Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

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

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

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

    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days


    Additional notes:

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

    Article alerts


    Redirects for discussion

    (3 more...)

    Good article nominees

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    DHS claims in Killing of Renée Good

    [edit]

    I feel a bit at a loss for how to cover claims by McLaughlin/Noem/Trump related to the death of Renée Good. All three have a well-established reputation for making extremely fringe claims, and if they weren't the US federal government we'd be treating them as WP:REDFLAG, of not worse.

    Obviously this is nothing new, and I'm sure if my search skills were better I'd be able to find something in the archives. But it doesn't feel right to report them calling Good a "domestic terrorist" without contextualising that ("iykyk" isn't quite good enough). Of course there's also the political hot potato, and the fact that the government already has Wikipedia in its crosshairs. Even though that shouldn't make a difference, it absolutely does matter. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    We explicitly cannot give them any extra standing/authoritative position simply for being the U.S. government; any government saying nonsense is still nonsense and if disputed as WP:FRINGE by mainstream WP:RS, the current interim government of the U.S. and it's "enthusiasts" don't have say/sway/authority to push back against that.
    You can easily beat down U.S. statements here under WP:INDEPENDENT too. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Very Polite Person There's a long history of paying a certain deference to US government positions here, so policy aside articles tend to pay deference to government positions. But what's normally a systemic bias issue is a lot more serious in these times. And there are always plenty of new editors willing to take a hard partisan line. Granted, it's not new - I've been here so long that I cut my teeth on Bush-era disinfo. But Wikipedia in 2026 matters a lot more than it did in 2005.
    I know AE is a tool here, but I'd really prefer to avoid that. For starters, as an admin I have to be more careful about trying to say "do this or you'll get in trouble" because people will perceive that as intimidation. So I suppose what I'm asking is for ideas about softer, more collegial ways of pushing back. Maybe? Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Bury them in cites with very liberal usage of the quote value in ref templates to where things are so locked and buttoned down that anything non-mainstream or disinformation is inherently volumized into nothing. If anyone complains about too many URLs/refs, shove it into EFN like I did here by deploying context/more info into a Notes section:
    --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths,_detentions_and_deportations_of_American_citizens_in_the_second_Trump_administration&diff=prev&oldid=1331888029
    I don't know what else would work: build an iron clad scaffolding that fools can do nothing but smash their own heads against in futility. Build a seawall the angry water can't do shit against. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    AE? Trade (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a long history of paying a certain deference to US government positions
    That tradition should cease given the Trump administration's penchant for "alternative facts". TarnishedPathtalk 03:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    'Fringe' doesn't really cover it, but any such claims should clearly be attributed if included in articles, and counter-responses from RS included. As for the US government's 'crosshairs', not something we should be taking into consideration. This is a global project, not beholden to any nation state, political faction, or anything else. If and when the US government takes legal (or even illegal) action against Wikipedia and/or the WMF, we may have to react (as we have with attempts by other governments to interfere), but kowtowing in advance would be both improper and ineffective - it would likely only result in more pressure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Many sources including the NYT [1] and our own lying eyes (we can see the videos for ourselves) clearly show statements from these officials to be incorrect at best, or lies. We can cover them in this way. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my question (if I have one) is more along the lines of how I can convince other people to edit that way. People who firmly believe that what they're seeing in the videos supports the government's assertion. And it feels maybe like trying to work with people who believe in alternative medicine. I'm not here to convince them that their herbs aren't going to cure cancer, I just need to convince them that to follow policy. Guettarda (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to convince them to follow policy. You merely need to inform them that edits which do not follow policy will not be permitted. We aren't here to try to fix other people's belief systems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if NYT, for example, supported claims made by government, we would still have cause for scepticism. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq anyone? TarnishedPathtalk 03:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    agree with andythegrump, fringe does not cover it. political claims like this need to be attributed. if reliable sourcing disputes political claims, we state that. Keep Calm and Carry On User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The basis for so much of this is FRINGE. The legal theories backing a lot of their actions. The stolen election claims. The idea that there are 100 million undocumented immigrants (or whatever the number is). Replacement theory. And obviously everything Kennedy says.
    There's a difference between political spin and misinformation (which can be handled with attribution) and the kind of claims we're seeing from the government. Which we have to report, but we're doing a disservice to our readers if we report without added context. In FRINGE topics we do that without worrying too much about COATRACKing. You wouldn't get away with adding a link to Trump's creative relationship with the truth after any claim he makes. (cf. "obvious pseudoscience". Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's where I agree - various people in the US government attacking Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant. But I wanted to point out that not only should such claims be attributed, the counter-responses should also be attributed. It is not our job to takes sides in any dispute. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, I'd have taken it as read that counter-responses should also be attributed. I'd find it hard to see how one could document a counter-response without saying where it came from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Recognising that the current US government talks shit is not taking a side. Trump and his administration's penchant for lying is well documented. We should not present the various claims as having equal footing per WP:FALSEBALANCE. TarnishedPathtalk 03:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd disagree to say that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply. If you get into cases of outright propaganda or misrepresentation from government (or anyone really), those are fringe claims covered by the guideline. That has a role here both in content and possibly if behavior issues come up related to that. This can be a dual-purpose board in that way. We can't deny FRINGE is an undercurrent here, but as to how you would apply that to @Guettarda's question on what people can see in the video vs. US government statements, there just many not be much traction in getting them to refocus on what sources say rather than personal opinion by focusing on the fringe designation.
    I'm not sure how much this may help here Guettarda, but in science topics I sometimes direct editors to my user page explaining that even though I have a PhD in a subject, I still can't personally disagree with sources as an editor even if I see something obviously wrong in a depiction of an event under my expertise hat. As an editor I need to rely on sources to articulate that even if plain as day for me. Sometimes it helps to remind people they have their anonymous editor hat on too, and I've had some luck explaining to new editors that if someone with more expertise than you (this applies to all of us at some point as we edit different topics) can't rely on personal interpretation, are you checking to make sure you aren't relying on personal assumption rather than focusing what sources say too? Sometimes that helps to redirect people, but those are usually not quite so burning hot topics too. Just one "softer" example that might help at least though. KoA (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Left a note on article talk, we always have to notify talk pages about posts here and other noticeboards, since concensus is local. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good#Transparency,_Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good_posted_to_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 'fringe' the right term? It would also be best not to glom the various claims together. For example, I don't know what a 'domestic terrorist' is. Questions about if the car was driving at the agent are not ours to adjudicate but are also not clearly false. Under the guise of hedging against these unproven claims, we're inviting other partisan claims to swamp the article. Dr Fell (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a textbook WP:MANDY case. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a MANDY case. And one complicated because we (and much of the public) generally treat the US gov't as RS when multiple members of said gov't are heavily pushing disinformation. And they are pushing this to the fringe. At this point in history, the US gov't is becoming an extreme source. (Going to dinner now to eat some beef with potatoes fried in tallow.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Potatoes fried in tallow sound delicious, but what disinformation? The video released this afternoon from the agent's POV definitively deflates what had been the prevailing counter-narrative. It's not the end, but this is an emerging situation, where many claims will be shared, disputed and ultimately disproven. But given that video release, hard to claim that the USG is the one spreading disinformation. I won't say they've been vindicated (far too soon) but their view hews a lot closer to the evidence. And that doesn't mean contrary narratives are fringe, either. Best to avoid using 'fringe' as a cudgel. Anyways, Mandy is an essay; not policy. Dr Fell (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    what disinformation?
    Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would classify it as MANDY from both sides. Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't sides on Wikipedia. There are sources that meet WP:RS criteria and there are those that don't. DHS is one that does not meet WP:RS criteria because A) they are literally being accused of shooting and killing an innocent civilian, so they are incredibly biased, and B) because the Trump presidency has a history producing of politically-motivated misinformation, and for reasons A and B, WP:MANDY applies. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And the counter accusation to this is that the civilian wasn’t “innocent”, but attempted to run the agent over with her car. Having seen the recent video, I think this counter-accusation is at least plausible.
    Of course, opponents of the Trump administration are denying this counter-accusation… but… “that’s what they would say” (ie… MANDY). Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it in Ross's video that makes you think "[she] attempted to run the agent over with her car ... is at least plausible"? If anything, his video shows really clearly that she was turning the steering wheel to the right, away from him. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and this is also exactly the conclusion supported by the majority of WP:RS secondary sources that analyzed the videos such as The Washington Post. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP/BDP seems more relevant than WP:FRINGE here to me. Do we need to repeat the claim (even with attribution) of 'domestic terrorist'? We can say that the claim/version of events by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and the federal government is that Good was resisting arrest and posed a threat to one of the immigration officers, which covers the justification for the shooting without needing to include inflammatory and potentially defamatory statements about a recently deceased person that probably won't hold up to scrutiny. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Except that the resisting arrest charge and threat are gov't claims that are heavily disputed and pretty much disproved by actual RS based on the videos and witnesses. They were also created with no investigation or physical evidence -- that is fringe. Problem is that the gov't appears to be inventing fringe claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Fringe is about academic/scientific disciplines, that is clear from the wording of the policy. 'In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.' and 'If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship' Traumnovelle (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally when someone tries to say FRINGE doesn't apply to an area saying it only applies to academic topics, that's often a red flag/misapplication of the guideline and related policy. Fringe claims can be anything from just not accepted to misleading or outright fraudulent depictions/viewpoints. If a politician or government (some more than others) makes a claim unhinged from reality, that falls under the fringe guideline. Denialism shows up in many areas including if not moreso politics, and that includes how events/history are depicted, such as the 2020 US election listed in that article. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is another fringe revisionist topic many learn about in school too. The whole point of NPOV is that fringe viewpoints like that are treated as such.
      The topic at hand here is about sources saying the government is using a disinformation narrative (i.e., fringe) to describe the events. Whether someone personally agrees with those sources or not, they are indicating the government claims appear to be fringe. Navigating that is tough content-wise as I glanced at what editors are working on over at that page, but Guettarda was pretty obviously correct in asking for advice here because this is the fringe theories noticeboard. KoA (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Lost Cause-ism is fringe relative to academia, though. The reason it's fringe is because of the consensus of historians. Loki (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Plenty of US political articles already contains dubious claims made by the administration without using Wikivoice. Why has it become such an issue to do now?--Trade (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The existence of political articles containing dubious claims without using Wikivoice is reason to fix those articles, not create more like them. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely 100% agree with Guy Macon here. Highlighting misinformation/disinformation in Wikivoice should be much more commonplace, not less. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not a claim comes from a government is something I would consider a tertiary (at best) indicator of the accuracy of that claim. Primary indicators would be expertise, a history of accuracy and the presentation of examinable evidence, secondary concerns would be impartiality and temporal distance from the claim (hindsight is 20/20, after all). In light of the current regime's well-documented habit of telling the American public bald-faced lies, I would consider any claims coming from that regime to be less likely to be accurate than such claims coming from elsewhere. While I am absolutely no fan of Ronald Reagan, I will say that, since 2017 and especially since 2025, I have begun to discover a deep well of truth in his oft-repeated claim that the most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      But the only reason that is even an issue in the first place is because other others insist that everything the Trump government says must be in Wikivoice. It's the definition of a self-created issue Trade (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Is that not the same scrutiny and accountability we hold all politicians of any stripe and country to, and are supposed to?
      Why is that there's only ever controversy about our global standards when they hold "right wingers" to the same level of rules as all other people; they certainly aren't entitled to any special handling based on who they are, their beliefs, or threats of violence over people attempting to hold them to societal norms? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      "they certainly aren't entitled to any special handling based on who they are, their beliefs" We literally have an entire thread right here of people calling for them to be given special handling by Wikipedia. So far only i have said they should be treated like everyone else Trade (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @Trade: So far only i have said they should be treated like everyone else. Then you have no objections to explicitly detailing misinformation and disinformation in Wikivoice? We even have sources that say as much, for example, from The Guardian: "Trump administration unleashes torrent of untruths after woman shot dead by ICE". Thoughts? ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Admittedly, I don't regard the Guardian as news, but the claim/reality section half of the article was largely refuted by the release of new video from the POV of the shooter. This doesn't mean post USG claims without scrutiny or attribution. It does mean rushing contrary claims into an article and trying to robe them in Wikivoice is equally harmful. Dr Fell (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The Guardian is unambigously fine news WP:RS here. There is no counter-argument or position. I suppose some minority don't think it's RS, but I can't fathom a single reason why, if we are all correctly keeping our politics in our pants where they belong, and not on this site. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Odd, because the list of perennial sources notes "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics." So clearly not "unambiguously fine news." There is a counter-argument or position to anything. I also would avoid Breitbart, MSNOW, etc, especially for politics, even with attribution. Dr Fell (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Bias is not a problem and never has been. We have plenty of "conservative" news sites no one sane would balk at using for RS; the ones we put into the septic tank are the sites/sources known for publishing bullshit. Hyperbole isn't a factor in reliablity; editorial accuracy/responsiblity is, and how others in the relevant academic/institutional spheres rank/treat the source (and that latter de facto outranks every wikipedian living or dead). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be news to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. RS governance is deeply flawed, but you're not accurately describing policy where sources are assessed by a single variable. Institutional assessments don't automatically override community input. Community being another important point here. We are each just one view of many. The repeated "we" or "no one sane" framing isn't constructive. We're just expressing opinion on issues entirely subject to change; neither of us is the arbiter of policy consensus. Dr Fell (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Tell me that you don't understand the difference between "biased" and "unreliable" without telling me that you don't understand the difference between "biased" and "unreliable". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Sources are allowed to be biased per WP:RSBIAS and their political leaning is irrelevant when it comes to judging their reliability.
      Goverments are reliable for attributed statements of their own opinions and statements. For anything else independent sourcing should be used. If independent sources say a government is being less than honest then that should be included in the article and well. That's true whether it's the government of the US or Tuvalu. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @Trade: I'm a bit confused by your comment.
      It is my understanding that, when we say something 'in wikivoice', that means we are stating it as a fact. So in this case, stating what the DHS said 'in wikivoice' would mean that we are taking what the DHS said as factual, and we would be referring to Good directly as a 'domestic terrorist' and stating without qualifications that she attempted to run over the ICE officer who shot her.
      e.g.:

      Good was engaging in an act of domestic terrorism by attempting to run over an ICE agent with her vehicle when she was killed.

      — Wikivoice

      Treating the DHS no differently than any other source would require us to put all such statements in their voice, stating that the DHS called Good a 'domestic terrorist' without justification and falsely claimed she attempted to run over the ICE officer who shot her.
      e.g.:

      The DHS accused Good of being a domestic terrorist without justification and claimed she was attempting to run over the ICE agent who killed her, despite multiple videos showing that the agent positioned himself in front of her car and that she had turned her wheels away from him.

      — Standard treatment

      The latter tact is the one I endorse. Any editor who insists that we must treat claims made by the current DHS as factual has no business editing Wikipedia, because the evidence is so overwhelming that the DHS is lying through their teeth. Your comments seems both to be intended as a disagreement with mine, and to be endorsing the same position I take. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The latter is all we can do. Noem, her office, ICE and BP are simply not WP:RS at present, just on the basis of their admissions of lying and deception in courts. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That is exactly my position. Well, actually, I would go so far as to suggest that Noem, her office, ICE, BP and the DHS in general are all unreliable sources who should never be cited directly except when absolutely necessary. I would also include the White House and president under this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Governments are inherently unduly self-serving and their claims should always be met with scepticism. If other reliable source contradict any government claims then the government claims should be treated as being exceptional and require heightened sourcing to support them. Trump in particular is a habitual Lier and his claims should never be stated as fact. TarnishedPathtalk 03:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per the above, governments are self-serving, but sometimes so are the media. So unless a court says it, anything we say should be an attributed claim. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      But what happens when a large number of reliable sources are stating that Trump's lies are in fact actual lies? Attributing the claim to Trump is not enough. It would be more appropriate to use language such as "Trump falsely claimed ...", especially if that is how reliable sources have framed it. ~2025-40672-28 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      If reliable sources actually say something (in other words, with no cherry picking of sources and no reading things into a source that are not there) and you think it is a lie, there is absolutely nothing you can do. What alternative would you suggest? Unreliable sources? The opinions of an anonymous Wikipedia editor? Letting some A.I. decide? (oh, wait. That's Grok, not Wikipedia). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      If "a large number of reliable sources" says that something is a lie we call it a lie. What you're saying appears to be a pure strawman. Loki (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, why couldn't we call a lie out if RS do substantially? Who the speaker is, is utterly irrelevant, be it barely notable no-article person, a head of state, or an actual national government or major religious leader (e.g. the Pope). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I see what happened up there. I misread the comment as being about reliable sources confirming a lie to be true. It was actually about reliable sources confirming that a lie is false. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scores of gov't institutions were independent and therefore less political and more trustworthy. Independent agencies of the United States federal government And presidents did not interfere with the workings of many others (e.g. FBI, DOJ, CDC, NIH). Problem is that, one-by-one, we are seeing such institutions politicized. So no, we can no longer trust anything the DOJ says and many of their statements are simply fringe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • FRINGE is not the correct policy, and not the correct way to think about these issues. Claims by government officials have always been cited with in-text attribution, unless self-evident and widely shared in reliable sources. Government statements belong in "Response -> Domestic", not in the description of the incident, because they were workshopped and crafted after-the-fact to shape and wrestle control over the narrative. Government statements must not be omitted. But it doesn't feel right to report them calling Good a "domestic terrorist" without contextualising that Contextualizing is good for readers. Contextualize it, workshop it and get it in, but the US government calling Renee Good a domestic terrorist, or the Iranian government calling protestors foreign provocateurs, is self-evidently important to documenting a government's response to an event, which is important to documenting the event. "Contextualizing" does not mean: "the government is full of shit btw", it also means providing analysis of that response and explanations of its significance from our WP:BESTSOURCES, comparing that government response to the usual rhetoric employed by that government for comparable events (if there's a noteworthy evolution/escalation), and documenting the response-to-the-response from civil society. For example, it does not make sense and serves no purpose to quote a new Xi Jinping statement on Taiwan without explaining whether that rhetoric is unusual, new, or more strident than normal. A government response (1) has real-world consequences, meaning it affects the event's resolution and future events, (2) helps understand the nature of that government, (3) affects the impact on civil-society and the latter's response, (4) affects the evolution of society's political culture, and (4) changes expectations of that government's future actions. The WP:FRINGE interpretation gives you none of that, and it is not the correct way to look at this. DFlhb (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I generally agree with you, but I will note that the relationship with reality held by the current regime in the US means that WP:FRINGE is something that bears keeping in mind whenever we're dealing with their claims.
      The great replacement conspiracy theory, rapid onset gender dysphoria, creationism, the deep state conspiracy theory and other beliefs which are widespread among the political right and endorsed and advanced by the regime are all deeply fringe topics. The way we've crafted that policy is aimed at dealing with beliefs pushed by those with deeply conspiratorial mindsets, and that's exactly what this regime is full of.
      So while I don't think FRINGE is the right policy to judge the DHS' claims by, the fact that the DHS made those claims has created a popular fringe theory that they are true. And so, using the guidance that policy provides is a pretty good idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Cow urine and COVID

    [edit]

    Cow urine has popped up a few times on this board, and I was over there recently doing a little cleanup. It looks like it's had socking issues too.

    I'm probably out of time until later this week, but there was a section on people trying to use it as a cure for COVID-19. More at Talk:Cow_urine#COVID_section. In short, anyone more familiar with this topic that might have a good MEDRS or parity source to use as an intro to go ahead of content on the cow urine drinking parties and the Indian government's responses to criticism on this? KoA (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be the same Indian Government that has the following departments:
    "Indian system of medicine" is another way of saying "Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, and Sowa-Rigpa.
    The quacks and snake oil salesmen have captured the government of India. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (2021) Two Men Have Been in Jail for 45 Days for Saying Cow Poop and Piss Can’t Cure COVID
    https://www.vice.com/en/article/dyv4vq/arrest-cow-poop-piss-covid-hindu-nationalism-modi-india
    May 2021: Erendro Leichombam and Kishorechandra Wangkhem arrested under India's National Security Act for a Facebook post critical of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's leaders promoting cow dung/urine for COVID-19.
    July 2021: The Supreme Court of India ordered the immediate release of both, calling the detentions a violation of fundamental rights and asking the Manipur government to explain the misuse of the NSA.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of authoring a new Wikipedia policy page proposal

    [edit]

    Update: We deleted the policy proposal per community consensus against. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Why delete it instead of archiving/marked rejected etc? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus against was so overwhelming we didn't foresee it being salvaged in the future. @VidanaliK was the one who deleted it I believe so he may have an archive available. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't delete it, I am not an admin and do not have that power. That was @Epicgenius who was recently elected as one who deleted the page. I think he also deleted the redirect WP:SCA. I turned WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED into a redirect to the actual policy on that in WP:NPOV. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 02:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Seriously contested assertions. The two primary contributors, who contributed virtually all of the content, both expressed their desire to have the page deleted. @VidanaliK If you wish, I can send you an email with the contents of the wikitext. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not use emails on Wikipedia; I believe Alexandraaaacs was the one interested in the content of the deleted article. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 02:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks for clarifying. @Alexandraaaacs1989 same offer applies; if you wish, I can send you an email with the contents of the wikitext. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for offering but I'm alright, it was actually @Very Polite Person who queried about the archive, but I'm not certain whether they'd like to receive it in the form of an email. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm good, I was just curious. I simply thought process was to save/mothball old failed ideas. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Help from experienced editors is welcome! WP:SCA / WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't need a page. At most a short footnote glossing that "seriously contested" means in RS, not among certain Wikipedia editors. Bon courage (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If it doesn't need a page, then what policy already makes clear the % of experts making a claim required for dissenting claims to be fringe? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We assess the evidence. do we need such a metric? - Walter Ego 20:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Assessing the evidence" requires some sort of metric; otherwise we end up in long-winded discussions that don't go anywhere. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My goodness - how have we managed all these years? - Walter Ego 20:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As charming as your sarcasm is, this exact point has been the subject of endless debate that has consumed tremendous editor time. Anyone familiar with the history of Talk:Gaza genocide will agree.
    "How have we managed all these years" could be said in response to any policy proposal. Yet we continue to write new policies, so clearly that logic doesn't hold. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't and never will be a discrete percentage of experts required for a claim to be FRINGE because not all expert publications are of equal weight for such determinations, nor do most fields typically sound off in an orderly fashion such that we could confidently assert that 9 out of 10 experts agree that XYZ, nor is the construction and coverage of FRINGE topics the same across different domains of study. Our main guideline on WP:FRINGE already describes pitfalls, reasoning, and best practices along these lines. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree no %-of-experts-who-agree assertion is infalliable, but clearly WP:FRINGE has not been sufficient thus far at preventing confusion regarding the threshold at which something is considered fringe. Even if it's not a new page, I think something additional should be written with topics like the Gaza genocide specifically in mind, which have been nightmares to manage, even if it's just an addition to the WP:FRINGE page. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And your "metric" for who can truly be accounted an "expert" is ... ? Bon courage (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A survey among specialists in the field of interest, or assessing of Wikipedia-reliable sources specialising in the field of interest. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We could also take meta-analyses into account as a supplement to surveys. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And your "metric" for whether such "meta-anlyses" count? Cannot you see this is futile? If what we have is not enough, no amount of WP:CREEP will ever be enough. Bon courage (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability, this part of the problem is already taken care of by other policies such as WP:RSP and WP:RS. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of which are policies. Reliability is a source of endless debate, particularly in WP:CTOPs. Bon courage (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally agree there is no one size fits all. Each different topic needs it's own discussion to determine consensus, not differ to some lose guideline with a calculator. CNC (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While of course it won't be one-size-fits all or infalliable, the idea is it can provide a baseline idea of how we should treat statements, without baselessly accusing statements of being WP:FRINGE because a minority believe it is true, and without long-winded discussions that lead nowhere. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We could also have a very large buffer zone for ambiguity — e.g., if the minority is between 30% and 50%, it is automatically not considered WP:FRINGE. This would end a lot of debates before they even start. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent a poll, how are you determining these percentages? I doubt that polls exist in most CTOPs, though perhaps I'm wrong about that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Pew does a LOT of polls on any and all topics. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that their polling topics are as wide-ranging as our CTOPs, nor do they generally limit their polls to experts in the field. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Source number 3 in our proposal is expert-based. It is a bit limited in its topics though. VidanaliK (talk to me) 23:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting that one can't find expert polls for any CTOP. Clearly one can. But this doesn't answer my actual question: Absent a poll, how are you determining these percentages? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:CREEP and remember we cannot legislate WP:CLUE. Bon courage (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CLUE cannot be legislated because it does not solve a specific problem that is not already handled by WP:BITE and WP:AGF. WP:CREEP just means don't create policies that are too detailed or unnessecary. This is definitely arising from a real problem, namely that invoking WP:FRINGE leads to long-winded pointless discussions. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a real problem. Bon courage (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On pages like Gaza genocide it has been a problem, there have been repeated discussions about whether there is "scholarly consensus" Israel is committing genocide, and having no baseline metric for this causes such long-winded disucssions with arguments on the reliability of specific sources, and not particularly being productive. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I/P is always going to be a shit-show and not really anything to do with WP:FRINGE. It is impossible to craft any wording which will quell disagreement in that topic area. To say anything has "scholarly consensus" the bar is already set at WP:RS/AC. Bon courage (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like this shouldn't need to be a policy, but I've had to explain this to so many editors that it might actually need to be made into one.
    Seriously, the number of editors who think that a statement is 'controversial' just because they and their friends disagree with it is dishearteningly high. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? For the record I am 100% convinced it is a genocide. This is solely about reducing bureaucratic hassles. Please assume competence and good faith Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please assume competence!" they cried, while completely failing to understand the plain English of a comment which literally agreed with their opening post.
    "Please assume good faith!" they cried, while assuming the comment they replied to was made in bad faith.
    Un-fucking-believable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misread your comment, that's very embarrassing. Thank you for agreeing with the policy idea. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Seriously contested assertations states at the top that The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. Where exactly does it specify any 'policy, guideline, or process'? It seems not to do anything of the sort, instead being a vague set of assertions and 'types of claims' about which some as-yet unspecified policy might be constructed. Just how is any of that more useful than an open-ended discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? And what exactly is the purpose of choosing such obviously-controversial 'types of claims' as examples? This looks to me as if it might possibly be intended to construct new policy with the specific intent of winning an ongoing debate: something we most definitely discourage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a work in progress, hence the notification saying "help wanted". We are compiling data before proposing something concrete.
    And no, like I said before, this has nothing to do with "winning a debate" and this is solely to reduce bureaucratic hassles after witnessing the same exact arguments speculating about when something is/isn't fringe relitigated endlessly over the course of months. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "we" ? Bon courage (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The people currently working on the policy; currently me and Alexandraaaacs1989. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @VidanaliK and I. We were arguing in Talk:Gaza genocide. I argued 1/6 of scholars saying it's not a genocide was fringe, he said 1/6 of scholars saying it's not genocide was not fringe. So we came together to work on something to help reduce ambiguity in the future because there's no way to really resolve this without some form of objective measure. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But more importantly, this was a point we'd both seen elsewhere and felt like would be beneficial to Wikipedia to have more concrete guidelines around. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a waste of the community's time. Please don't try and re-write policy to skew local content disputes. Bon courage (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not trying to skew local content disputes, we're trying to make them easier to deal with. Alexandraaaacs and I come from different viewpoints (him saying there is a genocide, me saying there is not) so most of our work has been on objective searching for sources and a reliable way to turn this into policy to make such processes more efficient. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you asked for help from experienced editors. I have given my view. Bon courage (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that 'making topics easier to deal with' seems to involve (per both WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED and its accompanying talk page) the active encouragement of systemic bias through the use of US opinion poll data as a supposed objective measure of whether something is 'fringe' or not. This is a global project, and we have enough trouble with external commentators of the likes of Larry Sanger trying to impose 'neutrality' according to narrow right-shifted US political discourse without Wikipedia's own contributors adding to the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is only preliminary data gathering. US polls are the easiest to find and finding global polls that aren’t themselves biased (like Turkey on the Armenian genocide or Ukraine on the Holodomor) is more difficult than you’d expect. VidanaliK (talk to me) 00:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much doubt that global data gathering on such subjects is more difficult than I'd expect, given that I'd have to suggest that with very few exceptions, it would be more or less impossible to find such data to the extent that it was worthwhile looking at at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Then by all means, find a single statistic out there on Armenian genocide expert % consensus to prove us wrong. We will use it. Otherwise, please keep your doubts to yourself if you're not going to fact check your claims. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what that rant is supposed to be about, but you seem to be having difficulty comprehending what I have just written, having previously made entirely false assumptions about what I might think. I have just told you that I do not believe that global polling data exists to the extent that it is useful. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. You are the one proposing to use such data, it is down to you to demonstrate that it exists. And no, you won't get to 'use' any polling data to determine article content unless and until there is clear consensus for policy change. And given that this proposal seems to have gone down like a lead balloon, I can't see much prospect of that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    He said it's difficult finding global data polls on certain topics like the Armenian genocide. You said you doubt it. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove there are global data polls because you cannot ask us to prove that the purported global polls, which we said do not exist, do in fact exist.
    And like VidanaliK said, the US polls elsewhere were gathered in preliminary data. We are still in the early stages of data gathering. If you do not like how we use US polls, then help us find better polls.
    If you believe the proposal has gone down like a lead balloon, that's fine, you are allowed to believe that. That does not preclude us from continuing to work on our draft before presenting it in its polished final form. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No I did not say that I doubt that finding data in global polls would be difficult. To the contrary, I responded to VidanaliK's failed attempt at mind-reading where he made an entirely false assumption as to how easy I thought it would be to find such data. What I 'doubted' was the absurd suggestion that finding such data would be 'more difficult than [I'd] expect'. As I have just stated, I expect it to be impossible, or near enough impossible to be useless. And regardless, as I have already made clear, I have no intention in assisting you with this obnoxious proposal to replace contributors' editorial judgement with bad data and arbitrary number-crunching. It is entirely contrary to the very basis on which Wikipedia content disputes are resolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    “As easy as you might think” is a figure of speech. VidanaliK (talk to me) 15:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to carry on disrupting your own thread with vacuous off-topic waffle, that's fine by me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm sure if you looked up academic literature on abortion you'd find 5/6 of scholars don't consider abortion murder. That does not mean pro-life is a fringe view. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this post and the preceding post. Both of us have decided to give up the idea after similar inputs. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the first sentence, and the general idea that both of us gave up the idea; the next paragraph is unrelated to your post. VidanaliK (talk to me) 20:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, this 'proposal' should be nominated for deletion, as an entirely inappropriate attempt to redefine policy with regard to one specific highly-controversial ongoing content dispute. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What Andy says. - Walter Ego 23:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed its dead on arrival as is. any policy built with "ends justify the means" so blatant as this really is unlikely to be accepted. not sure there's a MfD deletion criteria for that, though. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as hopeless. I once believed in the WikiWay, so it pains me. But it's hopeless. As @AndyTheGrump says, it's an attempt to redefine policy in the middle of a content dispute in order to win the content dispute and banish the opposition. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I explain here why that does not make sense. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In almost no cases will there be a definitive set of experts whose views can be quantitatively evaluated.
    Is a co-authored paper worth twice a single-authored one? Are all journals equal? Are expert opinions published outside journals equal to those in journals? Should a full professor count the same as a grad student? Should a professor at this university count the same as one at that university? How do we draw the boundaries around relevant disciplines? (Eg with the genocide question is a legal scholar who knows nothing about this particular war of more or less weight than an expert on this war who knows nothing about international law, or a historian of a different genocide?) How do we ensure expertise that isn’t published in English is counted? How do we keep on top of the metric when material is constantly published? BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a million possible caveats that can be made for any proposal. The primary metric can simply be an assembly of all the largest WP:RS surveys of scholars qualified to have an opinion on the issue across any languages where a large survey occurred, supplemented by meta-analyses if they exist. That seems reasonable and straightforward to me. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A modest proposal. How about we change the policy name to Wikipedia:Imposing systemic bias through bad data and arbitrary number-crunching? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, a hyper-focus on US/Middle-East politics is not a good place from which WP:PAGs emerge. The proposing editors here would be well-advised to understand the actual WP:PAGs and diversify their topic interests to have any chance of grokking what best practice is, since a WP:POLICY is a description of best practice, not an attempt to make novel rules. The idea that ultimately consensus can be replaced by a kind of algorithm is very a la mode but hopelessly naive I think. Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Some thoughts:
    • This is an attempted shortcut to the truth. Shortcuts to the truth do not work. A simple yes-no criterion for "this is bullshit and this is not" cannot exist. Determining the value of an idea requires competence and/or effort, and the many flavors of bullshit in different areas require a variety of reasoning.
    • Fringe ideas are those that any competent person who looks at the reasoning given and who is not blinded by some preconceived notion can easily recognize as illegitimate (but not necessarily easily explain that to laypeople). Reliable sources reflect that, and there is no need for more than that.
    • Percentages of people who accept an idea, whether defined as experts or not, are not an appropriate criterion to determine which ideas are sensible and which are not. Some people will always be incompetent or corrupt or religious or stupid or ideological enough to embrace claims that are obviously false. How many "some" is varies from population to population. You can filter out incompetence to some degree by confining the population to experts, but not corruption, religion, stupidity or ideology.
    • Any percentage threshold invented by Wikipedians will be WP:OR seeping into articles.
    • Even if such a meaningful percentage value existed, it would be different between natural sciences and social sciences, and among individual disciplines, and depending on on the point in time, country, and other context.
    • Any decree by policy that statement A is fringe and statement B is not will be called dogmatism by the enemies of Wikipedia. This page, if implemented as policy, will be an open flank against the liars and crackpots out there. They will say Wikipedia has declared by fiat that, for instance, climate change is real and therefore you cannot trust what it says about it. They already say that now but without this page, we can refute it by saying we are just following reliable sources as stated by policy, and that reliable sources are not determined by user bias but have a clear definition.
    This is not a good idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a terrible idea, especially the use of polling data. Obviously polling is never going to be useful in anyway for determining whether something is fringe. Polling of who? The populous, I don't have to make an argument against that. So experts? Which one? Did the poll include the whole field worldwide, or was it (as is going to be more likely) US centric or at most US and a few from the UK. I would agree this is better renamed "How to impose systems bias" or deleted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I note in particular MMR vaccine and autism being listed under "Ongoing debates where the minority is considered fringe", because of a poll backed by 35% of American adult. There is no debate, there is scientific and statistical data, and there is bullshit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    the holocaust is also under ongoing debates? climate change? natural selection? what else, the sky is blue is an ongoing debate? the earth is flat?
    what was the point of that header "Ongoing debates where the minority is considered fringe"? the word debate lends far too much credence. i am not sure what the point of this proposed policy is, but it would need much more cleanup to be taken seriously. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    no, those are under fringe. VidanaliK (talk to me) 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    the wording matters deeply. there is no serious debate.
    if there is a debate, its not on wikipedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, bad wording; changed it to "settled debates where the minority is considered fringe" for now. VidanaliK (talk to me) 16:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Chemtrails: comments invited.

    [edit]

    Discussion is at User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.#Chemtrails. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Falun Gong FA

    [edit]

    Two discussions regarding Today's Featured Article that might be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard: Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident#Which journalists claim the self-immolation was staged? and Talk:2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident#This article is kind of a mess. TurboSuperA+[talk] 13:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Sold a Story

    [edit]

    This week I came across a wonderful podcast called Sold a Story, which presents a very persuasive case for its central thesis -- that the science of how children learn to read has been clear for decades, but in many places it was displaced by feel-good approaches that lack scientific backing. It details how a few academics became very rich in promoting the alternative methods, lobbied to get their materials into schools, and basically ignored the science to do so, failing millions of children. Highly recommended, especially for anyone like me with a casual interest in language and cognition but without a good sense of reading education. I thought I'd poke around in our articles about the related subjects, and find them to be kind of all over the place. Some are framed as "proponents say" vs "critics say", some are still rather credulous, and some articles look like they were rewritten on the basis of the podcast (e.g. Gay Su Pinnell and Irene Fountas). I'm reluctant, however, to just jump in on the basis of a podcast, persuasive though it may be. I wonder if anyone here with more subject expertise than me might have audited these articles before? Examples: Reading Recovery, whole language, Heinemann (publisher), balanced literacy, three cueing, reading, Lucy Calkins, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Learning Styles Debunked" item does not point to the underlying study that it is blogging about. I think this is the article in question. It does not focus on reading specifically, or on children (some of the studies they review were on college students). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Buddhist influences on Christianity AfD

    [edit]

    Share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist influences on Christianity (2nd nomination). THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 06:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    BYU and Interpreter Foundation

    [edit]

    These are sources used for many articles, i.e. Nehor to provide the official church interpretation of doctrine. Should we keep these? ~2026-60139-9 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not? We have tons of articles on various spiritual and religous figures, personages and other things. What does it matter if it's part of a church's doctrine? We keep plenty of Catholicism errata too. Because it's Mormon doesn't mean anything (what the religion is never does). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are owned by the church, they aren't independent? ~2026-60254-7 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    By definition, the dependent source is the most reliable source for the subject's own views. So a BYU-affiliated source or actually the BYU itself would be the most reliable source for the BYU's own statements/views. Independence is a criterium for determining WP:DUE and WP:NPOV-related matters, not reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    4chan and the reinstatement of /pol/

    [edit]

    In the latest document drop by the DOJ pertaining to the Epstein Files, it has been alluded that /pol/ was re-established as a board in October 2011 after a meeting with Jeffrey Epstein. I find the event of both Chris Poole meeting with Jeffrey Epstein and the reinstatement of /pol/ purely coincidental. All this is doing is introducing conspiracy and paranoia. This is about as baseless as suggesting that Chris Poole created 4chan after getting banned from posting hentai on SomethingAwful (which also didn't happen), but continues to be floated around on social media. The discussion about this topic is here: Talk:/pol/#IP removing Epstein content. FunksBrother (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion seems to be progressing as well as any article talk page discussion. What is your question for this noticeboard? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that I may have WP:COI on the matter and cannot argue about this topic on the talk page. While I disagree with how it's being handled and giving credit to, I don't know if I can make a compelling argument on the subject matter at hand. The evidence doesn't seem credible and there isn't a smoking gun. FunksBrother (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting on the talk page is what you are supposed to do. See WP:COIEDIT, which says
    • you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
    • you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
    • you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{edit COI}} template), so that they can be peer-reviewed
    It's also OK to say "I feel that the article should say X but don't have any actual evidence".
    --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

    [edit]

    See Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)#Perfect score. Several ID proponent articles should be watched more closely for recently added hagiographic content and deletions of criticism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Dead Internet Theory has an RfC

    [edit]
    icon

    Dead Internet Theory has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Lovelock Cave and the Si-Te-Cah

    [edit]

    Having watched archaeology YouTuber Miniminuteman's recent video on the topic [3], I think Wikipedia's coverage of the "Si-Te-Cah" and the related alleged finds of giant's bones at Lovelock Cave (which have seen a recent resurgence on conspiratorial parts of the internet as part of the whole giant human skeletons conspiracy mess, relating their alleged red hair to being white people and the like) seems woefully inadequate, with a heavily reference to dubiously reliable primary sources from the early 20th century (though the coverage of the legitimate archaeology at Lovelock Cave seems ok but not great). The best reliable source covering the topic seems to be [4]. One of the oldest accounts of the "Si-Te-Cah" (though they are not referred to by this name directly) appear in Sarah Winnemucca's Life Among the Piutes, the full text which can be found here, with the bit about the "Si-Te-Cah" beginning with the line Among the traditions of our people is one of a small tribe of barbarians who used to live along the Humboldt River Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1336284507"