Jump to content

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rocksanddirt (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 7 May 2018 (→‎Please comment about external links to Fringe theories). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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:



    Brain Overclaim Syndrome (BOS)

    A brand-new article that seems to me to be one guy's hobby-horse, but I don't know enough to judge properly. Anyone here know about this? --Calton | Talk 00:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this article from Nature presents it as a inter-disciplinary dispute: basically it's about neuroscientists claiming they know more about the basis for behavior than they are justified in doing. So the article we have is pretty much bilge, but the original article see here is very heavily cited. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pretty clear to me that Brain Overclaim Syndrome is just a bon mot and the author of the article is having some fun running with the concept. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (And, as such, the article probably shouldn't stick around for much longer.) -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the man himself: All of the above is really just a “high falutin,” partially tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting that people need to think more clearly and make more transparent, logical arguments about the relationship of anything to criminal responsibility. The article in its current state is well within WP:HOAX territory. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yuck. Neurolaw. F*cking David Eagleman again. What a self-promoter. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Silurian hypothesis

    Silurian hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    The original topic is two mainstream scientists asking "how would we prove or disprove that an industrialized global civilization didn't far enough in the past that geological activity would have ground all their buildings back into minerals?" If scientists follow through on trying to answer it, the results will be interesting regardless of what is found. Not really fringe.

    The topic is not "There were definitely lizard people who developed atomic weapons and their own internet!" That is fringe.

    Again, though, the original topic is not fringe, but it's only a matter of time before the topic attracts folks who insist that it's proof that David Icke, Helena Blavatsky, James Churchward, or some dentist were right all along. That's why I'm bringing it up here, to make sure we have extra eyes on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a really, really interesting idea but aside from the recent flurry of press attention I'm not sure it's notable. Lots of stuff like this gets discussed over a beer during the poster session and some of it turns into an article or two. Watchlisted in any case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put this on my watch list. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree. The article itself seems to be reasonable and valid research, but there are many ways in which it can be misconstrued to imply that there were lizard people. I added another paragraph to the article, hope it's good. Heptor (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Shuck, English folklore, and cryptozoology

    Hello! Just a heads up that we've got some fringe activity over at black shuck, a ghostly dog from English folklore. This, like may articles on Wikipedia (see here), was hijacked by cryptozoologists once upon a time (deeply in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as usual). However, now we've got a user issuing threats and revert-warring to keep a category ("Stop vandalizing cryptid articles or I'm going to report you." ([1]). I restrict my article reverts to one revert per 24 hours, but this article could use some more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason your edit was reverted BloodofFox was due to there being no discussion as to why that category was removed (something you have done with a lot of Cryptid articles).--Paleface Jack 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    Please review Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience, specifically WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. In fact, discussion was (and is) ongoing on the article's talk page on the topic, although you have yet to participate. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If the discussion is still ongoing then nothing should happen until a consensus has been made.--Paleface Jack 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    "I have a life", your original comment here in response to my mentioning the above policies, seems to sum your attitude about policy up in a nutshell. If you'd like to contribute to discussion regarding pseudoscience, fringe theories, and related matters, I must insist that you become familiar with associated policies, which I've outlined in my previous comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the "i have a life" comment was a reference to the creator/admin from my Monster Archives days (I make a lot of references that only I get). I reverted that when I realized that might not be taken the right way (which it has) since people don't get that reference... My bad... Looking at User:Bloodofox/Cryptozoology, it seems very one sided. All of the references made are from a non-neutral perspective by skeptics of the field. All articles should reflect a NEUTRAL standpoint. By adding mythological creature, creature from folklore to cryptozoological creatures reflects a non-neutral editing style that is both disruptive and forbidden on this site. It seems to me, this might be just my perception, but BloodofFox's activity on the Cryptozoology related articles are feel like an active attempt to classify them as mythological/legendary. Nominations of List of Cryptids to merge into List of Legendary Creatures and mass removal of cryptid categories from cryptozoology related articles/subjects support my perception of this issue and my "threat" was merely a warning to cease and desist fro such edits without any input from the WikiProject Cryptozoology staff and members. So far as I know there was never any discussion of this with them at all.--Paleface Jack 02:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    I must again direct you to WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. These "skeptics" are experts in their fields, namely folklore studies and biology. Biologists in particular are extremely (even harshly) critical of cryptozoology, which our cryptozoology article provides. As policies like WP:UNDUE dictate, Wikipedia is not the promotional organ of small groups deep in fringe territory. WikiProject Cryptozoology has no "staff" and, like most WikiProjects today, has no apparent active members. (It's also worth noting that Wikipedia never had a WikiProject Folklore Studies, Wikiproject Folklore, or any other configuration of the expected title!) :bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And so are the Cryptozoologists. Jeffrey Meldrum is just a small example. I have message the WikiProjects coordinators and will be waiting for their input on the issue.--Paleface Jack 02:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

    We've established without a doubt that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. Please read WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia does not accord fringe perspectives equal time with academic perspectives. As you're interested in this stuff and Wikipedia needs editors on these topics, I strongly encourage you to consider leaving behind the pseudoscience and digging into academic sources on these topics. I'd be glad to help you find resources and dig into relevant subjects such as, say the Aarne–Thompson classification systems or Propp's morphological approaches to folk narratives. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Already a member and a major contributor of WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Horror. I messaged members of the project just to see what thoughts on this are. I'll let you know what consensus is when I get it.--Paleface Jack 03:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    What does this have to do with the comment that precedes it? I see you messaged members of Wikiproject Cryptozoology, and you might want to take a look at WP:CANVAS. If you've got a conversation about "consensus" happening, bring it over here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm kind of a stickler for second opinions and neutral standpoints. Asking members of the WikiProject for their thoughts on the issue and to see how we should proceed with how we do things there was my main reason for doing that. I've sort of noticed that that WikiProject has been inactive (or semi-active) for a while now. An unfortunate thing that has plagued us over at WikiProject Horror as well. A revamp/resurgence might be necessary in order to save the WikiProject from going "extinct". As for rewording cryptid articles to say that their mythological/legendary seems to regulate them towards that WikiProject. I suggest that we just reworded to say purported (insert species resemblance) rather than legendary/mythological creature since the former seems more accurate.--Paleface Jack 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

    Not sure he should be listed as a Cryptid, unless RS make the link.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A question for all concerned, what has the issue of Pseudoscience got to do with whether or not we can include Black Shuck as a Cryptid?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I'm going to refrain from formally voting, since I was asked by Paleface Jack for advise on the matter as someone who has dealt with disruption in the past, and voting would be treading too close to the line of WP:VOTESTACK (even though that wasn't his intention). What I will say is that I think the reverts are valid for the same reason I told Bloodofox (in this message that he has chosen to ignore). Bloodofox has been trying to have List of cryptids deleted for years now, and has continously failed. When that didn't work, he silently opened a side discussion to have it merged with List of legendary creatures without notifying anyone involved with the article, then he merged the articles and promptly edit warred when it was unsurprisingly reverted. He has since been going through Cryptid articles, mass-removing all mentionings of cryptozoology with zero discussion, and reverting anyone who undoes these edits. DarkKnight2149 17:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note #2: This discussion is currently open here, and at Talk:List of cryptids. @Bloodofox: Respectfully, you need to pick a spot and keep it there. And if your attempts to merge the topics continue to fail, at a certain point, you need to just drop the stick. Wikipedia is consensus-based and, to an outside editor, this is beginning to smell more and more like WP:POV pushing. If the community doesn't agree with you, then continuing to fight against it (not to mention edit warring, opening duplicate discussions, and silently opening merger/deletion discussions when things don't go your way) is disruptive. DarkKnight2149 17:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This all looks like forum shopping.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First, that's a blatant mischaracterization of both my actions and what has occurred on these articles. As much as you're trying to help your friend, you'd be best served to take him aside and tell him behavior like this is simply inappropriate. I opened this entry specifically to talk about Paleface Jack's revert-warring over at Black shuck and to request more eyes on the article. Note also that it's a little tough for me to revert war when I restrict my edits reverts per article to once per 24 hours.
    Second, it is in fact Paleface Jack and yourself who have repeatedly brought of up list of cryptids here, which I once suggested be deleted and have recently suggested be merged. The article itself has in the mean time also seen some level of merging, which I was involved with, and it remains full of problems, including lacking referencing and scope. Nobody seems to have a solution as to what to do with it yet. Please don't maliciously mischaracterize my actions in an attempt to help your friend. We've got discussion going on there about that article — please keep it all there and restrict this to discussion about the black shuck article.
    Third, as anyone who has taken a serious look at improving Wikipedia's folklore coverage knows, it swarms with WP:UNDUE emphasis on pseudoscientific topics, which myself and other editors outline quite succinctly here. When something violates policy, such as WP:FRINGE, we take care of it. That includes rooting out the pseudoscience and the 'maybe it was a dinosaur!' approach, which is entirely unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, Paleface Jack is not my friend, I am not even sure we have ever edited the same pages until this dispute.
    Secondly, I have never reared the issue of Cryptids here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in response to @Darkknight2149:, who appeared here due to a plea from Paleface Jack. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bloodofox: 1. If you feel there are any "blatant mischaracterisations" of your actions, you are perfectly free to explain them. So far, the only thing I have said that you have come close to properly refuting is this being a duplicate of the merge discussion at Talk:List of cryptids, and yes, this does appear to be a duplicate given that your opening statement is largely complaints about the exact same P.O.V. of WP:FRINGE that you have been using to merge and remove cryptozoology from many Wikipedia articles, as well as continuously attempting (and failing) to merge List of cryptids with List of legendary creatures (including a currently ongoing discussion at Talk:List of cryptids). Your edits at Black shuck, ETC, were made under the same reasoning as your edits at List of cryptids, or every cryptozoology article that you have mass-removed the category from. Forgive others if we see this seemingly unnecessary discussion as "forum shopping".
    2. You can still edit war without violating the three revert rule, or even a self-imposed one-revert-rule. You also clearly have not been following a 1RR, as demonstrated from this edit war from a whopping two weeks ago. Please refrain from blatant dishonesty.
    3. The only one "maliciously mischaracterisating" other users' edits is you. I am not here to "mischaracterize [your] actions in an attempt to help [my] friend" (an accusation you made without evidence); I came to the observations I made of your edits the old fashion way... by looking at your contribution history and making observations of my own. These observations are specifically mine. Paleface Jack asked for my opinion due to my extensive history with monitoring articles and dealing with disruption, and the only opinion of his that he gave beforehand were that your edits "looked like vandalism" and I said afterwards that no obvious vandalism took place (from what I saw). I also seem to recall telling you directly how your edits appeared to the outside user, which you chose to ignore. As for any WP:CANVAS concerns, I am only here to make my observations and opinion known, which is exclusively mine and may or may not reflect the opinions of Paleface Jack. Because he brought this to my attention directly, I will not be voting directly and I am only replying to those who reply to my post. My minimal activity here is to avoid any CANVAS behaviour.
    4. You keep bringing up this edit like it's some kind of mic drop, but I fail to see how it supports your position in any way, shape, or form. It was in response to your point that he "had yet to participate". Pointing out that you have a life outside of Wikipedia is disruptive? I'm sure you are also going to use this point to justify your argument about him being "my friend", but you will be hard-pressed to find any administrator that's going to take action against "I have a life" in this context. DarkKnight2149 05:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this edit does sum the situation up pretty well. The editor expresses explicit disregard for WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, the core of the issue here. As for the rest of your analysis (much of which is distracting off-topic this-and-that), I have little more than to say other than to say to talk to your friend about his behavior. It's not helping his position. Please take any further attempts at analyzing my edit history to my talk page rather than further clogging up this board with it. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to waste too much time arguing, especially when you are making disembodied claims without sufficient evidence or explanation. I'll just say that your methods of enforcing your point of view are indeed pertinent to the discussion, hardly "off-topic". DarkKnight2149 17:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to stop this right here, @Bloodofox: you need to stop taking every single piece of constructive criticism and difference of opinion personally. I have already explained myself and now you're starting to gang up on people who are offering criticism. That is both unprofessional and inappropriate. I am all for improving articles, especially cryptid-related articles since they've been sorely lacking any sort of attention by editors as of late. I do think if enough information from reliable sources can show that Black Shuck isn't a cryptid then we can strike it off the WikiProject Cryptozoology list. However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential. As for DarkKnight, he was just coming here since I really don't deal with this sort of disruption/negative response from editors. I am perfectly capable of defending myself in an argument which unfortunately this has turned into. I'm mainly experienced in editing/expanding articles to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards, this is a whole new thing for me and I was just asking DK (who has experience with this sort of thing) for his advice. All I can say is that I am both confused by this sort of a response from an edit of mine and the negativity generated from a single user.... (sighs) .... I was going to take a short hiatus from major edits for a while so I could focus more on film projects of mine, but considering this I might postpone that until this whole thing is resolved.--Paleface Jack 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE dictates that we do not offer equal time for pseudoscience. Rather than expressing hostility toward Wikipedia policy, you'd be doing yourself a favor by taking the time to read Wikipedia's policies on pseudoscience (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). If you want those policies changed, try lobbying the policy talk pages.
    Given your numerous messages to anyone associated with WikiProject Cryptozoology (complete with the heading "WikiProject Cryptozoology Emergency" and claims that my edits "look like vandalism", such as this one [2]), I also recommend reading WP:CANVAS.
    Again, if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's currently abysmal coverage on folklore-related topics, I can offer advice on resources. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    (Slaps palm to face) I give up... This looks like a job for the admins.--Paleface Jack 23:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

    "However it must be for a neutral standpoint as having only sources from skeptics is unbalanced coverage. Balanced coverage for BOTH viewpoints is essential."

    While I am far from a fan of Bloodofox (and personally think folklorists are unreliable), that has never been the way Wikipedia works. We have a specific policy against false balance:

    "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Dimadick (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Equal coverage to all perspectives (if they are reliable) while maintaining a neutral standpoint/format is pretty much a given. If one account outweighs the other, then that is unbalanced coverage. Writing/formatting two different standpoints (if such standpoints are "legitimized" such as those by Jeffrey Meldrum) comparisons/ arguments between the shouldn't be accepted as it's not encyclopedic and more around the lines of a debate. Rather, each theory/scholarship should be written so that it remains as transparent and balanced as possible. Any unproven and/or statements are only theories so they should be mentioned as such and only as such. No matter how legitimate a theory might be they are still only theories and unproven. Skeptics have for years been putting out scholarly papers based on their theories on cryptids but a lot of the arguments often result in counter arguments from cryptozoologists that sort of negate the previous theory. I would classify both cryptozoology and theology as different branches of science that haven't been officially legitimized (although I could be wrong) by the skeptics in the scientific community because of the controversy that surrounds them. That would not make them a pseudo-science as Blood of Fox claims since science itself is based on theories and attempts to prove theories by examining purported evidence that might support it. A lot of animals out there were once considered cryptids until evidence proved that they existed. A few examples of this include Mountain Gorillas, Komodo dragons, Giant Pandas, and Pygmy Hippos. ryptozoology is As both DarkKnight and I have stated, BloodofFox has been WP:POV pushing for a while now, trying to merge List of Cryptids with List of legendary creatures to no success. When that has failed he has been making some pretty questionable edits such as removing any Cryptozoology categories from articles on cryptids as well as covertly rewording those articles so that they fit under Legendary/mythology categories (again POV pushing). No matter how much he claims this as being UNDUE , FRINGE, and THREATING, my reversion of his edits and warnings to him to stop have been just that, Reversions of Vandalism/POV pushing and warning him to cease and desist from doing it. When others have reverted or corrected such edits, he has always reverted them to his original edits. When I, being the eccentric person that I am, made a reference to something from my Monster Archives days and realized that it might be misunderstood, I removed it. However BloodofFox has been using it as some sort of threat of administrative action regardless of my following post explaining why I posted and removed it (I doubt he read it). I have tried to explain and be nice about the whole thing but has started to get to the point where I just want this resolved so that I can move on to other things (sighs).--Paleface Jack 18:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

    Whether or not you think cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and even regardless of whether it actually is a pseudoscience, reliable mainstream sources state it is a pseudoscience. The policies of wikipedia demand that the viewpoints of cryptozoologists be discounted, or ignored entirely, in favor of independent mainstream sources. I assume that the go-to sources on mythical creatures would be academic experts in folklore and mythology, and articles about such creatures should primarily be devoted to those viewpoints. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Then that would be unbalanced coverage. Criticism, and theories from professionals including cryptozoologists still need included if they are reliable enough sources.--Paleface Jack 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

    Reintroduction of fringe theories into article

    Despite discussion above, @Paleface Jack: appears to be reintroducing fringe material into articles. Note that none of the sources used in the article use the term cryptid. Humanoid reptilians, anyone? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty sure I didn't do anything with the reptilian humanoid article. Nice try attempting to pin a non-existent edit on me. Please stop doing this. It's not fun for anyone when someone starts vandalizing articles and ganging up on someone. I'd love to keep what little sanity and brain power I have left on more important matters.:(--Paleface Jack 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

    Thank you.... I think?--Paleface Jack 03:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

    Should Creationism be identified as pseudoscience?

    There's a university called Liberty University that teaches creationism (the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is 10,000 years old). I've been editing the LU article[3], and as part of my edits I've tried to clearly note that Creationism is a "pseudoscientific" belief. Other editors are pushing back at this and are saying that we should note identify creationism as pseudoscience.[4] Which of the following sentences is more appropriate:

    • Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism as an explanation for the appearance of life on Earth.
    • Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism, the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago by God.

    To me, the second sentence seems clearly in line with WP:FRINGE whereas the first sentence fails to identify creationism as a fringe theory even though it obviously is one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Believe it or not, this question has arisen before! If you look at the lead of Creationism and the main branching articles, and poke around the talk pages and articles, you will see the WP position that has been arrived at. Creationism and Young Earth Creationism (taught at Liberty I think) are "religious beliefs"; creation science (which they may also teach) is pseudoscience. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    :They teach creationism in biology classes[5]. Does this mean that pseudoscience is the appropriate term? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they teach creationism as a valid scientific equivalent to mainstream thinking [6] I suggest looking for academic sources over newspapers this may help your argument. I will see what I can find I have a few books lieing around--Moxy (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of Liberty it looks like they teach creationism as a religious belief of the appearance of life on earth, as well as evolution in some other classes. Not pseudoscience. WP position has already been arrived at, affirming this stance. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the sources cited in the LU article, they teach creationism in biology classes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No guess work pls User:AlaskanNativeRU...read over creationism and......Susan L. Trollinger; William Vance Trollinger, Jr.; William Vance Trollinger (2016). Righting America at the Creation Museum. JHU Press. pp. 210–. ISBN 978-1-4214-1951-0.
    If they teach it as a science subject, yes. If they teach it as a religious subject, no.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They do....."This week, Liberty University students will have the opportunity to see one of their professors, Dr. Marcus Ross, present the case for young-earth creationism (YEC) on the big screen, using his expertise in geology to show how scientific evidence supports this view.".--Moxy (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    According to that link, "In his science classes, Ross teaches students how the greater scientific community interprets evidence while also sharing how they can be viewed from a YEC perspective."(emphasis added) And here we learn that another biology professor "believes in young Earth creationism instead of evolution — and he’s not afraid to teach it in the classroom." That settles it -- they really do teach creationism as science. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Does LU teach creationism in science courses? Yes:

    • WaPo: "In certain situations in an Earth science course, for example, a student would learn the case for biblical creation alongside the science of evolution."[7]
    • NPR: "He enrolled in nearly every core class each Liberty student is required to take: Old Testament, New Testament, History of Life — a creationist biology course — and Evangelism 101, a course that instructs students on converting nonbelievers."[8]
    • News Advance (the local paper): "At Liberty, the science classroom is exactly where students learn about creation, and the content also is woven into many other areas of coursework... DeWitt, who is director of the school’s center for creation stud-ies, teaches biology and two versions of creation studies — one for students in the sciences that includes more “scientifically detailed subject matter,” he said, and another that most students take, which does not. He teaches both evolution and creation."[9]
    • DailyBeast: "Creation Studies is taught in Liberty’s Center for Creation Studies, described on their website as “a dynamic, teaching-based academic center.” The center’s purpose is to “research, promote, and communicate a robust young-Earth creationist view of Earth history,” with the goal of equipping “students to defend their faith in the creation account in Genesis using science, reason and the Scriptures.” Students in the Creation Studies class are assigned a “scientist contrast interview, where we are required to interview several scientists on both sides of the origins debate.”"[10]
    • Politico: "According to Liberty’s website, the purpose of the university’s Center for Creation Studies is to “research, promote, and communicate a robust young-Earth creationist view of Earth history. Beginning with sound biblical interpretation, we seek to understand how science can inform us about God's magnificent creation.” The Center operates Creation Hall, which boasts fossilized bones from an Allosaurus, which according to young-Earth science, are 6,000 to 10,000 years old—as old as literally everything else in the universe."[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the RSs. Relating to the original sentence question, I would phrase it "Liberty University teaches the pseudoscientific young Earth creationism, based on the religious belief that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago by God." StrayBolt (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    LU Creation Studies, which teaches "History of Life" class, says, "The purpose of the Center for Creation Studies is to promote the development of a consistent biblical view of origins in our students. The Center seeks to equip students to contend for their faith in the creation account in Genesis using science, reason, and the Scriptures." This is not science. They begin with the end, cherry picking scientific studies, using the language of science, using rhetoric over evidence, and a host of other techniques, guaranteeing the results. This is pseudoscience or worse. In the recent doc on POV about Bill Nye[12][13], he pointed out how creationists will push the debate to belief, belief of science. StrayBolt (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So is the the latest in a series of questions of the type: should ${obviously pseudoscience} be called pseudoscience? -- with a bunch of religious POV-pushers arguing in opposition. It's getting tiresome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It’s a pretty blatant WP:PSCI policy violation, so it doesn’t look like there’s any reason to entertain those who want the pseudoscience language removed (or allow them to edit war it out). If it continues to be a problem, probably best to take it to WP:AE under the pseudoscience DS since those were set up to quickly remove disruptions like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Any modern form of creationism short of theistic evolution is pseudoscience. Any editor insisting otherwise needs to be notified of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience articles. If such an editor continues to downplay the pseudoscientific nature of creationism, discretionary sanctions need to be applied. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The key words here are "young earth". There exists old-earth creationism, the religious belief that the scientists are right about the origin and age of the earth, the origin and age of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of species, but that God is behind it all pulling the strings and making it happen. Old-earth creationism isn't pseudoscience because it does not dispute the scientific consensus, but rather interprets it in a unprovable and unfalsifiable religious framework. Young-earth creationism is pseudoscience because it claims that the biologists are all wrong about species, the geologists are all wrong about how old rocks are, the astronomers are either all wrong about how far away the stars are or all wrong about how long it took light from those stars to reach us, the linguists are all wrong about the speed at which language evolves, the physicists are all wrong about radiometric dating -- the list goes on and on. That makes it pseudoscience. Looks like Liberty is teaching young-earth creationism. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen forms of old-earth that grant the geologists are "right," but still deny evolution. Hence "any form of creationism short of theistic evolution." YEC tends to insist that the world has to be 6000 years old, while some of the shorter forms of Old Earth will say 10,000. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That subset of old-earth creationists would clearly be pushing pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don’t see the main distinction as between OEC and YEC. While it’s indeed much easier for proponents of the former to stick to theology, not having to explain away YEC’s blatant contradictions of observable facts, some of them do make use of such pseudoscientific notions as irreducible complexity, or try to support an argument-from-incredulity against the ability of chance to produce adaptive mutations with spurious statistical reasoning.—Odysseus1479 19:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where the article says, "Creationism is taught as a science alongside evolution in biology classes, and are instructed that the former offers the better explanation of biological diversity," we are obligated to explain that creationism is not a science but rather a pseudoscience, and that such claims are rejected by the overwhelming majority of life scientists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we are veering into activism when we call religion pseudoscience. Pseudoscience masquerades as science. I don't think religion does, even when it is presenting explanations that clearly cannot coexist with scientific explanations for the same phenomena. Religion is not science. This is generally understood. There is no need to distinguish between religion and science. The use of the term pseudoscience comes up when we need to distinguish between something that pretends to be science but is not. I think we are overreaching and quite frankly being non-neutral when we unnecessarily apply the term "pseudoscience" to religion. That is taking an activist role that doesn't benefit the reader unless we are preaching an anti-religion message, which we should refrain from doing. Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How Liberty University Creates Creationists
    -Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Religion is religion, science is science. Religion taught in science classes *as science* is subject to the same rules as all other science. I agree that Liberty University and other advocates of so-called "creation science" are creating a number of issues for themselves and others by proclaiming their religious beliefs to be a scientific explanation for the development of life. But they've made that choice and we cannot simply ignore it.

    NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is exactly right. In a religious / doctrinal context, creationism just is what it is. When presented as science - explicitly or implicitly - then it needs to be flagged as pseudo. JohnInDC (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends. Young earth creationism is religious belief dressed up to look like science. If the concept is being presented as a religious belief there's no need to qualify it as "pseudoscience" any more than you need to preface "blue" with the word "color" in an article about the rainbow. Blue is defined as a color. So I disagree that it needs to be flagged as pseudoscience at each and every introduction; and I think it's perfectly permissible to say, without more, that "at Liberty University, they teach YE creationism to explain where the world comes from". Now - it's different, when you are trying to cloak YE creationism in scientific clothing. Then it's helpful - necessary - to denote the true nature of the thing. So if LU teaches YE creationism in its biology classes then it should be noted that YE creationism is not, in fact, science. How one does that smoothly is a matter of copyediting more than anything else. JohnInDC (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to echo a few of the comments above: if it's under any other context than presented as science, then no, but if it's presented as science, then it must absolutely be labeled as a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And see, that’s the thing. It’s not being presented as science – it’s being presented as what Liberty University does. We as editors don’t need to remind our readers at every turn that something that is manifestly pseudoscience is, in fact pseudoscience. Do we really think that they are so credulous, so poorly informed, but they won’t perceive it without our editorial assistance? JohnInDC (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We make no assumption about a reader's age or academic background. It seems to me than if an academic institution attempts to pass a pseudoscience off as a science — whether dressed in euphemism or buried in jargon or what have you — it's Wikipedia's duty as a neutral tertiary source to cut through that and present a pseudoscience as a pseudoscience. This is especially important given Google's intention to use Wikipedia articles to debunk, say, conspiracy theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I disagree. Our job is to report, in NPOV terms, what third party sources say about the topics we write articles about. Our job is not to adorn articles with superfluous words to ensure that readers are not taken in by unsound & scurrilous ideas that achieve wide circulation. We report what third parties say, not our own distillation of what is "true" (even where our conclusion is inarguably correct). Liberty University, for its own religious and / or political purposes, is seeking to pass off pseudoscience as science. But when we say, "Liberty University teaches young earth creationism to all of its students" we are saying exactly that already. It's a nasty slippery slope, making sure that our articles have language in them to ensure that readers will be able to distinguish truth from seductive falsehood. JohnInDC (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's being taught in biology classes, as science, which your allegedly NPOV version leaves off. NPOV ALSO means not helping lies by omission or furthering deceptive public relations campaigns. --Calton | Talk 01:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After a moment's quiet reflection I think you will realize that it cannot be sound Wikipedia policy, that editors have an affirmative obligation to ensure that "deceptive public relations campaigns" are all identified as such, and refuted with additional, editor-supplied narrative or qualifiers. We're all fact-checkers now? Of course I may be mistaken, and, in fact NPOV does in fact mean that; so if you can show me where, I'll withdraw. Separately - I'd be just as content with, "Liberty University teaches, as science, young earth creationism to all of its students". Finally - "allegedly"? You've been around a long enough time to WP:AGF. JohnInDC (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do we really think that they are so credulous, so poorly informed, but they won’t perceive it without our editorial assistance?" A large share of readers are obviously not capable of discerning pseudoscience and fringe theories from actual science and mainstream theories. Even many Wikipedia editors do not discern the difference. For instance, AlaskanNativeRU, the editor who has been mass-removing content on the LU article, says "creationism is a theory just like evolution". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So then you ask the editor on the article Talk page or on their Talk page to explain their reasoning in equating creationism with evolution. I don't think you automatically slap on a label of pseudoscience in article space. Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it that simple? If something has no pretense of being scientific, should we label it pseudoscience? I think religion should be respected for the sort of entity it is. I think there is a general understanding that religion and science are two different realms. I think that in most instances that distinction is clear. We should invoke the term "pseudoscience" when there is the realistic concern that the reader could be mislead by something that might sound scientific but is not. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and any reader who's a little unclear on the concept of young earth creationism can click on the wikilink and learn within the first 5 or so words that it's a religious belief; and by the second paragraph that it's pseudoscience. I really don't understand the eagerness to add, to insist on adding, extrinsic editorial commentary to every mention of this term. If it's that important we should change the name of the linked article to "Young Earth Creationism (pseudoscientific theory)". And I say that only about 60% tongue-in-cheek. JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We follow the sources. It is that simple. The policy is absolutely explicit. Religion gets no special pass any more than any other irrationality, from homeopathy to flat-earthism (though of course these have religious elements too). Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I guess we should get started on flagging references to the virgin birth as inconsistent with the current scientific understanding of parthenogenesis. JohnInDC (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Without sources it would be likely to get you on the path to a ban. As is WP:POINTy behaviour in the topic space generally. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a facetious comment, Alexbrn. It wasn't a realistic suggestion. Same thing with religion—it doesen't purport to be scientific, in most cases. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But where it obtrudes into the realm of science it becomes pseudoscience, and if we have sources saying so, we are obliged to make this prominent in our articles, per policy. When creationism is mentioned we need to label it as the nonsense it obviously is, to be neutral. Why is this hard? Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It always obtrudes into the realm of science. That alone doesn't make it pseudoscience. And we don't have to include in our articles everything that is found in sources. We exercise judgement. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Here's Popular Science on the subject of the science of the virgin birth. There are many others as well - it seems to come up a lot around Christmas. No one was making LU's argument for them - that creationism is scientific - but rather just reporting that they teach creationism in a science class, as science; which is already such an obvious contradiction in terms that it doesn't need more. JohnInDC (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bus stop: You are exhibiting WP:IDHT. For the last time, WP:PSCI obliges us label pseudoscience as such. Religion does not always obtrude into the realm of science, any more than Harry Potter stories do. So long as it's confined to the realm of religion no problem. But as soon as religious beliefs claim to bear up the reality of how the world works, we are into PS territory. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (It's kind of funny how the discussion of these opposing viewpoints has become almost theological.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I overstated that, Alexbrn. Religion doesn't always obtrude into the realm of science—but it commonly does. I just think it gets a little silly when we think we need to inform the reader that assertions made in the context of religion do not concur with the scientific understanding of that or a related phenomenon. And there often are not any related phenomenon. If Noah's Ark is pseudoscience, what is the corresponding "scientific" explanation for the phenomenon addressed by the Noah's Ark story? There is none. And this is my point. These two activities in human output take place in categorically different realms. Religion doesn't often impinge upon science, not in the modern age. We can say that religious activities are pseudoscience but in my opinion most of the time we would be wasting our time doing so. It is not as if there is an enormous amount of confusion between what is religious and what is scientific. We should be careful that we are not doing this out of personal animosity toward religion. I read you saying "When creationism is mentioned we need to label it as the nonsense it obviously is, to be neutral." Your personal feeling is that religion is "nonsense". I think that personal feelings should not determine how we move forward. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Noah's Ark doesn't have to be pseudoscience, but it almost always is presented pseudoscientifically. It can be presented as a funny little story our primitive ancestors made up and believed about their relationship with a god that punishes them for evil, but which certainly never happened. That would be Noah's Ark as myth. But generally religious pseudoscientists go on to say that the story "explains" a world-wide flood (though no such flood ever occurred), and that actual scientific evidence which demonstrates no such flood ever occurred should be reinterpreted in such a way as to make it seem plausible. And that's Noah's Ark as pseudoscience. Once someone brings in evidence (strata, fossils, the age of the earth), their Noah's Ark story is not merely myth, it's pseudoscience. - Nunh-huh 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So: In a (hypothetical) Wikipedia article describing a Museum of Creationism with a famous exhibit about Noah's Ark, which uses the flood story and the Ark to explain features we find in today's natural world, Wikipedia policy requires that we add in text to alert readers that the story of Noah's Ark is a Biblical myth and has neither historical basis nor scientific validity. JohnInDC (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. See Creation Museum. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks. I thought I was just winging it. Probably another sad example of unconscious plagiarism. Anyhow, in that article, the critique isn't an editor-supplied gloss, a belt-and-suspenders addition to make sure readers know what's science and what's myth, but rather staight-up NPOV reporting of what abundant sources have noted, namely, that the museum exists for the purpose of injecting Biblical belief into the scientific debate. In the LU matter, the addition isn't sourced but is rather an editorial addition, a digression that we are apparently compelled to add in order to clear up any possible confusion on the matter. It's unsound practice and I don't believe that, where an article references the existence of a pseudoscientific concept, we are or should be obliged to inform readers that the term is contrary to scientific method & consensus. Again it's a dangerous place to be - let sources speak, and leave editors out of it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the Ark Encounter (Ken Ham's pet boondoggle), Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land, the Genesis Museum of Creation in the UK, and others. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "This week, Liberty University students will have the opportunity to see one of their professors, Dr. Marcus Ross, present the case for young-earth creationism (YEC) on the big screen, using his expertise in geology"

    "Marcus Ross" is probably Marcus R. Ross, a once legitimate paleontologist who converted to Young Earth Creationism: "In 2007, Ross was featured in a report on creationism.[1] Ross "believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old." This is in contrast to his previous position as reflected when he earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from University of Rhode Island with a dissertation about "the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago."[1] Ross has been criticized by some for taking this academic route, but Ross claims that it only firmed his belief in young earth creationism and has enabled him to find academic ground upon which to base the argument for his scientific credentials.[1]" Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b c Dean, Cornelia (2007-02-12). "Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules". The New York Times.

    What happened to this page?

    Until recently, this page was used as what it is: a noticeboard. All the chapters were short notices and informed readers about currently hot fringe articles. Now it contains lots of discussions that belong in the Talk pages of the fringe articles. Could we please stop that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lamar Smith

    The old fraud himself is unhappy with his article and has started to complain in stiff, legalese words, sometimes about minor inaccuracies, but also about the correct characterization of the pseudoscience he has been strong-arming for, climate change denial. Not very hot at the moment, but could become so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Leszek Pietrzak

    The following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak might interest this noticeboard.Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed a use of him as a source in Jan Karski (the content was also off-topic there). Other than that, he is used in Marian Bernaciak (using a work he published under the IPN - so probably OK), and in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (which was published in 2014 in a newspaper - [14] - after he started the "forbidden history" series - which is probably not so OK).Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Whose Rapture Prediction Failed Now Says It’ll Happen Later This Year

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/04/24/christian-whose-rapture-prediction-failed-now-says-itll-happen-later-this-year/

    I just don't get what's so hard to understand about Matthew 24:36. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "no one knows" in the present tense. So it's a statement of fact at the time the statement was made, not necessarily a promise. The secret may yet be revealed a few months in advance to the right and righteous, perhaps so they can max out their credit cards. You are welcome, Ian. Cheers, Heptor (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Antonia Fortress

    The Antonia Fortress is an important ancient building in Jerusalem. An IP wants to insert a fringe theory from the Base Institute, which is a group of unqualified Bible fundamentalists. See Bob Cornuke for information about the group's president, who claims to have found Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and several other biblical goodies.

    I think this material fails both WP:FRINGE and WP:RS but I'm tired of reverting. Zerotalk 14:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the information?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we are looking at this edit. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Still need help at Talk:Shroud of Turin.

    The shroudies are not only refusing to follow the clear language of our policies and guidelines, but they also refuse to even talk about what the policies and guidelines tell us to do, preferring instead to try to drag every conversation into a debate about the claims of various shroudie sources. I could really use a few more eyes on this one. I am offering double the usual pay. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, quickly looking at this article, it definitely needs more attention. I'm checking it out more deeply now. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Günter Bechly again

    For those intersted: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Günter_Bechly Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Advice about article naming needed

    Per discussion at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#"Fringe", what is the best name for this article?

    Candidates so far are:

    • Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin
    • Alternative theories about the Shroud of Turin
    • Discredited theories about the Shroud of Turin
    • Pseudoscientific theories about the Shroud of Turin

    --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Newsweek: News You Can Use. "Pac-Man Effect" Stops Us Falling Off the Edge of the Planet.

    http://www.newsweek.com/flat-earth-pac-man-edges-907976 --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More from Science Alert: https://www.sciencealert.com/flat-earth-theory-pacman-world-edge --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Persinger

    A single purpose account has made many edits to Michael Persinger recently and when I tried to restore balance to the force lead, it got a bit personal, so I'm going to step back from editing that particular article for a while and would appreciate if somebody else could keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck! Your version was the last one in, so I didn't didn't have to do anything there. I did a copy-edit however, prioritizing what this person is primarily known for. Hope it is alright. Heptor (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted discretionary sanctions notices concerning both pseudoscience and biographies of living people on the user's page. Thanks for reporting, Famousdog. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    List of cryptids

    List of cryptids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    3RR by editor removing mention of pseudoscience in lead because "it is only one opinion", etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#External links, about whether links to fringe theories are appropriate in the External links section of an article about such theories. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    in general, external links to things that would be bad or questionable sources for an article should probably be avoided. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was looking around for a Template like a fringe theories sidebar, or a bottom material Nav box, and didn't see anything in Template space, or in the archives here. Is it worth creating a nav box, with grouped lists of links to various hoaxes, fringe theories, conspiracy theories, and so on? OTOH, I'm wondering if there's an undesirable slut shaming effect to being listed there, but OTO, if the articles are properly titled and referenced, it is what it is, and as long as we're vigilant for spamming it should be okay, and could be quite helpful. Any thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What if aliens met racists? Mufon resignations highlight internal divisions in ufo sightings organization

    Newsweek story last month.[15] I added it as an EL since I don't have time to edit the article. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

    Several pseudoscience-related articles are currently up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was afraid of this...(sighs)--Paleface Jack 00:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=840117721"