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


    Articles for deletion

    • 21 Jun 2026 – Variations of the ichthys symbol (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by EvocationNeeded (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
    • 16 Jun 2026 – Humanist Society of New Zealand (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Duncnbiscuit (t · c); see discussion (2 participants; relisted)

    Proposed deletions

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    (1 more...)

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Requested moves

    Articles to be split

    Limbic imprint

    [edit]
    Could not find any WP:MEDRS sources. Listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limbic imprint. If anyone can find any reasons to believe that limbic imprinting is real or that it is a is a notable Fringe theory, please post them there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Seed oil disruption

    [edit]

    Current disruption on these articles: Seed oil misinformation, Fatty acid ratio in food and vegetable oil to push an anti-omega 6 POV and outdated info about an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. The idea that omega-6 fatty acids are pro-inflammatory has been disproven in clinical trials. Carrot juice (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    List of works designed with the golden ratio

    [edit]

    List of works designed with the golden ratio is a full of things that are claimed to aren't designed with the ration...not sure what the best way to clean it up is—blindlynx 13:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    you might also post to WT:WPM ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My first intuition is that pretty much anything pre-modern described as using the golden ratio almost certainly isn't, since while they did know of some of its properties, it was almost entirely known as being a step in the construction of a regular pentagon. A lot of the text there looks like someone wrote profringe stuff and then someone else appended the debunking so it kind of goes all over the place and most of it could be deleted. Sesquilinear (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea this was here. My inclination would be to delete it as an inferior, crufty CFORK of the main Golden ratio article, which already does list a number of purported occurrences, and treats it better. This article is titled incorrectly -- "List of works designed with the golden ratio". When it then immediately hedges its bets with "Many works of art are claimed to have been designed using the golden ratio. However, many of these claims are disputed, or refuted by measurement". Even though all it takes to get listed is just some guy that managed to publish something that says "aha golden ratio!". It's more like "List of works that some random yahoo said used the golden ratio". I see that Durer's Melancolia I is there, and I was reminded of the time I had to fight a bit to keep it out of the main article, see Talk:Golden ratio/Archive 7#Dürer for the back-and-forth. My hunch is that the number of cases where there's actual corroboration of intentional use is pretty small, and those would comfortably fit at the main article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That can also be found in the last paragraph of Melencolia_I#Description, sorry to say. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At minimum, I think we need a different article title. Saying that these works were “designed” using the ratio implies that the designers knew about the ratio and intentionally used it when creating their work. That is a claim that requires very solid sourcing, and at least two thirds of the works mentioned don’t have that. The alternative would be a title that allows for coincidence (such as Works that are claimed to fit the golden ratio or similar). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how a list of works that are claimed to fit the golden ratio benefits the reader. What use would anyone have for such a list? Designed, useful. Claimed, useless.
    My proposal:
    [1] Delete everything that doesn't have a citation to a reliable source that explicitly says that it is a work designed with the golden ratio. Delete anything cited to a difficult-to-verify book unless the citation includes a page number and a direct quote that explicitly says that it is a work designed with the golden ratio.
    [2] Invite anyone who wishes to restore any of the list items to meet the above requirements, and create an edit notice saying the same.
    [3] After a reasonable amount of time, if what is left is small enough, propose that it be merged onto the main golden ration article. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember reading as a child (a very long time ago) that there were many claims that works were designed around the golden ratio but that usually this simply meant that the most pleasing ratio is about 1½ to 1. It was probably in the writings of Martin Gardner, who provided me with most of my mathematical knowledge as a child (my teachers were pretty useless). Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be fine with me… I simply wanted to point out that the current title implies a much narrower scope than what is currently included in the article (intent vs coincidence).
    I think there is a case for including a list of works that intentionally used the ratio (but don’t care if it is a SAL or part of the ratio article). I have no strong opinion on how (or whether) we include/omit the coincidental.
    I find it mildly interesting that so many art works fit (or come close to fitting) the ratio… but “I find it interesting” isn’t a good criteria for inclusion. I agree that solid sourcing is what matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikola Tesla

    [edit]

    Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Just noticed this section of our "Good Article" which contains a host of ideas which are facilely contradicted by all of modern physics and yet this point is completely uncommented on except in a somewhat off-handed way of pointing out that Tesla did not further elucidate his anti-relativity theories. These claims look to me, at least, to be a vague coatrack if we don't also point out that they are pretty bonkers. What should we do? jps (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The O'Neill source seems to focus more upon how "unfortunate" it was that Tesla was antagonistic and inflexible against competing ideas (and their proponents), than making clear statements along the lines of 'Tesla was wrong about this, this, and this.' In that source the closest I found to something like that was "[Tesla] could very well have shaped his thinking to see...the modern viewpoint," so no help there. There are plenty of on-line sources presenting Tesla's numerous unrealized - to phrase it gently - devices, but an admittedly quick search revealed little concerning his unsupported physical theories. I did find this, which speaks to some of those eccentric theories but no author is identified, and IMO it reads a bit too AI-ish to qualify as a WP:RS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed yet another box was added to Talk:Nikola Tesla, saying "article presents the subject in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive". This doesn't appear to be relevant in this case, and we already have so many boxes over there. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's nice to see a talking point about something other than nationalism in that article. I don't know how it got onto my watchlist, but I'm regretting it now so may remove it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How would it be a coatrack? I don't a problem with plainly stating that he believed these things if the reliable sources do. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there is no explanation that the ideas are easily shown to be incorrect--even with the physics known at the time. jps (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you found contemporaneous reporting from the time specifically critiquing Tesla from his then-living peers that would be a fantastic historical artifact and addition. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    People were pretty polite in the written record from back then, and since Tesla had been consigned to the dustbin of history by the point at which his most outre ideas were explicated, it is not surprising to me that he was essentially ignored per the way WP:NFRINGE outlines that this happens. The revival of interest in Tesla's theoretical claims seems to be of somewhat more modern provenance. It is unclear to me, therefore, how best to handle this. Ideas ignored in their time only to find currency within later crackpots deserve some coverage -- but exactly what kind I do not pretend to know. jps (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    how best to handle this That's just it. I'm not certain either, especially without crashing into WP:OR. Or deleting it altogether, which seems inappropriate. Perhaps the best we can do is leave that section as is (perhaps shorten it a bit?) and hope for future scholarship. I wouldn't hold my breath, however. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: how best to handle this, Tesla's various, well, wild ideas usually date back to some, usually sensationalist, claim reported in some newspaper or magazine article. Given the dates cited these are probably claims he made during one of his birthday parties. The way to handle this is to put it into context re: when he said it and who he said it to. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That section is extensively cited to Tesla bio books that are ostensibly RS. I would be surprised if none of the books commented on the heterodox nature of his views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried reading through some of these books to verify the citations, but got locked up with being unable to get to the pages required. Does anyone know a way around this given Wikipedia's remit? Can we get access to ebook versions of all these books with any ease? Resource request or something? jps (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    O'Neill is available at archive. It looks like someone may have used and epub version of Seifer 2001 so the page numbers are incorrect. Don't have much time but can maybe fix those cites up later. In response to LL doesn't look like much help in Seifer as, based on a quick look, the author seems to invoke such things as neutrinos and tachyons, SDI, sonar, ground penetrating radar, etc. to make some "inventions" appear visionary. Seems to me the section would be better incorporated into the chronological presentation of Tesla's life and works. Then his reactions to the 20th century advancements in physics might be better contextualized? fiveby(zero) 16:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, despite the praise in his WP article, i don't think Marc Seifer with something like Transcending the Speed of Light: Consciousness, Quantum Physics, and the Fifth Dimension is best for commentary here. fiveby(zero) 16:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    At least four of the examples of Tesla remarks being used in this section are cited to primary sources: Popular Science 1928, New York Times 1935, New York Herald Tribune 1932, and "a prepared statement by Nikola Tesla" undated. If no secondary source ever bothered to record or comment on them, are they really notable? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a little oasis of WP:PROFRINGE has been uncovered. But with proper application of the WP:PAGSs this can be corrected to proper encyclopedic standard. WP:FRINGESUBJECTS in particular applies. Bon courage (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I like reading about what Tesla thought about relativity etc. and primary sources, but The Tesla Collection is 23 printed volumes so probably should FORWARD edit. Following Carlson this would probably be incorporated into "Later years" with something like: Time magazine ran a cover story in which the aging inventor held forth on his plans to disprove Einstein’s theory of relativity, on his belief that splitting atoms released no energy, and the importance of interplanetary communications. p. 380, the only mention in the work. fiveby(zero) 18:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fiveby That O'Neill source looks pretty dodgy. OTHER BOOKS IN THIS SERIES... "THE FREE ENERGY DEVICE HANDBOOK". jps (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    John O'Neill was a friend of Tesla and as Carlson puts it he chose to portray Tesla as a Nietzschean superman with incredible mystical powers. Carlson is out WP:BESTSOURCE here, a source which will make the article great again by quoting Trump. fiveby(zero) 01:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We've known about O'Neill being a questionable source for years now, it's been mentioned on the Talk page half a dozen times already. --Joy (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll just remove it entirely, then? [1] jps (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please replace the places that completely lost citations with citation requests, as the article is supposed to be GA-class. --Joy (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Replace with Carlson and Cheney? I don't really like Seifer but don't know if there is real basis for excluding him as a source. By the way, should there be separate articles for World Wireless System and Wardenclyffe Tower? fiveby(zero) 14:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do that, but given that we found this problem, I'm not sure that this should be considered GA-class. Perhaps someone should remove it from that list? jps (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It went through several reviews with O'Neill in there, so it's probably not as big a deal in general, and it's most likely possible to find replacement citations. --Joy (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps someone should remove it from that list?
    No one can just de-GA an article. If you wanted to, the compulsory and obligatory process is here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think W. Bernard Carlson's chapter "Visionary to the End (1905–1943)" would be useful as a starter here, maybe the epilogue and other chapters also. You can request at WP:RX if needed. fiveby(zero) 17:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay? So what? If we're writing about scientifically incorrect views held by ancient peoples do we have to include a debunking of it in context every time? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see the need for in situ refutation when it’s only a click away. For example we say he didn’t believe in subatomic particles or relativity, which articles make it clear they’re real (or at least feature in the best available models of reality, both contemporary and modern). It seems almost insulting to the readers’ intelligence to belabour the point in each case.—Odysseus1479 01:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ernst Mach and Lord Kelvin? What other folks like Tesla believed some wrong at the time stuff? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a difference between belabouring the point in each case and pointing out the variance of these ideas (perhaps as a group) to plausible models given our understanding of the natural world? I ask this in all seriousness; I am not sure how best to handle this. My concern is that right now I have some students who might read this section and come away potentially thinking that modern physics got it all wrong. Even if they click on those links, it's not as though there is a clear explanation at electron for why, say, proposing that electrons seen in a vacuum have "nothing to do with electricity" is so out there. jps (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    “As a group” I could go along with. What about introducing the section with a sentence to the effect that Tesla rejected many of the principal early-20th-c. developments that led to modern physics? If no RS can be found that says so explicitly, could such a statement in wiki-voice be considered a summary of what follows, effectively a mini-lead, and hence exempt from the need for citation?—Odysseus1479 19:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If no RS can be found that says so explicitly, could such a statement in wiki-voice be considered a summary of what follows, effectively a mini-lead, and hence exempt from the need for citation?
    Mini-ledes are very much a normal real thing, and yes they're supposed to summarize or bridge into a more complex/layperson unfriendly section (or to just be nice and thorough). But they still have to 100% align with downstream sources.
    There is no WP:OR backdoor, so you still need the sources to buttress the lede or lower-level miniledes. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (You appear to have accidentally forgotten to notify Talk:Nikola Tesla of this discussion, so I took care of it. Please always do this!) — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the maintenance tag in the "Views and Beliefs" section should just be removed. It's not about "mainstream" views. It's about the views of one man from the distant past. Giving equal time to "mainstream views" would be pointless filler. Probably preachy pointless filler.
    There's a lot of woo-woo nonsense about Tesla out in the greater internet. And that's terrible. But our article just has to be a good article, it doesn't have to deprogram the true believers. ApLundell (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, obviously the article should be built on "mainstream views". But that should be mainstream historians, and what they say about Tesla and his views.
    Insisting that mainstream physicists should get equal time in a history article is a category error. ApLundell (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Most reader criticism of the Carlson 2013 biography seems to be that it's too technical for laypeople. Has it covered any of these topics, and does it reflect a more balanced view of them? --Joy (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read the section, I see the fingerprints of fringe theorist approaches to Tesla-boosterism. Others seem to think that it is not present or, if it is, it is okay because the wikilinks will set the reader straight. But I'm not convinced that this addresses the problem. Which ideas do we highlight that Tesla had? Why is it only the physical ideas that are out on a limb and why do they get their own section? Tesla also had some excellent characterizations of magnetic fields as they worked in the generation of electricity, for example. There is a reason that the unit "Tesla" is named for the guy. Yet we have little in the way of elucidation about that. The stuff he got right is buried while the stuff he got wrong is highlighted and tacitly assumed to be understood by the reader to be out on a limb although we say not much about that.
    My argument here is not that we need to beat the reader on the head with the fact he was wrong. My argument is that there seems to be a WP:WEIGHT towards fringe ideas that, I suspect, was inspired at least in part by some Tesla-pseudoscience editorial approaches. jps (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it's mostly his odd, late-life ideas wound up in that section because his brilliant ideas that panned out are mentioned organically in the parts of the article talking about all the successful work he did in his life. And, of course, when talking about his views, his surprising ones are the ones worth mentioning. Like his disagreements with Einstein. He really did have quite a few bad ideas, especially late in his life, and we don't want to whitewash that.
    Perhaps the section could be renamed.
    ApLundell (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස too; why not just rename that section "Unproven theories", toss the fringe template, and just move it up to be the last ===third level=== section under Nikola Tesla#Later years? Done in one? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unproven" is a problematic adjective. It's highly debatable whether any scientific theory is ever "proven" considering the inductive nature of sciene. jps (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, we can pick a word that works. But since the entire section is attributed to "what Nikola thought" it seems like a decent way to get it up there, since there seems to be no consensus for anything amounting to a fringe disclaimer, and NOR is a steel wall. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unproven is too weak. If I was writing an article for my personal webpage, I'd name that section "Elderly Tesla's Bad Ideas and the Lies He Sometimes Told to Support Them"
    That's an overreaction, but the other way the tesla-worship that jps is worried about manifests is to portray him as a great legendary hero of science virtue. I guess because people don't like Edison's tech-bro nature and they like to portray Tesla as the hero to Edison's villain. But whatever the reason, that way also leads to woo-woo beliefs.
    We don't want to take away from Tesla's great accomplishments, but I do think it's important to portray both sides of him. Especially because of the weird worship he sometimes gets in fringe circles. ApLundell (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In the long run, I think the best antidote to overly-credulous Tesla worship is to make more people aware of Charles Proteus Steinmetz. Sesquilinear (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming an absence of WP:FRIND sources that actually provide support for them, perhaps the imperfect phrase "Unsupported theories" would work? Not quite as strong as "Batshit crazy theories," but it does avoid the problematic "unproven" (you are correct about that, jps), and we have the O'Neill source that presented those theories as inconsistent with "the modern viewpoint." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of WP:FRINGE (and maybe I am a minority, and therefore FRINGE!) is that fringe views should not be inserted into articles covered by mainstream science (like we don't need Flat earth or creationism inserted into articles about Geology or evolution), but can be described in articles about the views, or adherents of fringe views. Honestly, too many regulars in this board seem to treat any mention of fringe views in articles about said views or their proponents as WP:PROFRINGE!!! that will lead poor dumb viewers to immediately think what someone believed was the Truth unless each and every time immediately rebutted with a clumsy boilerplate like "Joe Skeptic on Skepticblogs.net.blog says it's false". --Animalparty! (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, exactly how I feel. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    When I use Wikipedia:WikiBlame and look at the way the article developed, I see some WP:PROFRINGE accounts that I recognize from arbcomm cases and other interactions to whom the creation and curation of parts of this article can be attributed. I am unsure whether this is necessarily indicative of a problem and, of course, it is true that just because a fringe-proponent was the person with the "wikiblame", it does not necessarily mean the content or editorial choice is all bad. jps (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is the essence of WP:ONEWAY. That said, I do think that we have an obligation to avoid situations where readers could come away with the impression that their views have more acceptance than they do. I think that it'd be reasonable to add a summary sentence to the lead of the section stating that Tesla had numerous views that contradicted established science or somesuch - it should not be hard to find a source supporting this, and it broadly reflects how these things are covered in their individual sources (O'Neill, for instance, is perhaps a bit unduly sympathetic to Tesla but even he makes it unequivocally clear that Tesla's views on subatomic physics were incorrect and frames his refusal to accept advancements in that field as a tragedy that caused him to waste his talents, so to a certain extent we're misusing him as a source by leaving that context out.) We don't have to belabor it too heavily because most readers are likely to realize from context that these are not mainstream views (or, well, views with any evidence supporting them at all) but it's worth making it a bit more clear. The sources we're using themselves don't just present the things listed in that section as random bits of information about Tesla's beliefs, but key areas where he was wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline is about fringe proponents. Tesla was wrong about many things. And occasionally his public experiments were probably less than completely honest. But was he ever a fringe proponant? Modern fringe people love him, but that's different. ApLundell (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph of this non-negotiable policy (not guideline) provision is what is relevant, and it applies to “views” not proponents. This should not be hard. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect ideas from history do not automatically fall under the definition of "Fringe" when placed in their proper context. ApLundell (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On en.wiki, 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. So the question here is: do Tesla's ideas fall into that category? (I don't know as I haven't looked). If yes, they would need mainstream context. Many historically discredited ideas are by definition fringe and must not be presented on wiki without comment as if they were valid (e.g. bloodletting, aether theories, faith healing, etc.) Bon courage (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the proper context here? I see no particular historical interest in how Tesla had outre ideas and why they deserve careful delineating. On the other hand, I see plenty of Tesla-boosters who are posting about these ideas as though they can make magic real again. We can't simply claim a context is historical just because the idea finds its way into a biography, right? jps (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we obligated to modify our content based on current online trends? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We are obligated to abide by NPOV, which is explicit on how to handle fringe views. Bon courage (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you persisting with the insipid strawmen commentary, VPP? I said nothing about modifying content based on current online trends. Sealion elsewhere, okay? jps (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe VPP's comment is a strawman.
    You've said multiple times that your biggest concern with that section is that not that it's inaccurate, unreferenced, or even against policy, just that it "reminds" you of things crazy people on the internet say. ApLundell (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But it was also discovered to have been sourced to sources that were written by the intellectual ancestors of the crazy people on the internet... so we should try to fix that. jps (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Three sources down, any more to go?

    [edit]

    Thanks for those who helped investigate this matter. I have removed three different authors from the article: O'Neill, Seifer, and Childress. You can see more about that at Talk:Nikola Tesla. Are there other sources people see as being similarly problematic? jps (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Binksternet has suggested on the talkpage and through a reversion of me that Marc Seifer's writing on Tesla are good sources for the article. I have a hard time accepting that; it looks like WP:PROFRINGE to me. jps (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not WP:CANVASS at this point? Stick to the proper venues. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am allowed to describe what is going on and ask for help. I might be wrong in that there could be something more to Marc Seifer's charlatanism than meets the eye. I appreciate the collective expertise of this noticeboard to help with that. jps (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help wondering if its kosher to keep coming to draft in friendly editors to your POV with routine updates here. I've noticed others do this on FTN over time but do not see similar content stacking of editors from other noticeboards. Surely if your position has legs you don't need friendly pile on reinforcements. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am allowed to ask for help from expert Wikipedians who are familiar with how to deal with fringe subjects. If you have a problem with me asking for help, take it up at the appropriate venues and watch out for WP:BOOMERANGs. jps (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Campo Largo case

    [edit]

    Translated from Portuguese with questionable sourcing. One very silly UFO "story" that has been hyped up and already thoroughly debunked, although the debunking hasn't reached WP yet, apparently. Not even credulous ufologists are falling for this. The lights are just a camping site nearby, and this has been shown on TV. VdSV9•♫ 20:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The Brazilian Portuguese language sources are difficult for non speakers to navigate. What you need to do is identify the WP:SENSATIONAL coverage, i.e. stories just uncritically repeating extraordinary claims by ufologists or third hand stories designed to attract eyeballs and clicks. If there is criticism from reliable WP:FRIND sources you need to identify those, since they should have more weight than the sensational stuff. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Fleur Leussink

    [edit]

    Watchers here may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleur Leussink, a self-help, "psychic" type. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at WT:Notability

    [edit]

    There's a discussion at WT:NOTABILITY#The fringe theories section that might be of interest to page watchers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Field propulsion

    [edit]

    Field propulsion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A mess of pseudophysics. I went over to this page today to find it ghastly and completely credulous. Sources 2 and 3, heavily used in the article are so bad that I think they need to be excised, but this might have the effect of gutting the entire thing. See Talk:Field propulsion#Sources 2 and 3 are completely bunk. Help! jps (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • Relatively few mainstream sources use the term "field propulsion" but a boatload of fringe and popular sources talking about UFOs do.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] This is largely driven by Bob Lazar describing the field propulsion system he says UFOs use in the 2019 Netflix documentary Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers.
    If someone runs into the phrase "field propulsion" somewhere on the Internet and comes to Wikipedia to read about it, the odds are very high that they ran across it on a site talking about UFOs and not one talking about any of the topics currently in this article. Alas, mainstream sources simply don't care about the details of UFO engines. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hal Puthoff has his fingerprints all over this. Thanks, I hate it! jps (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "If someone runs into the phrase "field propulsion" somewhere on the Internet and comes to Wikipedia to read about it, the odds are very high that they ran across it on a site talking about UFOs and not one talking about any of the topics currently in this article."
    That sounds like strong praise of the article as-written.
    ApLundell (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? The article as written does not make is seem like the concept is one generally consigned to ufology circles. jps (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Guy Macon's comment to say that the phrase will attract UFO-nuts, but that the article will not satisfy them because it's not about amplifying UFOlogy nonsense.
    I think that's praise of the article. ApLundell (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, this was done on purpose, by a skilled editor who has a problem with the fringe theories noticeboard in particular and with skeptics in general. Here are some quotes:
    • And for the record, this will not even be the 4th or 5th article I've taken that silly unread skeptics dismissed as bullshit and turned them into upstanding WP:GA and WP:GAN citizens, for instance Field propulsion and the two linked right at the top of that one. Look at the nonsensical AFD it got prior. I know what I'm doing. Improving Wikipedia. [12]
    • The precedent of skeptical fallibility will stick. They are wrong this time. They should have kept up with real world science instead of what the flock wants to hear. This entire thing is a waste of everyone's time for a perfectly fine non-fringe article. I am going to WP:FA every one of those sacred articles that are apparently intended to be in a broken state. Every one. (emphasis in original) [13]
    • You better have an apology ready. These odious little FTN [Fringe theories/Noticeboard] baiting games are tiresome. [14]
    • You FTN [Fringe theories/Noticeboard] enthusiasts have trained yourselves to never yield an inch even in argumentation, because you assume I'm going to flip off the deep end and civility myself. Nah. [15]
    • I think there's still an extra weird thing going on with this one, that feels genuinely weird even by the... sometimes (yes, I feel highly performative at times) hostility of this [Fringe theories/Noticeboard] board. [16]
    I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Guy Macon's comment to mean that people will come to the article looking for validation of UFO nonsense, but the nonsense they're looking for is not "any of the topics currently in this article."
    Why is either half of that bad?
    If people arrive at an article for stupid reasons, that's their own problem, not ours. And obviously, not parroting a UFOlogy site is good, not bad.
    ApLundell (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But the concept itself is only talked about within UFO circles and Wikipedia's article on the subject has turned into a kind of plausibility laundering operation for the idea on the basis of outre spacecraft proposals (and... maglev trains of all things?) in a way that appears entirely synthetic. It would be preferable to have an article on "field propulsion" that went: "the believers in UFOlogy want to claim that advanced and unknown-to-current-day-humans physics explains the claims of unusual flight patterns in UFO reports. Rather than accept the occam's razor approach that these reports are a mistake of perception since to date no validated data of "physics-defying" flight has ever been verified, the ufologists go out on a limb to propose that science fiction proposals called "field propulsion" are real--exposing their ignorance of physics as a topic since the idea of a field propelling a craft, while not in opposition to the way field (physics) works, is ill-defined. Occasionally, they refer to certain long-shot NASA reports and maverick engineers who may have the words "field propulsion" in their grey literature publications."
    But maybe AfD is better here. Redirect to propellantless propulsion. jps (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we take those sources into account at all? We only write based on reliable sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument in favor of deleting the article, if I understand you correctly, since the sources which use the term not in this fashion are the reliable ones (or, at least, marginally so). jps (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if unreliable, which I have not checked every single source, none of the sources in the article are anywhere approaching the caliber of source which Guy Macon linked (random scribd documents and blogposts). There are actual academic sources used in the article which discuss "field propulsion" in this context using what seems to be a similar definition [17]. There may be a synth issue / a broadening of the scope beyond what the sources justify - I think the article is somewhat confused to what extent propelaneless propulsion is a different thing or a synonym for this, and like all articles people have argued over it has an unfortunate issue with using sources that don't mention the subject of the overall article to make points on specifics (a pathway to synth and confused page scopes, but people love doing it), but it does seem to be a Thing that reliable sources have discussed, even if judging only by my first link. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There is a reason why I linked to random scribd documents and blogposts (and clearly labeled them as fringe). No reliable source has a single thing to say about the technical details of UFO engines. Let me repeat that because apparently it is difficult to grasp. No reliable source has a single thing to say about the technical details of UFO engines. Even Skeptical WP:PARITY sources don't cover the topic. But I could link to a hundred truly dreadful sources -- including a Netflix documentary -- that cover the topic in great detail.
    Another area that no reliable source covers: the digestive system of Unicorns. Here again there are no reliable sources and hundreds of bad sources that cover the topic (apparently they poop rainbow sherbet ice cream).
    "So", I hear you say, "ignore the woo just like everyone else does and build the article about sources that cover actual applications of field propulsion in actual or seriously proposed spacecraft." I would agree if such sources existed. But they don't. Instead the entire article is based upon pretending that sources about other things are "field propulsion".
    I say go ahead. Make the best article you can based on sources that are [A] Specifically about Fiend Propulsion, using that exact term, and [B] about "propulsion system concepts in which thrust arises from interactions with external fields or ambient media, rather than primarily from onboard chemical propellant." See how much of the article remains and then evaluate whether is should be kept, merged, or deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see anyone taking notice of Yoshinari Minami? Other than citing his own work all i see is

    ...suggestions that we might create an artificial singularity using means other than gravity. Miguel Alcubierre and Yoshinari Minami have independently suggested that we might do this using magnetic fields many orders of magnitude greater than those produced on the Earth - even greater than those at the surface of a neutron star or exotic fields that might be manifested from the universal vacuum. Alcubierre's and Minami's ships (if possible) would be pushed or pulled through the Universe by a bubble of warped spacetime.

    — Matloff, G.L. (2005). "Exotic possibilities". Deep-Space Probes. Springer Praxis Books. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

    and something like this highlights the UFO connection and does not give good confidence in the author. fiveby(zero) 17:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete, merge, or redo?

    [edit]

    I'm trying to figure out whether/how to delete or redo this article. In particular, I'm pleased we have an article on propellantless propulsion. I think we might be able to merge the reasonable material over there? jps (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps rather than taking a gross brute force approach, it may have been helpful to actually carefully read the talk page and GA where we had already settled on and figured out the long term solution that everyone was pleased with, and we had settled consensus on. This is must noise about effectively nothing. You should do your reading. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. I think we are in WP:TNT territory here. jps (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A question like "delete/merge/redo" should be raised on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I would encourage a less bombastic approach and one grounded in data. The nomination should clarify 1) why the topic fails WP:GNG (Note that the term "field propulsion" has very few uses on Google Scholar for example) 2) the prospects for merge. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm worried that there is no coherent topic to organise an article around. What is "field propulsion"? It's not a thing in physics. The article seems to define it as anything that does not use reaction mass. This includes solar sails, warp bubbles, but also maglev trains. And conventional trains, conventional aircraft, and conventional cars. I don't see what is the use of collection such disparate topics in the same article. Tercer (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this doesn't violate WP:SYNTH, I struggle to understand how this is should be distinguished from propellantless propulsion... but then I wonder whether that should even be an article.
    What this is really about is "novel spaceflight proposals". That's the actual subject. I guess the maglev trains could still be included as a means to traverse a space elevator or something.
    How did we end up with such a mess?
    jps (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read this entire discussion and the article in question, I believe the best course of action going forward is to merge elements of the "field propulsion" article with propellantless propulsion (which itself likely needs substantial editing), and remove what remains. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's anything wrong with propellantless propulsion. It's a well-defined topic, and it seems to include almost exclusively real physics. Tercer (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this review,
    • Frisbee, Robert H. "Advanced space propulsion for the 21st century." Journal of propulsion and power 19.6 (2003): 1129-1154.
    which covers all of the topics in propellantless propulsion and the relevant part of field propulsion, I suggest a merged article under the title Advanced spacecraft propulsion, to be coordinated with spacecraft propulsion. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the title "advanced spacecraft propulsion" is too vague. What counts as advanced? Is nuclear-electric advanced? I think propellantless is a meaningful and clear-cut category. Tercer (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct forum for this discussion is not this noticeboard, but WP:AFD. A contested merge or redirect (as we can all be confident that @Very Polite Person would object) belongs at WP:AFD. Katzrockso (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field propulsion (2nd nomination) jps (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See related Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_June_22#Category:Field_propulsion. jps (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit wars

    [edit]

    Very Polite Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    VPP and I are now in edit wars over the inclusion of links to field propulsion in two articles that, it seems, he WP:OWNs:

    jps (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Sanger proposing WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

    [edit]

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

    Facepalm Facepalm Bon courage (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious troll is obvious. Tercer (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    He's still upset that factual reality continues to disprove right wing conspiracies, huh? SilverserenC 22:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    'Neutrality is what I say it is'. Yeah, Larry, of course it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ↑ 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)[reply]
    Diversity? This is DEI! Release the doges! --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Chlorine dioxide#Other uses

    [edit]

    Plural identity and MEDRS

    [edit]

    Plural identity used a boatload of sources that fail WP:MEDRS, including Vice, Vulture, Teen Vogue, Rolling Stone, Aeon. Power to the Plurals], and "The Inner Vehicle: Prayer, Tulpamancy, and the Magic of the Mind".

    I am asking for advice about what to do about this.

    Related: Dissociative identity disorder

    --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The intention of the article is to document a social phenomenon rather than a medical condition. This is more of a social movement than it is about a medical condition. I will grant that this is a difficult subject because the identity markers are so new. jps (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a medical topic, as much as any sociocultural phenomenon is. Does religion require MEDRS sourcing? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If it isn’t a medical topic, why does half of the lead discuss associated medical terminology, and why is there an entire section on mental health? Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not entirely medical in nature. Do not view the whole world through the narrow lens of WP:MEDRS. Society, history, music, and a million other subjects can be described fully and even academically without double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled studies and systemic meta-analyses. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The first mention of medical terminology in the article explicitly mentions members of the identity often reject that medical terminology:

    In clinical research, multiplicity is typically associated with dissociative identity disorder (DID) or identity disturbance, even while some members of plural communities reject the suggestion that their experiences are inherently disordered and even report finding their identities and associated experiences to be soothing.

    Loki (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scope of MEDRS is not articles, but any content which is WP:BMI. That is how it should be decided when MEDRS applies. If there is doubt, WT:MED is a good place to seek help. Bon courage (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Are religious or sociocultural beliefs and identities biomedical information? No. Is this cultural identity biomedical information? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Are religious or sociocultural beliefs and identities biomedical information? Yes. Sometimes they are. Plural Identity is a belief about a medical condition. When a Jehovah’s Witness says that a blood transfusion harms you (not just that it isn't allowed for religious reasons), when Christian Science parents choose prayer over surgery for their child claiming that disease doesn't exist (not just that their religion forbids surgery), or when certain fundamentalist groups claim that vaccines causing autism is something that God told them, that's belief about a medical condition. Non MEDRS sources are fine for establishing that the belief exists, but any claim that the belief has a basis in reality is pure WP:BMI. A Vice article titled "Are Multiple Personalities Always a Disorder?" is BMI. When Teen Vogue says "Dissociative identity disorder (DID), formerly known as multiple personality disorder, is an often misdiagnosed mental health condition characterized by a constellation of symptoms..." that's BMI. When The Inner Vehicle:Prayer, Tulpamancy, and the Magic of the Mind[18] says "Psychologist Jim Davies argues that imagined characters, including imagined companions, hallucinations, and fictional characters in narratives, are by default non-autonomous but can gain autonomy" and cites a paper in the journal Philosophical Psychology. that's BMI. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO this is as obtuse as saying that because it's possible to biomedically investigate the causes of homosexuality, any article about gay people in any context must use only medical sources.
      The people involved often, again, explicitly deny that plurality is a medical condition, and deny that the similar-seeming mental illness DID is the same thing as plurality. What we have is a social group organized around some kind of experience, and the degree to which that experience is a medical condition, or biomedical information at all, is questionable at best.
      IMO this is much more equivalent to religious mystics claiming certain mystical experiences (altered states induced by meditation, claiming to hear God, that sort of thing). Can those mystical experiences be investigated scientifically? Yes. Does that make them primarily biomedical information? No, of course not. Loki (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      This article's ostensible subject doesn't appear to me to always be a belief about a medical condition. Sometimes it is, as in the case whenever they are discussing their beliefs surrounding DID, but sometimes (maybe even more often than not these days!) it is not.
      I think it is also important for us to acknowledge that DID is one of the most controversial diagnoses in DSM-V, and there are a number of reliable sources pointing this out and also asking whether there are legitimate parallels between the situation with DID/Plural identity movements and the situation when homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. Whether these sources are strong enough to handle this situation in the context of where MEDRS matters, I cannot say. But we're not talking about Dissociative Identity Disorder article here... and that's rather the point. jps (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1360799956"