Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories.
  • Questions related to articles on fringe theories may also be posted here.
  • The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality is maintained.
  • Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here.
  • To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page.
Sections older than 12 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

  • If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead.
  • Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact.
  • Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Donald yates

Already PROD'ed, I suspect this is fringe; subject promotes theory that Cherokee have European or African ancestry, and that geneticists are all wrong. Thoughts? Mduvekot (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the first time either. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Panther-Yates. Agricolae (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought that name sounded familiar. Heiro 03:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald N. Yates's works combine his knowledge of genealogy, DNA research, history, human migrations, and languages into his books and other writings about people's heritage, especially the Cherokee. I have been interested in ancient cultures all my life and read books on such research and, in recent years, of the additions and clarifications DNA science is bringing to human history.

As many academic historians established their careers before DNA research became available, they may not have availed themselves of its science in their research. Some have or will in the future if they assume an interdisciplinary approach.

I am new to Wikipedia and have to study the criteria for "fringe" and the line between fringe but notable and fringe non-notable. However, I want to add to the Yates page a list of his works through established soon as I figure out how to add sections. Nightdesk (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nightdesk:, as you know he has no qualifications in any scientific firlfpd, let alone genetics. We are a mainstream encyclopaedia and for articles dealing with genetic relationships we expect peer reviewed sources. He is arguing for relationships that no mainstream academic in the relevant fields support.Doug Weller talk 20:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, again, for the direction and clarification. I'll continue learning about sourcing and such.Nightdesk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Blue Whale (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a mess. See the latest edit [1] which doesn't seem to match the source.[2] Most edits are by bran new editors or IPs. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Omphalos hypothesis

A statement that this is pseudoscience has been removed from this article. Is it? Doug Weller talk 20:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that the purpose is to sidestep evidence, sorta, but by itself, and as presented in the current version, it's a bit old for the epithet... Its use by modern creationists is definitely pseudoscientific, however, and since that's probably the only reason anyone is still talking about this hypothesis, I'd present it as that first in the lead, and the origin of the term second. The current version gives the impression that it's a rich intellectual tradition to which modern creationists are but a footnote. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Gamall Wednesday Ida: Thanks. Unfortunately I know far too little about this to write that. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm hardly a fount of knowledge on St. Ephrem the Syrian either :-). Should the debate about "pseudoscientific argument" flare up, I'd suggest replacing that by "young-earth creationist argument" and calling it a day. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories

See recent edits. The new paragraphs would need independent sources wouldn't it? And Wirth is no scholar. The other changes look plain POV. I don't want to edit it on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Yates

Fringe non-notable author making wild claims about Cherokees originally speaking Greek, etc. 2nd AfD although that isn't showing up, must fix that later today! Doug Weller talk 08:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Allah as Moon-god

Although someone removed the fringe category, this is clearly fringe. I just cleared up some vandalism from an earlier editor and some changes/deletions by User:Spem Reduxit, who is editing again using some poor sources, including Wikipedia, labelling someone a 'Muslim apologist' which I don't think helps our readers in this instance, and various other changes some of which are ok, others not (eg changing Christian fundamentalists to Christian followers which makes little sense). Doug Weller talk 12:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not "using some poor sources", I am only editing old material. The "poor sources" are not mine. Mr Weller ought to retract his slur. Spem Reduxit (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I am unsure of the wisdom of labelling as "Christian fundamentalist" writers like Parshall, per WP:BLP. Spem Reduxit (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You added Real History World Wide which says "The British, with the "Modern" Germans, were the originators of revisionist history. It was they who first began to write Blacks out of history after the “Race/Religious Wars" of the late medieval. Now look, the British will soon start teaching their children the truth: that Blacks were the original people of Britain." That's more than a poor source, it's a terrible source. You also added <ref>{{Cite journal|date=2017-06-06|title=Zoroaster|url=|journal=Wikipedia|language=en}}</ref> - we don't use our articles as sources. You've titled a section "Christian followers" - they don't follow a moon god called Allah, so why call them followers? And why have someone you call a Muslim apologist (what does that mean to you?) in a section of Christian followers? Doug Weller talk 18:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure I made that change? It doesn't look like one of mine, and the source material doesn't look familiar to me. Of course, I may be mistaken. Could you please confirm with a link to the WP diff summary? The "Christian followers" might better have been entitled "Followers of Christ"; I leave that up to your discretion. The "Muslim apologist" label may or may not be unfortunate. I noted from her wiki page that the writer was on some form of Muslim community and media-issues group and that seemed to me important. Maybe "Muslima" or "The former President of the Muslim Canadian Congress sees these views as an extension of longstanding Christian Evangelical claims that Muhamamad was an impostor and deceiver." In my opinion the pull-quote immediately following that is irrelevant and ready for deletion. Spem Reduxit (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I must apologise for that change as it was made by an IP in the middle of a series of changes you made, and I was looking at the combined changes. I've removed it now I know it wasn't yours, I didn't want to edit war. As you may have noticed I had to go through the article to fix a lot of vandalism by Vanillapomegranate (who I have belatedly blocked and which I missed when it occurred) and which you also missed. The article was in a mess.
We only use the term "Christ" in quotes or in cases where it is clearly the correct term, as it is a title and not a name and signifies that Jesus is considered divine by those using it. "Christian proponents" would be better. We don't need to describe Hassan as people can read her article, and I think the quote is valuable as it clarifies the current situation and shows that this is not just a few cranks but a broader spectrum of Christianity as represented by the Christian Coalition of America. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. The page was in a mess, thank you for your valuable contributions. "Christian proponents" it is. As for the other issue, it can best be taken to the article talk page, yes? Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Baraminology -> created kind

Created kind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been recreated due to the proposal that it is more general than baraminology. I support this move, but editors are probably needed to make sure it's done with the fringe guidelines in mind.

jps (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, Abhas Mitra, and Eternally collapsing object

Lots of egregiously fringe-promotional/unreliable cites and text in all three articles. Anyone up to take a weed-whacker to these? Neutralitytalk 04:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Eternally collapsing object should be merged into Abhas Mitra, seeing as he's literally the only one pushing it. I also trimmed the Abhas article and made some quality-of-life corrections, but I'd honestly recommend some dynomite as the best solution. (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Brains in jars

Despite being a big fan of The Man with Two Brains, I tried PROD'ing this, but an IP objected. I don't think this is serious ... anybody know more? Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's legit. I saw it in Young Frankenstein. -Location (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep -- whose brain? Abby's! Abby ... normal. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic, this method (of using chemicals to change the structure of brain tissue to non-perishable material in the hope that the process can one day be reversed) is technically intended to dispense with the jars and avoid all that preserving-fluid messiness. It's certainly a genuine field of study on the transhumanist lunatic fringe (who use the term "brain plastination", not "chemical brain preservation", if you're hunting for sources), although I very much doubt it needs be be anything more than a footnote at cryonics. ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I suspect an AFD may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
They saved Albert Einstein's brain. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The concept could be part of Histopathology or Fixation (histology). But the present article frames brain preservation "with the intent of future revival", which is definitely fringe fantasy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Plus, none of the sources discuss tissue preservation for the purpose of revival or rejuvenation, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical brain preservation - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Orb (paranormal)

Orb (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this a notable thing? IMO, it's a WP:POVFORK of Orb (optics) heavily sourced to WP:FRINGE sources, but what do I know. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a thing, although I think that it would be best merged in the Ghost article (if there's anything reliably sourced enough to keep, I see that various references are not reliable sources). —PaleoNeonate - 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree, because the usual explanation is that orbs represent dead people; but there are no plausible hypotheses (or reliable sources) that describe the mechanism by which a person who dies will become a hovering ball of light that appears on film but is invisible to the eye. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like that entire article could be replaced by adding a single sentence to Orb (optics).
A closely related artifact is Rod (optics), whose article is struggling to remain non-fringe. ApLundell (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The rod article needs to be merged (not sure where, exactly), particularly after multiple high-speed filming experiments have shown that they are insects (usually moths) creating video artifacts when filmed at conventional speeds. The tipoff -- just as with orbs -- was that they were never seen on direct observation, only on film; so perhaps the Orb article is the proper merge destination. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/ if you have any feedback for this source. Looks dodgy to me. -Location (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination).

Input of editors expert in WP:FRINGEBLP would be welcome. Outside opinions needed. jps (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Alpha-gal allergy

This is the latest bit of medical alarmism to wash over my Facebook feed. I don't doubt that this is a real condition, but given the huge range of the lone star tick, this is going to need to be screened to ensure the risk isn't being exaggerated. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Came here via the ref desk. The article on optography does not claim anything that is outright wrong, but it certainly presents the stuff as a legit scientific theory, when the whole "scientific basis" for it is a one-man operation. Zero recent literature on the subject (you can also try in German).

I would say a serious trim is in order: and the article should be presented first and foremost as a popular belief of the 19th century. Kühne's experiments on rabbits seem legit, but the human part sounds incredibly fishy (the original picture was lost, it was made after the public got excited about the possibility). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. The statement in the lede that "there is a scientific basis behind the idea" is grossly misleading. While it appears to be true that one scientist once considered it worthy of investigation, that doesn't constitute a "scientific basis" by any stretch; no such "basis" was ever demonstrated. It's just one of those numerous ideas that seemed worth looking into, but turned out to be useless, except as a fictional murder mystery device. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DoctorJoeE. The idea here is that Kühne was successfully able to rapidly fix rhodopsin and the pattern of it on the retina/macula/fovea would reveal an image corresponding to what the eye saw (i.e. the optograph). The article somewhat reflects most of the sources on the subject in that it discusses the second part (i.e. results), but simply assumes the first (i.e. methods). I think in that assumption is where optography starts to cross the line from science to pseudoscience. I don't doubt that Kühne was attempting to do something based in science, but the article needs to properly address what he claims to have done and found. For example, I don't buy that his "most successful optogram" is what he said it is just because he said it is what it is. The questions are just too numerous for an 1877 experiment that should easily be duplicated in modern times. -Location (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA