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

Articles for deletion

• 29 Jun 2026 – Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by DoItFastDoItUrgent (t · c) was closed as merge by Gommeh (t · c) on 21 Jul 2026; see discussion (4 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

• 15 Jul 2026 – Witchcraft in the Middle East (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c) was deleted

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
• 30 Jun 2026 – Category:Conspiracist publications (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by PARAKANYAA (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

• 26 Jul 2026 – Chaos magick (talk · edit · hist) →Chaos magic was RfDed by Justjourney (t · c); see discussion
• 23 Jul 2026 – Lumania (talk · edit · hist) →Jane Roberts was RfDed by Minterpunct (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
• undated – Medicine that is harmful and ineffective (talk · edit · hist) →Alternative medicine was RfDed

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

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)

Talk:Jack the Ripper#Rubenhold BRRRD

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This dispute seems to center on the nature of the victims, which we should not discuss here -- that discussion belongs on the Jack the Ripper talk page. Anyone who tries to talk about it here should be reverted, not responded to.

What we can talk about here, and which will no doubt influence that discussion, is the claim[3] that Hallie Rubenhold is a fringe theorist. Which, for any Ripperologists that come here to set us straight, is not at all the same thing as "being wrong".

Let's start with the coverage in The Guardian:

• Historian speaks of 'constant trolling' over Jack the Ripper book
• Hallie Rubenhold: ‘Jack the Ripper's victims have just become corpses. Can’t we do better?’
• The Five by Hallie Rubenhold review – the untold lives of Jack the Ripper’s victims

Again, any discussion about the merits of Rubenhold's claims is off topic here and should be discussed at Talk:Hallie Rubenhold, Talk:The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper, or Talk:Jack the Ripper. Please do not respond here. The only question we should respond to here here is whether reliable sources call Hallie Rubenhold a fringe theorist. Please stay focused. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If I was unclear, this is a WP:APPNOTE for the discussion I linked. Other Rubenhold stuff in other WP-articles if off-topic for that discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

But as an anecdote, the "trolling" article reminded me of content I've seen in other WP-articles:

• "According to Barber, she has encountered hostility because of the novel's Marlovian premise. She says, "It's a work of fiction. You can believe that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works and still enjoy it.""
• "The Atlantic noted that the essay had increased interest in Lanier's life and contemporary women's literary contributions, as well as "generated dissent, most notably the argument that the piece did not pay sufficient attention to the scholarly consensus that any case for anyone other than Shakespeare is conjectural." Author Jug Suraiya called the reactions "a blitzkrieg of bombastic male chauvinist outrage". Winkler commented in 2023 on the reactions to the essay that she had never been attacked like that as a writer."

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Well do her views in fact represent what a majority of experts in the world think or not? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably not. But her views may be WP:DUE in places anyway, like the C5 articles. I'm told that there has never been such a high profile and well written book on these women[4].

"Hallie Rubenhold posits/speculates/argues that Martha Tabram..." whatever. It's not unthinkable in WP-verse. But something for case-by-case discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

But this discussion is not about if they are due, but if they are fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

"Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process" --ARBCOM decision

You can't cleanly pigeonhole everything into separate "fringe theory" and "what a majority of experts in the world think" boxes. Legitimate science contains a wide spectrum of theories that are in-between. The right question is whether any reliable sources call them fringe, pseudoscience, discredited, etc. Examples: Penrose–Lucas argument, Shakespeare authorship question. Not fringe. Not what a majority of experts in the world think. Something in-between. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

According to WP, "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims." That sounds like fringe to me. William Shakespeare's collaborations however, not fringe. I started Emilia Lanier theory of Shakespeare authorship, and I consider that idea fringe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither the Shakespeare authorship question nor debate over Rubenhold's writings on the Ripper victims are scientific issues. Not unless one redefines 'science' so broadly as to include the humanities as a whole, which I'd have thought was itself a rather fringe perspective. That issue aside though, you are right in that 'opinion of the majority' and 'fringe' are far from the only two possible ways of classifying things, and basing decisions regarding content on an absurd reductionism is contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I've recently read of Rubenhold in [5][6], I get the impression that she's an outlier, to some extent alone in writing on some of the C5 aspects she brings up, but not necessarily fringe. I'll add that I discovered she exists yesterday. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The Shakespeare one is surely fringe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

[7] has a section titled "Critiquing Rubenhold’s The Five – does the research hold up?", which might be of interest for those who want to discuss that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This can also be interesting for the "fringe or not?" quest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Not fringe - this academic review says her approach is valid, even if there are problems with it. The authors of this collection of shorter academic reviews quite clearly consider the book respectable enough. I'm really not sure why she could be considered fringe. "Fringe" and "unpopular within ripperology" are absolutely not the same thing, as several of these reviews clearly imply. OsFish (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Not fringe: If Rubenhold's work isn't an "alternative theoretical formulation which has a following within the scientific community" (ARBCOM's words) I don't know what is. From our Hallie Rubenhold page:

The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper, a biography of the "canonical five" victims of Jack the Ripper, won the £50,000 Baillie Gifford Prize in 2019 and was named the Hay Festival Book of the Year. It was also shortlisted for the 2020 Wolfson History Prize. Criminologist Paul Bleakley said that Rubenhold's unapologetically feminist approach had "disrupted the very foundations of Ripperology.", and that while Rubenhold's work includes speculation, such speculation can be justified.

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

References

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 [8] 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)

Paul D. Thacker: anti-vaccine reporter?

• Paul D. Thacker#Vaccine reporting
• Talk:Paul D. Thacker#Accusations in lead

Note: the following are good sources to learn more about this issue. Some of them are editorial opinions or otherwise unsuitable for use as reliable sources in a Wikipedia citation. Some may be allowable under WP:PARITY.

• A small study of COVID vaccine aftereffects triggers a political and scientific storm --The Los Angeles Times
• RFK Jr.’s Ultimate Vanity Project --Politico (search for "Thacker")
• What the heck happened to The BMJ? --Science Based Medicine
• A Call to Arms: Under Attack, Pro-Vaccine Doctors Fight Back --The New York Times (deleted: wrong Thacker)
• Scientists, Give Up Your Emails. Editorial By Paul D. Thacker --The New York Times
• The Public Interest Lies in Promoting Transparency AND Protecting Scientists from Harassment --Union of Concerned Scientists
• Viewpoint: Leading agricultural biotechnology critic Paul Thacker morphs into anti-vaccine propagandist --Science Literary Project (republished from Respectfulinsolence)
• But Wait, Folks, There’s More: Anti-Vaxxers and Snake Oilers Are a Team --WhoWhatWhy
• Paul Thacker relitigates criticisms of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and the Great Barrington Declaration --Science Based Medicine
• Experts Blow Whistle on Alleged COVID Vaccine Whistleblower Claims --MedPage Today
• Thacker the hack keeps Thacking and hacking -- Respectfulinsolence
• I unpublished We Love GMOs and Vaccines after Paul Thacker threatened a student --Reddit

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The New York Times piece above doesn't seem to have anything about Thacker or his writing. And Reddit threads are of course unacceptable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops! Found two articles and posted the one about the wrong Thacker. Fixed it. Thanks for catching my error.

When someone clearly labels a list of URLs with Note: the following are good sources to learn more about this issue. Some of them are editorial opinions or otherwise unsuitable for use as reliable sources in a Wikipedia citation. there is little point in replying that some of them are unacceptable sources. That has already been established.

The Reddit thread is from the person who ran the GMOs and Vaccines page on Facebook for seven years, their comments[9] about them unpublishing the page due to Paul Thacker would be allowable per WP:ABOUTSELF if the shutdown was otherwise notable, and WP:RS specifically says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". You are applying a policy that only applies to articles to a talk page comment.

Do you have a comment about whether Paul D. Thacker should be called an anti-vaccine reporter?--Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

On the Reddit thread, that's at least verified it was said by the Facebook group post here rather than a more anonymous Reddit post: https://www.facebook.com/100069660693103/posts/update-on-the-we-love-gmos-and-vaccines-situation-we-are-sad-to-see-stephan-neid/337848697588682/. Not sure if it ever received coverage outside of WP:PARITY sources on the fringe topic though. I'm more familiar with him on the anti-GMO and denialism subject though, but it seems like he has moved over to vaccines with a lot of similar drama. KoA (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

+1, being technically allowed to post unreliable sources on noticeboards doesn't make it appropriate. It comes across as either encouraging internet sleuthing instead of using an impartial survey of reliable sources, or simply as using this noticeboard like a forum to show just how bad the bad guys are. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's often quite useful to know about a subject, even from sources that are unsuitable for use in an encyclopedic context that might otherwise be information-rich (intelligence required to decide which those are). Nobody's forcing anybody to read them. If such sources are proposed for content though, that is of course bad. Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

All right then, y'all have fun catching bad guys for us. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Isn't "internet sleuthing" a, if not the, common mechanism to find impartial reliable sources, or "surveys" thereof? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

And of course some of the best sources are very far from impartial, particularly for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Ipotești–Cândești culture

Edit-warring could be because of nationalist propaganda. Please chime in. I'm not knowledgeable about that culture, so I will defer the judgment to others. I only flagged it as a problem to be discussed. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 9 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: [10][11][12] 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)

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)

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)

  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)

  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 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)

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)

  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)