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

Did you know

• 22 Sep 2026 – Earthquake light (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Very Polite Person (t · c); see discussion
• 15 Sep 2026 – List of critics of Wikipedia (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Launchballer (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

• 23 Sep 2026 – List of critics of Wikipedia (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hemiauchenia (t · c); see discussion (8 participants)

Categories for discussion

• 25 Sep 2026 – Category:Climate change denial (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Cambalachero (t · c); see discussion
• 18 Aug 2026 – Category:American Holocaust deniers (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HerrHeulsuse (t · c); see discussion
• 18 Aug 2026 – Category:Croatian Holocaust deniers (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HerrHeulsuse (t · c); see discussion
• 18 Aug 2026 – Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HerrHeulsuse (t · c); see discussion
• 18 Aug 2026 – Category:Nanjing Massacre deniers (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by HerrHeulsuse (t · c); see discussion
• 12 Aug 2026 – Category:Western zodiac user templates (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Andrybak (t · c); see 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

• 15 Sep 2026 – Bursty star formation (talk · edit · hist) →Cosmology was RfDed by Canadachick (t · c); see discussion
• 15 Sep 2026 – Earth Studies (talk · edit · hist) →Cosmology RfDed by Canadachick (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Files for discussion

• 01 Sep 2026 – File:Conservatives logo.svg (talk · edit · hist) (on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) was FfDed by Candidyeoman55 (t · c); see discussion
• 30 Aug 2026 – File:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg (talk · edit · hist) (on 1, 2) was FfDed by Cauliflowerblackhole (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 08 Sep 2026 – Bruce Cathie (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Very Polite Person (t · c); start discussion
• 12 Jul 2026 – Deguello Report (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by PARAKANYAA (t · c); see discussion
• 02 Jan 2026 – Himalayan fossil hoax (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start discussion

Requests for comments

• 30 Aug 2026 – Aligned, Multiple-transient Events in the First Palomar Sky Survey (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Chetsford (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

James Lacatski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChatGPT and Navier–Stokes equations

Allegedly their LLM platform solved it:

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

It made it into Wikipedia here already:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sahaja Yoga, yet again

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

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

Jesus "Jose" Escamilla

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

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

ufouap.net / Global UFO Archive

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

• 1990 Greifswald Lights --Global UFO Archive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lonnie Zamora incident

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

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

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

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

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

Eyes needed on GcMAF page

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

Heads up: RFK Jr. is focusing attention on electromagnetic fields

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability of confessional biblical scholarship

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

Question about best practices regarding Intelligent Design

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

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

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

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

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

The two proposals being compared are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sources say that ID is pseudoscience, so Wikipedia says ID is pseudoscience. This is required by WP:NPOV, it is not up to editors to decide that how reliable sources describe something is wrong or shouldn't be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Multi-article fringe promotion: Victor Skumin across Russian cosmism and Roerichism

Assistance is requested to audit and clean up fringe/promotional insertions across several philosophy articles maintained by a long-running SPA network (currently reported at WP:SPI/Bob7591 and m:Cross-wiki spam).

Problematic insertions:

• Russian cosmism: Skumin's quote has been inserted into the lead/theory sections, and his portrait was placed in the gallery alongside Tsiolkovsky and Vernadsky. No mainstream academic secondary sources treat him as a canonical cosmist. Violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.
• Roerichism: Entire standalone sections and external links have been added promoting his modern organization, "World Organisation of Culture of Health" (WOCH), using self-published materials (WP:SPS).
• Agni Yoga: Repeated additions of Skumin doctrines and fringe cross-references.

Help from uninvolved editors is needed to trim these sections to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. AdonisLafayette (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_cosmism&action=history

That Skumin quote has been up front in Russian cosmism since at least 2023? And so has the portrait. What's an NPOV issue here or FRINGE issue specifically? — VPP (t/c) 13:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the question! Longevity on a low-traffic philosophy page is not an endorsement of consensus (WP:AGE / WP:SILENCE). The core WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS issues here are concrete:

WP:UNDUE (False Equivalence in Gallery and Theory): Standard academic literature on Russian Cosmism (e.g., George M. Young's The Russian Cosmists, Oxford University Press; works by Marlene Laruelle or Michael Hagemeister) defines the movement around canonical late 19th/early 20th-century thinkers: Nikolai Fyodorov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Vladimir Vernadsky, and Alexander Chizhevsky. There are no independent secondary academic monographs on Cosmism treating Victor Skumin (a 20th-century psychiatrist who later founded a modern Agni Yoga-based esoteric movement) as a canonical cosmist thinker. Placing his portrait in the gallery alongside Tsiolkovsky and Vernadsky, and featuring his personal doctrine front-and-center in the Theory section, manufactures prominence where none exists in mainstream scholarship, and this isn't even taking into fact that this has been a sockpeppueting attempt over the past decade from multiple accounts.

WP:FRINGE / WP:SPS (Self-Published and Inadequate Sourcing): Per WP:FRINGE, an idiosyncratic modern doctrine cannot be integrated into a historical movement article based on self-published or primary sources. Looking at the actual citations supporting Skumin in that article:

#* Ref 8: A 1995 book authored by Skumin himself (Культура здоровья — фундаментальная наука о человеке), a primary self-published source violating WP:SPS.

#* Ref 9: `kult-zdor.ru`, the official website of Skumin's own organization.

#* Ref 6: A generic slide deck on school physical education hosted on `900igr.net`.

WP:PROMO / Single-Purpose Account Provenance: This text and portrait were inserted by User:Dr Ama7 (diffs from 27 June 2021 and 23 December 2021), a decade-long single-purpose account currently reported at WP:SPI/Bob7591 whose edits across enwiki are restricted almost entirely to inserting Skumin, his organization ("WOCH"), and his photos into broad philosophy topics without independent secondary verification.

Unless mainstream academic secondary sources on Russian Cosmism specifically establish that Skumin and his "Culture of Health" doctrine are significant to the subject, retaining this blockquote, text, and portrait violates WP:DUE and WP:PROMO. AdonisLafayette (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Homeopathy vs. plate tectonics

• Meeting the burden of evidence: How homeopathy is like plate tectonics… and how it differs --The Skeptic

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)