a talk page comment, I tried to change it from a draft, to a "redirect with history" ([8]), but the IP keeps reverting it back into mainspace.

    I'd like to get some more opinions about what to do with this page. If it seems unlikely that the content can be appropriately sourced, perhaps it should either be made into a semi-protected redirect, or be taken to a deletion discussion and WP:SALTed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Next, relativistic medicine and galaxy-scale water memory. AFD and SALT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken by Headbomb to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano-ayurvedic medicine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its self promo. Various IPs have been adding random Lopus, M references for a long while. Check everything the original author of this article (based on the fringe works of Lopus M) contributed before starting the article. Only adding Lopus, M references. Do a search for articles referencing them, and find one where it wasn't added by an IP or an account dedicated to promoting the works of Lopus, M, i.e.[9] 12.75.41.67 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sentient (intelligence analysis system)

    [edit]

    WP:PRIMARY sources assembled to showcase selected memos and documents discussing details of a classified system used to look for UFOs [10]. I could be mistaken, but unless WP:SECONDARY sources have commented on this, such a lavishly detailed assembly is WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just deleted the last section from the Sentient article. All sources were primary, and the whole thing was focused on a redacted document that was nearly incomprehensible, severely WP:UNDUE even if accurate. And we just shouldn't be circulating vague bits of intelligence noise like this, it's jet fuel for the engines of conspiracism. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The more I look at these additions the more I see classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Confidence is relatively low...may warrant further investigation..." This is not the kind of content we need anywhere on WP, let alone in a direct quote. Utter garbage, cherry-picked for maximum apophenia. These edits should all be reverted, IMO. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alina Chan

    [edit]

    Alina Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Note that the latest entry into "The New York Times focuses on fringe and ignores the mainstream" seems to be extremely well-represented on this WP:FRINGEBLP. I am not sure how much emphasis we are supposed to be placing on Chan's Lab Leak claims (and some of the ones mentioned are exceedingly misleading and others are demonstrably incorrect). There is no attempt to find WP:SECONDARY sources which identify Chan's ideas as being prominent or worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. Instead, it is all sourced solely to her OpEd. jps (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In short, is this now becoming a WP:COATrack? jps (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe claims from somebody with a book to sell, and little relevant scientific standing (and not even in the same universe at WP:MEDRS sourcing required for pronouncements about biomedicince). WP:FRINGESUBJECTS tells us what to do. Bon courage (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1227952168"