Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
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: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Proposed deletions

• 28 Jul 2026 – Dragon vein (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c): Presumptive removal of LLM-generated content, see {{slink|Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#Immanuelle}}. Feel free to reinstate by following the procedures for disputing presumptive removal of LLM-generated content.

Categories for discussion

• 24 Jul 2026 – Category:Fictional characters who use magic (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Zxcvbnm (t · c); see discussion
• 20 Jul 2026 – Category:Supernatural urban legends (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Zxcvbnm (t · c); see discussion
• 20 Jul 2026 – Category:Supernatural legends (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Zxcvbnm (t · c); see discussion
• 08 Jul 2026 – Category:Fictional therianthropes (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Zxcvbnm (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 29 Jul 2026 – Conservationist physics (talk · edit · hist) →Pseudoscience was RfDed by Consarn (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Jul 2026 – Conservationist Physics (talk · edit · hist) →Pseudoscience was RfDed by Consarn (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Jul 2026 – Shampoo science (talk · edit · hist) →Pseudoscience was RfDed by Consarn (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Jul 2026 – Parascience (talk · edit · hist) →Pseudoscience was RfDed by Consarn (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Jul 2026 – List of protoscience (talk · edit · hist) →Pseudoscience was RfDed by Consarn (t · c); see discussion
• 29 Jul 2026 – Pseudosci (talk · edit · hist) →Pseudoscience was RfDed by Consarn (t · c); see discussion
• 22 Jul 2026 – Caligastia (talk · edit · hist) →The Urantia Book was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
• 21 Jul 2026 – Quantum systems (talk · edit · hist) →Quantum mechanics was RfDed by Tercer (t · c); see discussion
• 30 Jun 2026 – Correlation does not (talk · edit · hist) →Correlation does not imply causation was RfDed by Jruderman (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 12 Jul 2026 – Deguello Report (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by PARAKANYAA (t · c); start discussion
• 03 Jul 2026 – Earthquake light (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Very Polite Person (t · c); start discussion
• 02 Jan 2026 – Himalayan fossil hoax (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion
• 27 Oct 2025 – COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by TarnishedPath (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 30 Jul 2026 – Temple of Zeus (organization) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Joy of Satan Ministries by GentleWillow (t · c); see discussion

Articles to be split

• 22 Feb 2025 – Cloning (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (t · c); see discussion
• 26 Jan 2025 – UFO conspiracy theories (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Feoffer (t · c); see discussion

Larry Sanger proposing WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Facepalm Bon courage (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Tercer (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• The speech wars come for Wikipedia --Politico
• MAGA Melts Down Over Wikipedia ‘Blacklist’ --Yahoo News

"His 'Nine Theses' proposals would partly make Wikipedia more like a freewheeling social media site, with features allowing the public to rate articles, upload competing articles and post X-style community notes. Sanger also argues that sources like Fox News and Breitbart should be on more equal footing with the New York Times."

Also see: User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

"Acceptable sources are only those academic works and news articles of 'reliable' sources, which express what can be called an Establishment view. ... It simply does not matter if significant portions of humanity disagree; they may be disregarded or relegated to contemptuous dismissal as 'fringe,' 'extreme minority,' 'pseudoscience,' and the like. In short, Wikipedia is now biased in many articles, and by policy."

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

He's still upset that factual reality continues to disprove right wing conspiracies, huh? Silverseren^C 22:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry is upset at so very many things...

"Sanger is a disaffected crank on the subject of Wikipedia. And he’s a far-right loon: Trump lover, global warming denier, anti-vaxxer, quack medicine, fundie Christian, anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion.

Jimmy Wales disputes his co-founder status, something Sanger keeps trying to leverage for personal gain. Sanger was an employee. Sanger has tried to build a bunch of replacements to Wikipedia and failed every time. Sanger has been bitterly criticizing Wikipedia since at least 2004. He is the online information equivalent of Patrick Moore, who uses his false claim of being a co-founder of Greenpeace to get money to spout climate change denial." Source: Medium

I still can't figure out why he says Homeopathy isn't pseudoscience. That's not usually a right wing view. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It's because that is the subject that tanked Citizendium. He recruited a homeopath after said homeopath was drummed out of Wikipedia to help write the content on homeopathy at Citizendium where the idea was that "experts" would write about the topics they were expert it. Guess who was considered to be an expert in homeopathy? Only homeopaths!

Later on, some more, shall we say, sanguine members of the Citizendium community pointed out how problematic this was and a fight ensued. Eventually the homeopath left, but it damaged the reputation of that project so much that it never full recovered. Larry kept the Citizendium project at arm's length and pretended that he never really cared that much about it, but it's funny what past issues we can see reflected in his present interests. jps (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• I don't know how to say this eloquently, so I'll just state my mind on it. The grifters in the U.S. have bundled together their various quackery so it is easier to sell. For example, Chiropractors push homeopathy because they can't prescribe real drugs. Getting into these professions is much easier then mainstream medicine, so lots of people find it accessible. Behind this, political organizations can elevate any voice that clouds the infospace to create plausible deniability and doubt.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

When I was growing up in the 1960s and 70s conservatives wanted to conserve the social order, so were predisposed to academic orthodoxy. Proponents of fringe ideas like homeopathy (and later dangerous lefty ideas like taking the UK out of the EU) were more likely to be on the left. These days these roles seem to be reversed. I don't know when or why this happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I do think homeopathy is pseudoscience; I've never said otherwise. I just don't think Wikipedia should say it is. The view should be attributed to its owners. That is what neutrality means, although some people here have forgotten (or never learned). Larry Sanger (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"...[T]the liberal, left-leaning view is the prevailing orthodoxy. Accounts that attempt to stray from this are often blocked, or they see their edits written off and undermined, claims Sanger. He gives as an example the fact that alternative medicines, such as homeopathy, are defined as pseudoscience and “proven ineffective”. This, he says, is not treating the subject truly neutrally," -- Larry Sanger: 'I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia — and I helped to invent it' --The Times (London)

Larry, you seem to have forgotten what happened on Citizendium while you were running it.

"As for the few experts that did join the project, they were quickly driven off by Sanger’s authoritarian policies. This opened the door for cranks with false credentials to promote their pseudo-scientific views. The most infamous example of this was when an article advocating homeopathy was featured on the main page. It should be noted that the article was written by Dana Ullman, who, in addition to being banned from Wikipedia, has no medical or homeopathic qualifications, and had been arrested for practicing homeopathy without a licence. As of now [Feb 2024], the project currently has a total of three active editors."[1]

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

'Neutrality is what I say it is'. Yeah, Larry, of course it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, Wikipedia should attribute "the Earth is not flat" to people who say it is not flat. And "the holocaust is a historical fact" to people who say it is a historical fact. And "the moon is not made of cheese" to people who say it isn't. And so on. This is crazyness. Wikipedia editors do not decide that known facts are just opinions. They leave the decision what is a fact and what is not, to the reliable sources. It's the rules, and they are more nuanced than "everything has to attributed". They say that if a statement is scientific consensus, attribution is not needed. If you do not like that, Wikipedia is not for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

↑ This. A correct application of WP:YESPOV is particularly important for WP:FRINGE topics. It is a WP:PROFRINGE gambit to make knowledge appear to be serious contested (e.g. whether vaccines cause autism), when it really isn't. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, the claim that "homeopathy is pseudoscience" is a difficult one to identify as an assertable fact precisely because there is no clear definition of pseudoscience. What is a fact is that homeopaths make claims that are empirically false, homeopathic remedies have never been shown to be better than placebos, and homeopathic principles defy basic principles of chemistry and physics to such an extent that they have resulted in wild speculation which was straightforwardly shown to be incorrect. Now, maybe that is synonymous with "pseudoscience", but others argue that pseudoscience has a different definition and we don't have a clear demarcation of the canonical pseudosciences in any case. Better, perhaps, to just be clear with the facts and certainly we can mention that it is one of the subjects that is most often labeled as a pseudoscience by those who are generally best-suited to make such judgement calls. Nuance can be important in these contexts. jps (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The fuzziness of the borders of pseudoscience does not affect the classification of clear cases like homeopathy. Any definition of pseudoscience that excludes homeopathy is obviously garbage. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

There are definitions of pseudoscience that exclude pseudomedicine in the same way that some argue medicine is something other than a science (while being based on science, or, if you prefer, evidence). According to this kind of approach, water memory would be the pseudoscientific argument while homeopathy would strictly be a pseudomedicine practice. jps (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but that position still says homeopathy is pseudo-something. The distinction between pseudoscience and pseudo-application-of-science is likely not what Sanger has in mind: if we say "the following experts say homeopathy is pseudoscience", followed by a list of a few thousand names, it does not imply that all the other competent experts say it is pseudo-something-else. And it is still a fact that homeopaths publish fake science and bad studies in scientific journals, so I will keep my "obviously garbage" stance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I am basically agnostic as to whether we should, in Wikipedia's voice, WP:ASSERT "homeopathy is pseudoscience"; it is absolutely a defensible position. Since we are at the mercy of the sources, and it is clear that the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources would not blink at an assertion like that, I am not one to stand in the way of a straightforward declaration. However, I also think Wikipedia is amazingly one of the last, best places online to make sure that legitimate points don't get painted over. As such, I also would not object to an approach that threaded the needle while carefully avoiding a demarcation argument. jps (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Diversity? This is DEI! Release the doges! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I had notice that, is Sanger another conservative who reads the words, but does not understand the message? Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the diversity would been a positive note. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of things sound positive at first then become less so when you find out what the people using the words actually mean. "Pro Life". Who would be against life? Skynet? "Pro Choice". Everyone want more choice, right? You can be a huge fan of socialism but not National Socialism. You might be very much in favor of love, but not the way NAMBLA defines it.

The way Larry defines "Intellectual Diversity" is this: He is fine with X and Grokipedia only allowing far right content and deleting and banning when someone expresses any far left views. But on Wikipedia we are supposed to relax our standards in order to allow in far wing content.

"Sanger is a disaffected crank on the subject of Wikipedia. And he’s a far-right loon: Trump lover, global warming denier, anti-vaxxer, quack medicine, fundie Christian, anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion." Source: Medium

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Could Medium be used as a source of this? ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Medium posts are self-published, therefore not reliable sources, per WP:MEDIUM, even if all that is true. Carlstak (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There are three kinds of things you can write on a talk page. Many people (in general; I am not talking about this specific conversation) misunderstand this and attempt to apply Wikipedia policies that are only for articles to talk pages. The three general kinds of things you can write on a talk page are:

• Your opinions and conclusions. I can say

"Oneiromancy is garbage, Dreams do not predict the future".

on a talk page, but I could not place such an unsourced editorial opinion in an encyclopedia article. But, here on a talk page, you are free to decide whether what I say makes sense. (There are other restrictions, such as the statement being related to improving the encyclopedia, which a conversation about where WP:RS applies certainly is.)

• Claims from unreliable sources. I can say

"Dreams can predict the future. The brain a probabilistic neurobiological machine. During dreaming, it uses tiny clues about what we experienced the previous day. Then it builds accurate simulations about the future."

Source: Your dreams can tell the future. If you’re ready to listen. --Medium

Not usable as a citation in an article, but allowed on a talk page. It is up to you to decide whether what the author wrote in Medium makes sense (it doesn't).

• Claims supported by citations to reliable sources. I can say

"In one limited sense, the content of a person's dreams may be a predictor of future cognitive deterioration in Parkinson’s disease"

Source Do dreams tell the future? Dream content as a predictor of cognitive deterioration in Parkinson’s disease --Journal of Sleep research

Allowable in an Article (There are other restrictions, such as WP:WEIGHT).

All three are allowed in talk page comments. Only the third is allowed in an article --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Not going to lie, that Journal of sleep research article is going to give me nightmares... GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me that Michael Barnard [2] might be a subject-matter expert for some subset of the points being made here. We would, of course, want to attribute this opinion to him, but the fact that he self-published it does not mean it is unusable unless we determine that his opinion is not relevant to whatever situation for which we are intending on using this source. jps (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not using Wikipedia as a forum to remind Sanger of why that would be misleading and of the relevant WP policies. What is proposed is a type of censorship, avoiding to inform of a vital fact. And giving equal weight between sales pitches, random subjective opinions of anyone, and between experts who understand why the system could never work. Thus, promoting a false balance, as if every claim or opinion were of equal validity. In reality, some knowledge is not just opinion but evidence based, obtained through intelletually honest tedious research and reproduced results. The relevant policies here are WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI, part of WP:NPOV. ~2026-33889-87 (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you post that on Sanger's talk page or the proposal or somewhere else appropriate. Other than the ANI, I see very little chance Sanger is paying attention to any of these notifications. It's not like they made them, so there's no reason to think they would. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry Sanger posted to the discussion above, so it is reasonable to assume that he has read it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

wp:npa even applies to banned users. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

As Sanger can no longer respond, can we please stop? Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chlorine dioxide#Other uses

• Pseudoscientific Cancer ‘Treatment’ Involves Gassing Naked People in Plastic Bags With Bleach --Wired -- Guy Macon (talk)

  Well that's screwed up. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Seems like a new twist on Miracle Mineral Supplement. Perhaps the article could be generalised? Bon courage (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Eh, I think while they have the same crankish aroma these are fundamentally different topics. I'd put a sentence in the chlorine dioxide#Other uses section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's a patent medicine not just any old nostrum. fiveby(zero) 17:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is there anyone else doing it or any other coverage of it? I would avoid basically advertising it if it's not being covered. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I was morbidly curious so I did some searches and found a retracted scientific journal article titled: "The Anticancer Potential of Chlorine Dioxide in Small-Cell Lung Cancer Cells" [[3]] and another article (not retracted?) in the Journal of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis: [[4]] seems that there is a small subset of scientists studying this? Whic h i still find odd--bleach isn't considered good for you but there are papers to be found even if small in number. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Earthquake light: The gritty reboot

Earthquake light is currently an earth sciences good article nominee. See the top of Talk:Earthquake light. The last time I looked at it I couldn't find any hint that anyone might think that there are a bunch of earthquakes, there are a bunch of people who see lights in the sky, and that the intersection of the two is pure coincidence.

The current version is much improved, but is it improved enough to be a good article? Or should there be at least a paragraph that presents the alternate theory that earthquakes don't actually cause lights in the sky? I don't think anyone has proven that earthquake lights aren't a thing, but ignoring the null hypothesis entirely doesn't seem right either.

The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. The question is whether earthquakes not causing lights in the sky is a significant-minority position. Interestingly. this source claims that ball lightning is associated with earthquakes. Ball lightning is pretty much a poster child for "this almost certainly exists but we have no idea what it actually is".

I am reluctant to wade into this because I may have an unconscious bias, so I am going to just bring this up here and let others decide.

Skeptical sources (see WP:PARITY):

• Earthquake Lights: Do They Exist?
• Earthquake Lights Shine Again!
• Skeptics and Claims of "Earthquake Lights"

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The lead already says "Experts differ on whether the reports describe a single real phenomenon, multiple unrelated phenomena, or misidentified natural and artificial light sources, and there is no consensus on a confirmed geological mechanism". And the body already says "Christina Nunez, writing in National Geographic in 2020, said that the USGS was "circumspect" about the existence of earthquake lights, quoting it that geophysicists disagreed on whether any existing evidence represented the existence of earthquake lights, while others thought some evidence may correspond to earthquake lights". And this doesn't seem to be a recent change [5] So the article clearly does convey that not everyone agrees earthquake lights are a real thing. Probably all that's needed is for some expansion in so it's more than just the USGS assume there are good sources for this. 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems a fair take on a mysterious phenomenon. Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There really are a lot of strange and unexplained natural phenomena. For example, despite humanity spending thousands of years in intimate contact with water, and millions of people making their livelihood by spending lives at sea, there was no actual evidence that rogue waves existed until the late 1990s. And even then, for quite some time, the only evidence was the singular Draupner wave (although subsequent research has revealed more). It is sort of baffling to me how something so big could go completely unrecorded for basically all of history, but it does indeed happen. On the other hand, sometimes the unexplained phenomena are the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs... jp×g🗯️ 23:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This is a subject I know nothing about but I looked and papers on this do indeed exist including this 2025 article from the Journal of Seismological Society of America titled: "Could the Summerville Ghost Lantern Be an Earthquake Light?" [[6]] and a article (from 2014 so old) from Physics World titled "Study homes in on the cause of earthquake lights" [[7]] and a 2024 article titled: "Earthquake Lights Observed in Japan—Possible Underlying Mechanisms" [[8]]. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion re climate change deniers

May be of interest to WP:FTN: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lack of climate change denialist categories — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

ANI Discussion: Gang stalking article: what to do?

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gang stalking article: what to do? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Again? I thought this just was at the noticeboards Katzrockso (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  The previous two-year semiprotection expired and the disruption resumed immediately. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  And now it is protected indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Therian subculture

• Therian subculture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is in reference to these three edits: [9][10][11] Was I wrong?

Also, does the second paragraph of the article accurately describe academic writing on the topic? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I think if you had worded your edit summary differently, you might have had a different outcome. The response seems to be more about what you wrote on your edit summary than what you changed in the article. BTW, I don't fully understand what Organhaver meant by their edit summary.

This question about identity is really strange. I mean, I am a human (we all are), if someone sees me and thinks what they saw was not a human - say an ET or big foot -, we call that a case of mistaken identity.

If I say I "identify as non-human", I am still a human and I think it's fair to say I am also mistaken about my identity.

If I'm roleplaying, or doing the "identifying" thing as part of some cultural phenomenon or religious tradition, it doesn't change the fact that I am still 100% a human. Treating "identity" as if it were something that it completely up to the person identifying themselves is, to put it mildly, wrong.

So, to answer your first question. No, you were not wrong. The other option I can think of would be "...what they believe to be their nonhuman identity...", but then we would be making claims about things in people's heads. Since we can't read minds, we can only say that they claim to have such identities.

I can't speak to academic writing on the topic, as I am not familiar with it. VdSV9•♫ 13:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Treating "identity" as if it were something that it completely up to the person identifying themselves is, to put it mildly, wrong.

MOS:IDENTITY tells us to use the names and terminology that individuals or groups use for themselves, and not to impose labels we personally think are more accurate if those conflict with the terminology used by the group. Identity in social-science and subcultural contexts is precisely about how individuals understand and describe their own being, not about observer's error, equating the two is erroneous. The Wikipedia's coverage on non-human identity is about the former. Extending your logic to broader phenomena would invalidate identities at large including: gender, sexual orientation, ethnic and cultural, religious, neurodivergent, and plural identities. Conviction of treating first‑person identity claims as inherently erroneous when they diverge from the third‑person biological categorization is a personal conviction. Not a position compliant with MOS or prevailing in academic or community sources about the subject. In light of this, it would be helpful to ground future editorial judgments in the existing literature about identity and in the relevant style and BLP policies, rather than in personal beliefs about what such identities "really" are. Wσlrεη⎇ (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, when I read your slippery slope argument, I am reminded of the slippery slope arguments of the transphobes of yesteryear. "If we accept that people can choose* their gender, next thing you know, we are going to have to accept that people self-identify as cats and be putting litterboxes in school bathrooms" or whatever. And I thought everyone dismissed that as absurd. I guess maybe they were right, except for the litterboxes part, hopefully.

(*) "Choose" is their wording, not mine. VdSV9•♫ 14:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

They indeed were wrong about the litterboxes part, that's a harmful stereotype about therians.

I'm sorry if I misjudged your tone as in bad faith but let's not compare groups to transphobic rhetoric. GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are very similar to my thoughts on the recent discussion about plural identity, with the caveat here that it's important to distinguish which sense someone means when they say they identify as an animal.

Which is to say:

• Obviously humans are physically not animals, and no matter how much you identify as a fox you are not, physically, a fox. If someone is claiming they are physically a fox we can say that's not true with just WP:BLUESKY. However, that's usually not what therians seem to be claiming.
• The most core thing therians seem to be claiming is that there is some innate sense of species that is different in them than it is in most people. Here I basically would repeat what I said about plurality: someone's description of their own experience isn't a MEDRS claim (or really sourceable at all), but when they veer into making claims about psychology that is a MEDRS claim and needs to be sourced. Or in other words, a person who says "I feel like I should have been born a fox" is not really something we can source either way, but "and that's because my innate sense of species is different to most people" is something we can source and which we shouldn't claim without (strong, MEDRS-quality) sourcing.
• Some therians instead seem to be making only religious or spiritual claims, which we should cover the same way we cover any other religion. Say what they're claiming but very specifically avoid Wikivoice for factual claims about religious beliefs.

For your specific edit: I can see that sentence as either an experience claim (therians identify as nonhumans), in which case I think your edit was just incorrect, or a psychological claim (therians have a thing called a "nonhuman identity"), in which case I think your edit was mostly good but phrased strangely. The way I'd rephrase is Therians utilize different strategies to connect with the animal they identify with and to express that identity outwardly to eliminate the psychological reading. Loki (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Done.[12] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the response was to the edit summary and I like this rephrasing.

As a therian, "Nonhuman identities aren't real" seems just incorrect. I identify as not human in an internal non-physical sense, how else should people like me be described? Some people try to describe it as a delusion or spiritual belief. But I'm not delusional, I can recognize my human body, and neither am I a spiritual person.

Also apologies if my reply is aggressive, I'm genuinely just trying to contribute my perspective. GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I have a close friend who has anorexia and is also a scientist. We have talked extensively about her condition. When I asked, she freely admitted that she has less body fat than over 95% of the population but that knowing that intellectually doesn't stop her from feeling "grossly overweight". I realized that I have a similar emotional issue. There is one specific and very narrow area of engineering where I might be the top person in the world and almost certainly am in the top five (there are very few people with this specialty and we pretty much all know and advise each other). Yet, emotionally I feel like I am an imposter.

My friend would have no problem with someone saying "you are not fat" or "your excess weight isn't real" and I would have no problem with someone saying "you really are good at that" Objectively, there are physical objects that I designed, and the performance and failure rate of those designs have been measured and are better than the designs they replaced. Yet I still feel deep inside like I am fooling everyone and that if they only knew that I was an imposter they would never let me design anything.

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

How is this related? /genuine

I think I should stop after this so that it doesnt get off-topic, but anorexia and imposter syndrome are negative. My therian identity brings me joy whenever it is affirmed. GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

How it's related depends on what you mean by "therian identity". If you only mean that you like being called a fox, then that's pretty transparently a true statement. The more you make actual claims of being a fox or fox-like in some sense, the more likely it is that whatever you're saying is falsifiable. And once you're claiming something falsifiable you risk that it might be false.

There are people out there who are happy to have a small amount of Native American ancestry based on family anecdotes, and many of those people do not actually have any Native ancestry at all. The fact that it brings them joy does not make it true. Loki (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

My claim is literally just "I see myself as a nonhuman animal in an internal non-physical sense".

This claim is purely about my view of myself, I am not making any claim about my body or brain.

I dont understand what you're trying to do honestly. "Nonhuman identities aren't real" is obviously false because there are individuals who use them.

Okay I think we're just used to different wording so you can take it this way "I like being called a nonhuman animal and dislike being called a human while at the same time I am aware of my human body. I don't perceive this as negative and I don't wish for it to disappear". GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Is thinking you're spiritually a fox of any relevance to starving yourself? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the argument is based on self perception versus outside context. An anorexic person usually perceives themselves as physically one way while the outside world sees them in another. Same with individuals who may perceive themselves to be non-human where their self perception does not match how the outside world may view them physically. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

And, in the case of my anorexic friend, it isn't just how the outside world sees her. She specifically does not have hallucinations and, as a scientist, is perfectly capable of looking in a mirror and seeing the objective fact that she is about as far from being grossly obese as it is possible to be and still stay alive. She even has -- with her doctor - set a target weight and checks herself into the hospital the moment she goes under that weight. And -- again in cooperation with her doctor - is slowly raising that target weight. That doesn't change the fact that she feels fat and has a strong compulsion to lose weight.

BTW, the fact that the only example I have personal experience with is negative is just random chance. I just don't happen to have any friends who identify as nonhumans (positive) in the same way my friend identifies as fat (negative and life-threatening). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

None of these people are physically claiming to be animals. They are claiming they are spiritually animals. Anorexia is not claiming you are spiritually skinny. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

How should we cover articles about subjects who make fringe claims that no one responds to directly?

A common situation I've run into on biographical articles is this: A subject makes a clearly fringe claim. It is easy to find a mountain of sources discussing the claim in general and debunking it; however, no sources respond to that person specifically making the claim. Relying on general sources saying that it's false is potentially WP:SYNTH. However, including the claim without indicating that it's false is potentially WP:PROFRINGE. How do we deal with this situation? Should we just remove the claim, if it lacks significant secondary coverage?--Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Should we just remove the claim, if it lacks significant secondary coverage?

We cannot if it's part of their notability. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

But if no sources note that the bio subject made the claim, it can’t be considered part of what makes him/her notable. The claim can be ignored. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If it lacks secondary coverage, why would it be DUE Katzrockso (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If a claim has been debunked, it's been debunked. We shouldn't have to play whack-a-mole by finding a fresh debunking every time it is made. If someone claims the Earth is flat, we should be able to say this is false if the claim has been debunked. Saying that the debunking has to mention each person who has made the claim would be getting into WP:CRYBLP territory. Brunton (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

How is it SYNTH? What new claim is being introduced that isn't supported by the sources? Katzrockso (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I recall SYNTH concerns in BLPN discussions, though the sources being used to debunk may have been rather poor. It's probably best to look at some actual cases where WP:GENREL sources could be used. --Hipal (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Something like this: "Bob says vaccines cause autism.[source saying that Bob said this, but offering no analysis at all] Vaccines do not cause autism.[source establishing this, but without mentioning Bob]" Or, worse, Bob falsely said vaccines cause autism.[1][2]" with just those two sources. As much as I hate to say it, that is textbook WP:SYNTH - we're creating the implication "Bob said something false" by combining two sources, neither of which actually say that. We certainly wouldn't accept this in any non-WP:FRINGE context; does FRINGE effectively create an exception to WP:SYNTH? I suppose in some cases we could argue that the implication is WP:BLUE (in the literal "Bob said the earth is flat" example, say; it is so obviously false that we may not need a source for it anyway) but it gets tricky when discussing things that are clear-cut among high-quality sources but still controversial with the general public, and I'm not sure I'd have a good answer to someone who removed it and said it was synth. WP:PARITY allows us to use somewhat lower-quality sources than we otherwise would in that situation, I think, but not to just ignore SYNTH altogether. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  There's nothing tricky about this. The correct solution is Bob says vaccines cause autism [1]. Vaccines do not cause autism [2]. It's not WP:SYNTH, and it's what we always do. Tercer (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is definitely original research. WP:OR: "to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources". We would be using sources to imply a conclusion that is not stated about the subject. You can use that to do anything; imagine "politician x advocates y economic policy" cited to sources that mention the politician; the we can shoehorn in 200 sources that don't mention the politician about how terrible that economic policy is to show that their economic opinions are Wrong and Bad, even though no source has critiqued their views. If you do this for say, rent control (near universally reviled by economists) you could do it on many, many politicians. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  What conclusion do you mean?

  I don't think any of these are WP:SYNTH because I think the implication people think might be WP:OR isn't actually a separate statement from the two things we can source. I think people are thinking that we can source "Bob said X" and "X is false" but not "Bob said something that is false". But I don't actually think "Bob said something that is false" is a separate statement from "Bob said X", if X is false. We would not need to cite "Bob is over 6 feet tall" if we have a source that says he's 6'1, and would not need to cite "2+1+1=4" if we can cite "2+2=4" and "1+1=2" for the same reason.

  "Bob said something false" isn't an implication in the colloquial sense, it's an implication in the deductive logic sense. Given the two statements we can source are true, it literally cannot be false. This is unlike, for instance, "John has played with the Cubs for 20 years" plus "for 20 years, the Cubs have never won a World Series" creating the implication that John is the reason the Cubs have never won a World Series. That is a genuinely separate statement that we would in fact have to cite. Loki (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sure but the whole issue here is we have no source about Bob that mentions that the statement is false. The statements here are not inherent, or couldn't we just decide ourselves that anything is true or false without requiring any sourcing? Can I insert that rent control is universally considered economically ineffective into the article of every politician who promotes it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, or at least yes on WP:SYNTH grounds: "politician X promotes rent control" and "economists agree rent control reduces housing supply" does in fact hard imply "politician X supports a policy that reduces housing supply", so that implication is not OR and the juxtaposition is not WP:SYNTH.

  I'm less confident on WP:WEIGHT grounds that this would be appropriate but I don't think there's any WP:SYNTH issues with it either. Loki (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  But there is no source that says that, so per WP:SYNTH we are combining two sources to imply something neither of them say. That is exactly what SYNTH is. What would be synth, if this isn't? And it would be equally as due weight as any example here (given the issue is including material where we don't have sources about the subject that discuss it). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've seen use of pointers to main articles in such cases. If a BLP contains a section, "Bob says vaccines have been scientifically proven to cause autism", at the top of that section would be "Main article: Vaccines and autism", which contains the mainstream view in opposition of Bob's fringe view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't object to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is the best suggestion so far in this thread for how to deal with the problem originally brought up. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  But we're not in fact combining two sources to imply WP:OR. The "implication" here is a logical implication, not an insinuation, and is therefore not WP:OR because it is necessarily true without further sourcing. SYNTH is OR by synthesis, not any implication.

  Actual SYNTH: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security[1]. Since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world[2]. Therefore, the UN is ineffectual." (That statement requires separate sourcing, since both of the previous statements could be true but it would still be false.)

  Not SYNTH: "The earth is larger than the moon[1]. The sun is larger than the earth[2]. Therefore, the sun is larger than the moon." (Does not require separate sourcing, since it is necessarily true given the sourced statements are true.) Loki (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is not synth. The key to synth is that you're using more than one source to make a conclusion that neither source would make. Bob said vaccines cause autism[1]; vaccines do not cause autism[2] as long as source 2 is really saying that vaccines do not cause autism then it doesn't matter if that source has even heard of Bob. This is mere juxtaposition, not synth. Geogene (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are you saying that juxtaposition does not imply Bob made an untrue statement? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  If Bob made an untrue statement that's WEIGHTy enough to include in his article, then it's Wikipedia's responsibility to the readership to give the contrasting mainstream position. Implication doesn't even factor into this. Geogene (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes it does because SYNTH forbids making implications not presented by sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The statement "X is true" necessarily implies that anyone positing the negation of X is making a false statement. That's basic logic. Katzrockso (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, and if the source about the person says that then we have no issue. But if we don't have sources that say that about the person then it becomes an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think it would be an issue since in most cases, the content wouldn't be WP:RELEVANT or WP:DUE for inclusion. I don't think it's prohibited by SYNTH. I agree that omission is often the best remedy to the predicament posed by Aquillion and wish I had sent the first comment I had drafted to that effect. Katzrockso (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  If source 2 doesn't mention Bob, then it has no business being in an article about Bob and it will immediately set off alarm bells if someone tries to force it in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Bob's article isn't a forum to present Bob's fringe viewpoints unchallenged and in isolation from the mainstream position. That would be an NPOV violation. Geogene (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that the bio article on Bob isn’t a forum for presenting his viewpoints… but it also isn’t a forum for challenging his viewpoints. The place for that is the article about the viewpoint - what we need in the bio article is a link to the article about the viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The information has no business being in an article about him, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes that's basically equivalent to what I'm saying. Loki (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Run across this often with articles that claim that someone authored a book using Facilitated Communication. It is obviously pseudoscience but we are often met with, "maybe this specific person can author a book with FC?" And then when we try to show that there is no scientific consensus and cite the experts on the subject, we are told that the expert didn't specifically mention that specific person. Then we hear that the media said they witnessed the facilitated person and believe that it is genuine. So we are to believe the media who are not experts on the deception of FC and have a motive to sensationalize the subject for clicks. And in the end we are left with a Wikipedia article leaning towards fringe because we don't have reliable sources mentioning the person. I hear you! Sgerbic (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why not simply say “Bob is a proponent of theory X” or “Bob believes theory Y” - without any further comment.

  This is what we would do if Bob belonged to a heretical religious sect. We wouldn’t bother to explain why that sect is considered heretical in the bio article on Bob… we would just link to an article on the sect, and let that article explain why it is considered heresy. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is the right answer. We don't need every article about an antivaxxer to explain germ theory or every article of a climate change denier to explain thermodynamics. Leave commentary to the appropriate wikilinks. CMD (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is logical and easily policy compliant as an approach. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's as simple as this, and the whole discussion here is a great example of what's wrong with FTN and the people who see their goal as fighting fringe instead of summarizing sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  FTN's regulars who dominate the space and WP:OWN relevant policy have a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS chip on their shoulder. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. WP:FT is not a license that gives free reign for editorialisation every time a fringe theory is mentioned in any context. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  does FRINGE effectively create an exception to WP:SYNTH? Well, no i don't think so. Usual practice from here is to remove the claims. But i suspect it is often not quite the situation you are asking about. Usually, after looking at the sources the question becomes "who the hell is Bob and why are we giving him space on WP to spout nonsense when no one even bothers to comment about his claims?" We measure the notability of a person's claims by seeing if there are good reliable sources (or at least PARITY ones) which do analyze them.

  As you present the question here tho i'm with everyone else: not SYNTH, not a BLP problem, go use good editorial judgement and try to inform the reader. fiveby(zero) 23:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is synth and it would definitely be a BLP issue to use sources that don't mention a BLP to critique a BLP. And regularly RS, even academic RS, do not debunk claims, but describe them without comment. I've seen this in many academic books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I just don't see a SYNTH issue in this simply hypothetical example. In practice i think you would in most cases be correct: Aquillion would be trying to put one over on us and Bob didn't really say exactly that. Or more likely he would be trying to affirm a claim from Alice by including a bunch of high quality sources which state X but don't mention Alice who is really claiming X'.

  I would agree that many quality sources do not take a "debunking" tone and some authors would not feel the need to inform the reader that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. Simply take the approach Blueboar suggest. WP can go too far towards "debunking" in some cases probably. There was once a thread here arguing that we need to say something along the lines of "alleged ghost" in all ghost story articles and needed to hunt down sources in all cases to support that there wasn't really a ghost in the story. Opinions probably differ as to our readership and how all the content needs to inform them sometimes. Hard to make a rule which covers all cases i think. fiveby(zero) 13:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think any scenario exists no matter how FRINGE, PARITY or any other inferior PAGs or essays or editor vibes can usurp BLP. Nothing negative about a BLP can be in a BLP article from a source, unless the source names the BLP subject and their thing to be critiqued.

  I realize I am seen as a troll and many on this FTN would cheerfully see me gone forever, but there is no universe where any cadre of FTN folks will ever be suffered or allowed to even attempt to maneuve FRINGE and silly things like that over BLP. The Foundation would step on your necks first, justifiably. It's never going to happen. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see the SYNTH issue in the hypothetical so don't see a BLP issue either. I think my neck is probably safe? If the WMF thugs go after us for our opinions on policy i will just hide behind everyone else and play innocent. fiveby(zero) 13:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:BLP is not just about negative information, it's about all poorly-sourced information. Excessive positivity is also a WP:BLP violation. Loki (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's simpler to say that BLP is "anything poorly sourced". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like i was wrong considering FRINGESUBJECTS brought up below. My opinion is that the policies and guidelines are for the little people and you don't need an "exception" but that looks like encouragement to do this specifically for fringe issues so i guess that could be called an exception. fiveby(zero) 14:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That the person in question has promoted a conspiracy theory? SYNTH also prohibits implication. It is similar to the FC examples that have gone to AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Implication is a slippery word. Katzrockso (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure but in the case of the examples, which is effectively always:

X believes Y[1 source that mentions X], which is false/a conspiracy theory/debunked[2 source which does not mention X].

The implication is extremely direct.

And I may be confusing you with someone else, but you voted keep on those FC biographies, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I did, that's correct. At least the ones I saw Katzrockso (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Is that not contradictory to what you are arguing here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Just don't cover the belief if the sources don't and it is a fringe issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is what WP:FRINGESUBJECTS addresses. Either omit the fringe view entirely on contextualise the fringe view with a mainstream explanation (and no, that mainstream source does not need to mention to the nominal topic of the article). Bon courage (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it does. WP:SYNTH: "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources". Contextualizing with sources that do not mention the subject is obviously "stat[ing] or imply[ing] a meaning not explicitly stated" by the sources that mention the subject, or else it would not be needed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wrong. And we do it quite often. For example when somebody spreads medical misinformation and a MEDRS source is needed to give context (such sourcss generally do not concern themselves with individuals spreading nonsense). NPOV is non-negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  NPOV and OR are co-equal. Neither has primacy. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Again, wrong. While the policies work together, NPOV is explicitly non-negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:OR and WP:V and WP:BLP are equal to NPOV. NPOV does not "outrank" them, never has, and never will. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  The policy explicity says otherwise. WP:IAR (also a policy) cannot be applied to NPOV for example. In practice some other things, like consistent BLP violations, will get you blocked. So will denial of the clear meaning in WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  The policy explicitly says otherwise.

  No, it does not. If you claim that it does, please put the verbatim supporting text into a quote from the current revision of NPOV. I dispute your claim, and you need to identify the policy text that supports it. I am happy to be proven wrong.

  The current policy text, which takes precedence over any contrary assertion made at FTN or on an article talk page, says:

  It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they cannot be interpreted in isolation from one another.

  WP:IAR (also a policy) cannot be applied to NPOV for example.

  NPOV cannot be negotiated away, but it must be achieved without violating V, NOR, or, where living persons are involved, BLP. “Non-negotiable” means that NPOV cannot be discarded or superseded. It does not mean that NPOV overrides the other core content policies or authorizes violations of BLP.

  All applicable policies bind every editor simultaneously and govern content within their respective scopes. They are equal handcuffs, not escape routes from one another.

  So will denial of the clear meaning in WP:FRINGESUBJECTS.

  Good-faith disagreement about the meaning or application of FRINGESUBJECTS is not, by itself, an authorized basis for blocking or sanctioning an editor, whether by an administrator, the community, or even the Arbitration Committee. Blocks are preventative responses to ongoing or likely disruption and never authorized as punishment for holding an interpretation of policy.

  Suggesting that disagreement itself will result in a block is inappropriate and needlessly threatening. Please do not repeat that prediction here or elsewhere. Address the policy argument rather than predicting sanctions against editors who disagree with you. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  You can try and twist it how you want but NPOV is non-negotiable. That means adhering to its provisions. Editors will find trying to give fringe material a free hit by "negotiating" NPOV is likely to prove a career-limiting move so far as Wikipedia editing goes. The provisions of WP:FRINGESUBJECTS are crystal clear, and have been applied to good NPOV success all across the Project. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  There's a correct solution, and it's adding the non-negotiable language to the other three.

  NPOV doesn't need or require some special Jesus status, and that odd language was added in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=632610066&oldid=632565132 by an Oversight banned user. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus..

  Many editors read this as NPOV must be met even if some other policy must be infringed in some way.

  NPOV is in fact special, and it has been since this was added in 2003. I'm not sure I agree that it ought to be, but currently it is. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That non-negotiable language did not come from 2003, it was added by a banned user in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=632610066&oldid=632565132

  The solution is simple. We add that sentence to each of BLP, OR and V too. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not making up dates, it was 2003 and was a quote of something Jimbo said on the mailing list. MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks. But we don't live under his thumb and never really will again, and if we like that for NPOV it can obviously stay, just as all policies are binding. Putting non-negotiable on the other four does nothing to weaken NPOV and only makes things better long term. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  At this point you're in the realm of "well I would like the core policies to say something different, so they do". Loki (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's how all consensus starts. Convince enough folks and voila. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  You also don't seem to be convincing anyone, for what it's worth. Loki (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm resigned to sowing seeds at this point. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  You may propose amendments to core policy elsewhere of course (not here) if you want other policies to have the same non-negotiable status as NPOV. However WP:POLICY (other than NPOV) is described as "standards all users should normally follow" (my underlining), so you'd need to change the fundamental basis of Wikipedia I think. I am glad at any rate this wider noticeboard now has an enhanced understanding of the special role of NPOV wrt fringe subjects. Whoever said this noticeboard was not useful!? Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Bon, the very text in NPOV you're referencing flat out says explicitly that the same also applies to WP:V and WP:OR. You're arguing that because those policies don't also include the same text that the text in NPOV doesn't actually say what it says, which is an absurd take. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  We frequently violate many guidelines we have! We have thousands of outstanding copyright violations! Hundreds of thousands of non-notable articles. We also frequently violate WP:BLPSPS by citing blogs on BLPs, something that per BLP we cannot do, ever, regardless of how "expert" they are. Does not make it correct to do so.

  It is a synth violation and also a violation of WP:DUE weight, part of the same guideline. Any source that does not mention the subject cannot be due weight for the subject. WP:OR is policy. "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources". If you object, then simply do not include it, it does not make it acceptable to violate another policy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  As NPOV says, the three core policies (V/NOR and NPOV - the non-negotiable part) work together and should not be interpretied in isolation, yet here we are with editors proposing the concept of a "synth violation" absent the governing context of NPOV. In the end, there are two ways to look at it. Either the follow-the-rules way, by which NPOV/FRINGESUBJECTS cannot be negotiated away, so just obey and move on; or more thoughtfully about what synthesis actually is.

  So if Burt Bonkers says ivermectin cures COVID, and gets a lot of press coverage for doing so, then Wikipedia (if it covers this) will give as context the actual knowledge that ivermectin does not cure COVID, using an appropriate MEDRS source. Now, WP:PROFRINGE editors may clutch their pearls and protest that oh no, this "implies" Burt has said a wrong thing but actually the juxtapsoition of these statements is not proposing a thesis, rather presenting sourced reality from which certain unarguable facts flow, in other words we are in a WP:NOTCOM situation, as given the state of published knowledge in the world, the conclusion is both obvious and unavoidable. Bon courage (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

the juxtapsoition of these statements is not proposing a thesis, rather presenting sourced reality Exactly this, with an emphasis on (reliably) sourced. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The juxtaposition is presenting an implication about the person that no source makes. This is prohibited by WP:SYNTH.

If you say: X has done Y.[cited to source that mentions X] Y is a common habit of men who beat their wives.[Cited to source that doesn't mention X]

Are you suggesting this does not imply anything about X? Is this therefore not a BLP violation? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

What has that got to do with WP:FRINGESUBJECTS? In any case the implication here (that X is a wifebeater) is a thesis (i.e. arguable). The implication that Burt Bonkers' is wrong about COVID is not a thesis, it's just an ineluctable consequence of relevant RS. Bon courage (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That something is apparently factually correct does not make it exempt from sourcing rules? Why would it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Eh? Things should be properly sourced. Properly sourcing some knowledge about Burt's medical views will require a MEDRS source for example (which almost certainly won't mention him). It will show that he's wrong ofc but that's WP:NOTSYNTH. Bon courage (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If that is not SYNTH, nothing is. If there is no RS that discusses it, just don't include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Your case is synth because a thesis is being advanced. Obvs. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

And why would that distinction matter? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a wholly different thing from what's being proposed, which is: Bob said X[1]. X is false[2]. (Therefore, Bob said something which is false.) There is literally no way the implication here could be false. It is not an insinuation, it is a logical implication and the source here is pure logic.

We only need sources for things that are likely to be challenged, and if this was challenged the person challenging it would necessarily be wrong. I can't emphasize enough how much the truth of the conclusion given the premises is a mathematical certainty because I feel like that's not getting through.. Loki (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes - Bob saying something false is something no RS says, so there is an extremely negative piece of SYNTH there. Whether it is true or false is irrelevant to it being SYNTH!

Would Bob not challenge that his statement is false?

I don't disagree that it logically follows, but plenty of OR and SYNTH logically follows from the materials. Most of it probably; being right does not OK OR. I don't think that matters for Wikipedia's purposes at all. WP:Verifiability, not truth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTCOM. Of course Bob would disagree with the logic of reality, but it is not Wikipedia's job to fluff fringe views – it is the exact opposite. Which is why we have WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. What some editors are objecting to here is really clear core policy. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

But that still is "likely to be challenged", and needs a source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Source the statements. Wikipedia cannot help the reality that is obvious is a result. Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Why would statements not about the subject belong in an article about the subject? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It is exceedingly common that topics related to a person be covered in the article about that person. For instance, we often merge articles about individual books into the article on their author - but we don't hold statements about a book to BLP standards. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

That would be criticism of their productive output, or views in that output (cf books etc) which would be fine and not in any way WP:OR or trying to harmfully launder it past WP:BLP - it's fine. But it still has to be then presumably criticism explicit to the book, like "X was critical of Y's statement about Z in work foo"? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

On the BLPSPS comment, that is a common misunderstanding. When we look at WP:PAG as a whole and specifically on guidance for dealing with SPS on BLP articles, policy doesn't prohibit the use of SPS entirely. We just can't treat them as third-party/independent sources and need attribution in those rare cases of use (basically mirroring IRL use of such sources by newspapers). WP:SPS policy is very clear on this being the excluded use and not outright prohibition entirely. The language at BLPSPS is an outlier that just hasn't been brought into alignment.

In practice (and for this topic), that means that if a BLP has promoted a fringe theory, an expert SPS source might be saying X person is promoting it, but usually the use of the source here by us is focusing on the idea that the fringe theory is such rather than us writing something like X's views are pseudoscientific. That also avoids it being a SYNTH issue in addition to the other angles Bon Courage mentioned above. Usually if it's a stronger statement like X is an anti-vaxxer or applying a direct label, we're reaching for stronger sources anyways with respect to WP:DUE. Most of the time the mention of the fringe view is just omitted entirely, but otherwise WP:PARITY comes into play to figure out what the bare minimum mention should be while navigating source quality. That's already extremely case-by-case.

For Aquillion's original question, it can be even more case-by-case on how to craft content when there are no sources, but WP:FRINGESUBJECTS is clear, While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.. We do need to describe the views of the scientific community, though depending on the topic, it can be something as simple as a single but clear sentence with a wikilink stating the fringe nature of the subject. As other's have said, calling that SYNTH just isn't practical, but would also run afoul of WP:NOTBURO policy.

Tl;dr, a basic description of the fringe topic as such is usually needed if mentioned, and it really wouldn't be SYNTH any more than a brief description of an entomological term someone might be unfamiliar with would be if I'm writing an insect article. That's generally the level of content we'd be talking about for Aquillion's question. KoA (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves." Never do so. Policy does prohibit the use of SPS on BLPs entirely; the fact that this is an outlier is not a mistake, but a key part of BLP policy, because we naturally need much higher quality sources for BLPs.

It is SYNTH no matter how personally convenient editors may find it. Constructing an implication or a statement about a person based on sources that don't mention them is textbook SYNTH. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is in part a common misconception. WP:BLP does not apply to "BLPs", but to biographical information anywhere on Wikipedia (including Talk pages). It does not apply to non-biographical content in "BLPs". For fringe topics, for properly contextualizing the fringe views of biogrpahical subjects, SPSs are on rare occasions both necessary and desirable, as has been long established. It is a common WP:PROFRINGE gambit to argue that people's views inherit the special protections of the people themselves. You are simply wrong about SYNTH which is why I recommend the first of my suggested courses of action, the "the follow-the-rules way". Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Contextualizing information is information about the person by implication. And by your logic nothing is SYNTH.

To copy my example above:

If you say: X has done Y.[cited to source that mentions X] Y is a common habit of men who beat their wives.[Cited to source that doesn't mention X]

Are you suggesting this does not say anything about X? Is this therefore not a BLP violation? We cannot use SPS to say anything about BLPs, ever, under any circumstance, however "desirable" it may be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to misrepresent my argument there's no point continuing. My advice: follow policy as written. Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure - but that includes SYNTH, DUE (a part of NPOV), and BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, and especially respecting the non-negotiable nature of NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Here I agree with PARAKANYAA that "never" means "never" and that a person's opinions are very transparently biographical information about that person. Loki (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to attempt to overturn the consensus on this. This is a misunderstanding that is common outside science. When a proposition is put in the "arena of ideas" in sci/med, it is there to be tested impartially - it is not some kind of extension of self or personal identity that needs respectful caution as may happen in lay discourse. This was an issue with Michael Greger I remember with his pronouncements that a single bit of meat could "cripple" arteries for life. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The last time there was a discussion on ignoring BLPSPS the consensus was against you. Not sure what consensus you're appealing to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Danth's Law strikes again? The only RfC addressing the view-v-person distinction I'm aware of is [13] Bon courage (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There has never been an RfC on the matter. The last discussion I'm aware of (and which I was referring to) was this [14], which to my reading came down on the side of it being a problem. Derailments about whether SBM is or is not an SPS ignored, anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I linked to a relevant RfC. That thread you linked is not one, and I suppose consensus from there is reflected in the result at the Vinay Prasad article, where that person's various nonsenses are still properly contextualised to good NPOV effect quite well so far as I can see. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's an RfC about SBM. This situation is not about SBM. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Quoting myself from Talk:Thomas_Sowell/Archive_4#Climate_Change_Section: although Sowell is clearly an ignorant anti-climate-science agitator motivated by an unrealistic economic belief system, he does not stand out enough in the giant herd of ignorant anti-climate-science agitators motivated by the same unrealistic economic belief system who copy and paste bad reasoning from each other all the time. One single reliable source has noticed him being a part of the choir and singing along with the others, and only lists him together with the others, but that is not enough to make him notable as a Wikipedia-approved cog in the denial machine. He did not even invent new bad reasoning, as far as we know. If we had articles about individual sheep, there would be no need for writing in each of them "this specific sheep often says baa".

When there are no reliable sources that refute the fringe statement while mentioning the guy who made it, we just do not mention the fact that he made the fringe statement in the article about him. No violation of WP:FRINGE, no violation of WP:SYNTH, no problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sowell is a fantastic example as without even looking at sources, it feels eminently reasonable that if you say "Thomas Sowell" and people know who he is... I bet you there isn't more people than I have fingers on this keyboard who immediately will go to "climate change".

It's like if I said Gordon Ramsay - who would think of the da Bears?

What if it's something however that a subject FRINGE the subject did push (like Sowell) that people keep trying to add and there's enough sources to warrant adding it as least a short sentence under WP:DUE, but no per-person named refutation?

Your solution fixes a huge number of these correctly, but we still have the dingleberries leftover. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

My recollection is that the Sowell stuff was just quoting him in his own writings. It was never DUE in the first place - one way we know that is that there really weren't any secondary sources available to put that stuff in context. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling @MrOllie, where does the over the top self-quoting and self-referencing in Robert Sheaffer of things like his WP:FRINGE climate change denial views fall in this? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not inclined to discuss any more UFO-related articles with you in particular at the present time. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Is all of this an attempt to roll the pitch for more credulous UFO coverage in Wikipedia? Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I do not believe in aliens. I believe that humanity is in all likelihood the only intelligent life in the universe. I believe in having articles that are not written terribly! PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

And that's the fringest belief of them all. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The Sheaffer article should be treated the same. Delete the Climate change denial section, it is not properly sourced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

people keep trying to add and there's enough sources to warrant adding it as least a short sentence under WP:DUE, but no per-person named refutation? If there are only sensational sources and no in-depth ones (in depth necessarily means refutation), then it is by definition not DUE. You may be able to construct a case where it is somehow DUE, but even then it will violate FRINGE and will have to go. WP:DUE even says so - Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader - and links WP:FRINGE.

Being handicapped by English being my second language, I don't know what dingleberries or that Ramsay guy I had to look up have to do with anything. Do bears eat those berries, maybe after Ramsay cooked them and threw the leftovers in the garbage? (This is probably best kept as a mystery rather than spawning a lengthy distraction.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think "don't mention the opinion" is a virtue in many cases. Biographies don't have to be a platform for people to express their viewpoints. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That's generally the correct approach, the problem comes when fringe-pushing figures are prominent enough that their misinformation gets wide coverage. Then, leaving it out makes Wikipedia look incomplete/whitewashed and/or invites constant drive-by edits to "improve" the article. Bret Weinstein springs to mind. Bon courage (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

People who think that Wikipedia is incomplete or whitewashed, as well as constant drive-by edits are business as usual and not a reason not to choose a specific solution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay? So what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. And if it isn't covered and discussed by secondary sources it's not WP:DUE, which is part of WP:NPOV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That is basically the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Either write the text of the FRINGE opinion in a manner that has directed wikilinks to the Wikipedia article that does specifically address and debunk the related claims. Or question whether the sourcing is strong enough to meet DUE. If it is and there is significant coverage in all manner of strong sources discussing the stated view from the individual and not bringing up any form of debunking response (nor has any scientist done so in the myriad of properly sourced ways they can, whether academically or through science blogs), then you might want to question just how strongly FRINGE the claim is in the first place. If there's been no hint of oppositional statement to the individual's claims and it's been highly covered by reliable media and there's been no peeps from the scientific community whatsoever, then it seems more the sourcing stands against your claim of FRINGE in the first place. Silverseren^C 02:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If material cannot be included in some article without violating content policies then do not include that material in that article. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Why not just wikilink to the article about the fringe claim itself? If the fringe claim has "a mountain of sources" discussing it in general, surely a general article about that subject must exist? A reader can then click on it and learn that the claim is fringe. But if a BLP subject isn't specifically named in RS for making fringe claims, WP should not be doing so either. Further, this is entirely the wrong notice board for this particular question. WP:NORN or WP:BLPN would have been more appropriate, as this isn't actually about fringe theories, but about people that promote them (which are not the same thing). ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It not OR to give context to something. If a battle happened during the North African campaign, but no source on the battle mentions World War 2, then using a source about the North African campaign in general to state that is was part of WW2 is fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Or, if a source says that Alice was born in Brooklyn, it's fine to use that to support a sentence saying that Alice was born in New York. I don't think that a straight-up implication is a new conclusion that we need to avoid. It would be WP:SYNTH-esis to combine verifiable statements in a way that insinuates a reason why someone holds a belief, for example, like combining a description of racist remarks they've made with their belief that aliens built the Great Pyramid, thereby suggesting that they hold the crank belief because they're racist.

All in all, I doubt the solution is a one-size-fits-all. Sometimes, we can juxtapose statements. Sometimes, we should just link the article about the fringe belief from the biography. Sometimes, we should omit the statement about the fringe belief from the biography altogether. Reasonable people will inevitably differ on which solution is best in a particular case. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The difference between the WWII and New York examples on one hand and the pseudoscience case on the other is: there is nobody who has an issue with the result "Alice was born in New York" or "the battle was part of WWII", but for every pseudoscience, there are people who adhere to it and will disagree when the Wikipedia article about a proponent of that pseudoscience says he is doing pseudoscience. Those people will litigate using WP:SYNTH if it is applicable. They cannot do anything about the article about the pseudoscience itself, where sources exist that call it pseudoscience directly, but they can attack the SYNTH statement in the proponent article.

For Alice and the battle, that problem does not exist: Where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge.

I doubt the solution is a one-size-fits-all. Agree with that. Some solutions are more prone than others to fringe pushers using legal loopholes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

But again… if no sources discuss the fact that Alice holds fringe views, then Alive’s WP bio should not mention the fact that she holds fringe views either, per DUE. And if we don’t mention them, then there is no need to debunk them. Blueboar (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Why should we care if people think anything about a Wikipedia article, articles are not written to please people. Articles are written based on what is found in reliable sources, and if reliable sources call something pseudoscience then so does Wikipedia's article. Its not up to editors to decide these matters, even if there are people who disagree, even if we disagree personally. It is never SYNTH to present something found in reliable sources, only to combine sources to make a novel argument not found in any one source. If someone says the pyramids were built by aliens, then it's not a novel idea to say it wasn't if there are sources that say the pyramids weren't built by aliens.
If sources say something is pseudoscience it's fine to call it pseudoscience in an article, even if the subject of that article isn't directly named in the source. Giving context to something isn't NOR or SYNTH if those points appear in reliable sources. If a source says "X" is pseudoscience then that can not be original research, it directly says that in the source. It also can not be SYNTH, the source directly addresses the argument so this isn't a case of combining two source to come up with something novel. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not only fine but necessary: WP:FRINGESUBJECTS is very clear about that. From this whole conversation I take that a lot of editors do not understand what synthesis even is. Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be an improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is not allowed"

That is what SYNTH is. That is what this example would be doing, because you are implying a new conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it not simply providing context to say:

X has done Y.[cited to source that mentions X] Y is a common habit of men who beat their wives.[Cited to source that doesn't mention X]. You can use "providing context" to shove negative material about anything into literally any article. If sources do not cover what war a battle happened in, 1. it should not be included 2. that probably is synth, sources don't say that for a reason 3. is the battle actually notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep beating that same silly drum. Clue: there is a difference between the arguable and the unarguable. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Where in SYNTH does it say it is fine to combine one and not the other? I see no written exception. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That is begging the question - you're assuming that there is a violation of SYNTH going on that needs a written exception. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, SYNTH: Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be an improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is not allowed"

This is what SYNTH is. I am asserting that this a SYNTH violation. Bon courage is arguing there is an unwritten exception for certain types of information. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

We all know what the policy says. But it doesn't say that placing two sentences on similar topics next to each other is automatically a SYNTH violation. Bon courage doesn't need to argue that there is an unwritten exception. It has not been shown that there is a violation in the first place - I understand that is your position but it is not the consensus one. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither does their position appear to be the consensus one. Most editors in this discussion, if not totally in agreement with my position that this is SYNTH, are in agreement that manner of editing is problematic for one reason or another.

The policy states that to "state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources" is an violation. The placement of facts is obviously causing an implication - or we would not be arguing to include it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It's common across essays interpreting WP:SYNTH. For instance, WP:COMBINE and WP:NOTSYNTH, stated most directly as WP:NOTCOM. (Actually, NOTCOM is in fact slightly broader than what BC and I are saying here. We're only saying that statements that are strictly logically entailed by two separate sources are not synth, but NOTCOM says that all statements that are obvious to any reader from two separate sources are not synth.) Loki (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You can just say "_____ stated they believe ______." No need to offer commentary, we aren't endorsing a belief, but if it is verifiable that say, John Smith thinks vaccines cause climate change, and we can verifiably attribute this to John Smith, we don't need to have a 3rd party comment on why that is dumb. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Joseph of Cupertino

• Joseph of Cupertino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring of credulous views of claimed levitation. Now sock puppeting on Talk. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a historian of Early Modern Europe would be much more qualified to speak on a 17th century Italian Saint like Joseph of Cupertino than an English PhD and a physiologist. ~2026-42132-68 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

A quote from the historian in question: “We bracket the question of whether this happened or not,” we say, and by that we mean that since we cannot prove that any of this hovering and flying happened, we put those questions aside and instead ask other ones, admitting that all we can analyze is the fact that some people believed that such things did happen. So we limit ourselves to analyzing narratives and the beliefs expressed in those narratives but not the events reported in them. Those events remain suspended in an ether of their own, much like some stiff-jointed levitating saint, in that vast limbo where all unprovable and unusable testimonies get squirreled away. And all we are left with is the fact of the testimonies given and of the beliefs reflected in them. And in any case, merely being a historian of a particular location and time doesn't mean that every opinion one holds on a subject is orthodoxy. If Eire had claimed that Joseph of Cupertino had actually levitated (which he doesn't), it would still be a fringe opinion, since it is clearly not held by other scholars. If it were, he would presumably have written an entirely different book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

'Fake historian' exposed as mastermind behind Trump’s Smithsonian obsession

• Talk:Smithsonian Institution#'Fake historian' exposed as mastermind behind Trump’s Smithsonian obsession

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

UFOs: The gift that keeps on giving.

• Talk:List of reported UFO sightings#Pliny the Elder / Julius Obsequens / Fiery shield. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)