Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Moderated discussion on the Tea Party movement

This article seems to me to be written in a medical tone and structured much like other psychology articles. However, it is in a paranormal series and the mentions of psychology are qualified with "speculative". I haven't been able to figure out what this means. Would anyone care to take a look at this? And maybe you all know some way of making the article clearer. Thanks in advance Aspets (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Glancing over the article, looks like a big case of equivocation fallacy. The article should either be split between the paranormal notion of an empath and the psychological measure, which is about the normal parlance concept of empathy.

:The article description opens with "This article is about the descriptor for someone with high empathy." If that's what the article is about, all mention of paranormal should be moved to Empath (parapsychology) or something similar. VdSV9•♫ 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"This article is about the descriptor for someone with high empathy."}}

::Then that would be "hyperempathy", which is a pop-sci term that appears on websites like Psychology Today.[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pathological-relationships/201203/genetic-and-neuro-physiological-basis-hyper-empathy-0]

::The Empath article is decidedly about a fringe topic: {{tq|In parapsychology, the mechanism for being an empath is said to be psychic channeling; psychics and mediums say that they channel the emotional states and experiences of other living beings, or the spirits of dead people, in the form of "emotional resonance".}}

::I agree the article should me moved/split and Empath (parapsychology) created. A hyperempathy article already exists, so any mention of high empathy (rather than psychic empathy) should be removed from the new article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hyperempathy is currently a redirect, although it could be a place to put the scientific concept of "having high empathy" if it's not just merged into Empathy. --Aquillion (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You're right, I missed that. There's a lot of results for hyperempathy on Google scholar. It looks like it is connected to autism, too. There's plenty coverage for an article that's sufficiently different from "Empathy" as a standard human/animal emotion.

::::I think I'll draft one, but I will need help with it, because there are two "types" of hyperempathy: psychopathological view of it as a disorder and a view that takes neurodivergence into account and sees it as an aspect of autism. One can be hyperempathic without being autistic (one report is of a patient who became hyperempathic after brain surgery).

::::Putting all that into Empathy would bloat it, I think. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:What is "speculative psychology" anyway? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Woo. [https://dictionary.apa.org/speculative-psychology] Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like the article is about two separate things - the serious scientific study of empathy, and paranormal woo-woo. We should probably split it. Really, only one paragraph in the lead and one section in the body are focused on paranormal stuff. Also, what does it mean by "speculative" psychology? None of the sources that I can see use the term - it seems to have been added by a well-meaning IP who was trying to indicate that the paranormal stuff was woo, but they applied it to the scientific concept, too, which isn't correct or supported by the sources and ends up making it look like the parts of the article devoted to mainstream science support the woo-woo parts. I tried rearranging things and tweaking stuff a bit, but really, the other consideration is how Empath relates to Empathy; the scientific concept might be duplicative with that article. --Aquillion (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• :As I pointed to above, the APA describes "speculative" psychology as psychology that is based on conjecture or unsupported theory rather than experimental or research evidence and treats it as largely synonymous with "Armchair Psychology." Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, but my point is that the parts on hyper-empathy, the neuroscience of empathy and dark empathy are not described that way in any of the sources we have (and there's no particular reason to think they are speculative.) They seem to have been labeled as that by an IP who saw the parapsychology template and assumed the whole article related to parapsychology; but labeling them that way gives the impression that the sourcing in those paragraphs (which is, at least at a glance, reasonable and not woo-woo or to low-quality journals or anything of that nature) supports the parapsychology parts, which is false. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::OK I see what you mean. And I think I agree with you that this seems a likely course of events. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• I wonder why we have Empath as well as Empathy (which, granted, is an over-stuffed mess). Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• @Aquillion @Aspets @VdSV9 @Simonm223 @Bon courage I created the article at Hyper-empathy because it seems to have a hyphen or space between the words in most cases. I changed the redirect of Hyperempathy to it. I also removed the "heightened empathy" and moved the science stuff from the article to Hyper-empathy. I renamed the article to Empath (parapsychology) as VdSV9 suggested. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The page Empath (parapsychology) still is mixing up common parlance usage and the woo meaning. VdSV9•♫ 12:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::You mean the paragraph talking about "common parlance"? I wouldn't call the source it is based on "high quality"[https://web.archive.org/web/20230114140438/https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511-700-we-feel-your-pain-extreme-empaths/], so I don't think anything of value will be lost if we remove that paragraph. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Dark Empath has nothing to do with parapsychology; it's about dark triad traits. It can't be left on the Empath (parapsychology) page. As I pointed out above, only one paragraph in the lead, one paragraph in the body, and the pop-culture section actually have anything to do with parapsychology. --Aquillion (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What do you suggest we do with the Dark empath stuff, copy it to the dark triad article, if it isn't already there? I'm happy with removing content, but I don't know if it should just be deleted or if it should be copied somewhere? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think we should have probably gone a bit more slowly; splitting the article is a bit tricky. For now I've simply moved all non-parapsychology empath stuff to the hyper-empathy article, since they're fundimentially talking about the same thing (people with a high level of empathy), but this will probably require tweaking the lead and definition of that article eventually, since it does seem like "empath" is sometimes used as a term for "person with hyper-empathy." If hyper-empathy isn't a valid place to put the non-parapsychology stuff then we should slow down and undo the split - just deleting half the article in the interest of turning it into a stub-sized article on parapsychology doesn't seem helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think my question was more basic. Why have Empath as a standalone article when we have Empathy (or Hyper-empathy or whatever)? We don't have an article Insomniac or Schizophrenic but we have articles on Insomnia and Schizophrenia which cover what people are like who have those things. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Dark triad is already an article. Why can't the dark empath stuff go there?

::::There does seem to be enough sources out there for "hyper-empathy" to have its own article. I don't think a fringe topic like psychic empathy should get this much consideration. The "empath" label reminds me of "star children". The original lede even mentioned "Highly Sensitive Persons", which is a tangential connection at best.

::::The more I think about it, the more the "empath" article seems like it was an attempt to promote and legitimise fringe views by mixing them in with non-fringe views. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The move to Empath (parapsychology) has been reverted as controversial, I have started a move discussion on the article's talk page. Pinging {{ping|Aspets}} {{ping|Simonm223}} {{ping|VdSV9}} {{ping|Aquillion}} {{ping|Bon courage}} since they commented in this topic. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the split. I think the state of things when you had moved the content was very good, and I find the revert to be unmotivated. Aspets (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{la|All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office}}

Right, UFO stuff again. There has been some edit warring and rather persistent Talk page lobbying to have this article say that legislators allege there is a secret US government “legacy program” that has retrieved “technologies of unknown origin” and “biological evidence of non-human intelligence”. Regarding the current [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAll-domain_Anomaly_Resolution_Office&diff=1292920944&oldid=1292797245 proposal here], I don't see that cited sources justify it. But since it is an actual fringe theory, I wonder if WP:FRINGE requires us to frame it with a textual explanation of how it deviates from the mainstream understanding, or since it has gotten so little traction ignore it entirely as WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is a lot of repetitive discussion on that talk page, including one user who has taken to copy/pasting the same stuff repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

: That same user is also repeatedly accusing others of "censoring" the article. Regarding LL's comment above, the lack of any sustained coverage in secondary sources makes it WP:UNDUE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In other news, this article is in continued need of WP:CLEANUP. I tried my hand at part of it, but it's still a big mess. jps (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I've created an article for diet influencer Paul Saladino and, as this is outside my field, I would be grateful for other editors reviewing it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Saladino is someone who has deserved an article on the for a long time. That said the article relies far too heavily on quotes rather than summarising what sources say. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::I've made some effort at cleanup Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

A new user is edit warring Atlantis nonsense into the article (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richat_Structure&oldid=1293568964#Fringe_theory_of_Atlantis_site]), further eyes on the article would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

: Somebody may want to explain to them on their talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Constantine_Pontifex&action=history]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Long time listener, first time caller to radio station WFTN.

Hi, I'm calling from Melbourne, Australia.

Bédeilhac Cave#The German aircraft legend would appear to me as hinkey as all funk.

Please see also: [https://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2006/sep/14/fishfingerfoundinww2bombe World War 2 Bomber Found in fish finger]

Kind regards,

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This page appears to make a lot of health-related claims with sourcing that fails WP:MEDRS. It also has a DYK nomination at :Template:Did you know nominations/Shakuyaku-kanzo-to. I've tried to point out some concerns, but it would be helpful to have input from other uninvolved editors. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Recently created by now blocked editor. An "everyone visited the Americas" author. I've reorganized a bit. It's heavily based on newspapers, which are now available in the Wikipedia LIbrary but I don't think are very good sources in any case. I want to do more work on this but with cataract surgery tomorrow probably can't. Minor point, name as title is ok, and searching with it useful. Longer form name, no. And Baron? Doug Weller talk 17:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{la|James Woodward (physicist)}}

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Woodward (physicist)

jps (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

And now see

{{la|Martin Tajmar}}

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar (2nd nomination).

jps (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

And now see

• {{la|Walter Dröscher}}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Dröscher (2nd nomination)

:Burkhard Heim is based largely on a single New Scientist article that is, itself, [https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/09/a_plea_to_save_new_scientist.html one of the reasons New Scientist has a bad reputation]. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Another source invoked multiple times is from MUFON, for crying out loud. Someone needs to take a weed-whacker to that article. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have not figured out yet whether we can countenance a Burkhard Heim article with the sources as presented, but note that Heim Theory has now been merged into the biography. James Woodward is a good object lesson, perhaps. jps (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. I've nominated a book for AfD under WP:NFRINGE, which I thought would have made which guidelines applied fairly clear, but I am now not so sure, so I am now also listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Age of Debt Bubbles here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. I have voted to keep the article as the book passes GNG and is published by a reputable publisher with a review process. In general, it is harder to pinpoint "fringe" in the field of economics, because it is a highly contentious field where everyone is wrong to some degree. Not every country in the world follows the same economic policy either (talking about liberal capitalist democracies), so chances are that what is considered fringe economically in one country may not be considered fringe economically in another. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::No, you can't argue scholarly consensus in a given field doesn't exist just because you think {{tq|everyone is wrong to some degree}}. Nor is government policy the measure of scientific consensus on a topic. Austrians are fringe, and they are very unapologetically so. The new synthesis is mainstream economics, rubbish like "debunks fractional-reserve banking" is the stuff of crackpots. There is very much that is broadly accepted in economics, and when you overturn one of those things, you win the Nobel prize (like, for example, Card did) not publish a book that nobody outside your circles cite.

::To argue there isn't a mainstream and a fringe for economics is economic negationism. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The article is about a book, it just needs to satisfy WP:NBOOK to have an article. Just because you disagree with the book is not a reason to delete the article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::NBOOK still requires reliable sources like everywhere else on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The book satisfies WP:BOOKCRIT 1. {{tq|The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. }} Links: [https://www.dlacalle.com/en/the-age-of-debt-and-monetary-destruction/] [https://williamwhite.ca/2024/11/05/central-banks-need-escape-route-from-cycle-of-boom-and-bust/] [https://going-postal.com/2024/12/book-review-the-age-of-debt-bubbles-by-max-rangeley/] [https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/160671-the-age-of-debt-and-monetary-destruction?type=guest-contributors,market-insights#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe+Age+of+Debt+Bubbles%E2%80%9D+is+an+essential+contribution+to,that+affect+all+of+us]. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Again, how the hell are those reliable sources? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::From WP:SPS: {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}} The first two are written by experts: "Daniel Lacalle (Madrid, 1967). PhD Economist and Fund Manager. Holds the CIIA (Certified International Investment Analyst) and masters in Economic Investigation and IESE"; William White worked for OECD and has been awarded for his work in economics [https://williamwhite.ca/about/] as well as written about in Financial Times[https://archive.md/o9vSM]. This establishes them both as subject-matter experts. The third link is a blog, so that can be dismissed. The fourth one is a company that seems to write updates on market trends, it hasn't been discussed on RSN before, I don't see a reason not to use it as a source to establish notability. By my count that is three sources where the book is discussed, thus satisfying WP:BOOKCRIT. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Great, now we're definitely getting somewhere, thank you! Even if expert SPS is certainly a... {{em|novel}} argument in support of notability, I'm willing to accept it in full for the sake of progressing the discussion. Second question, aren't personal websites excluded by the {{tq|non-trivial}} (note 2) requirement of WP:BOOKCRIT #1? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::They're non-trivial because they are published by experts. The only time when SPSs are explicitly not allowed is when they are used as third-party sources for BLPs, per WP:RS/SPS: {{tq|Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}} I can't find anything in P&G that says that expert SPS cannot be used towards notability of a book. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Most of the other SNGs require secondary sources, which is why it's rarely a issue. BOOKCRIT doesn't explicitly do so, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's certainly a very novel interpretation to use SPS to support notability as far as I'm aware. But, you do understand the only reason we even have notability guidelines at all (WP:WHYN) is because we can't meet the core content policies without sources meeting those requirements right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Assyrian continuity, the central myth of Assyrian nationalism, is promoted on Wikipedia as "almost unilaterally" supported by "modern contemporary scholarship". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories#Reputable peer review versus what exactly? Too tired to respond tonight and as I’ve already been arguing about fringe stuff with this editor it’s better in any case that someone else respond. I’m not getting much sleep as due to my cataract operation I can’t wear my CPAP mask for my sleep apnea. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey all,

I've suggested some text for a new FRINGEORG section of the guideline, intended for the "Coverage in Wikipedia" section, just after FRINGEBLP, but referring to some sourcing issues too.

We've only got a handful of editors discussing the possibility of a new section over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Resuming discussion (again) of FRINGEORG. It would be great to hear from more people, and in particular to hear whether folks think my suggestion might be a step in the right direction.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering if we should use The Greek Myths in this. A pretty bad book. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Only for Graves own opinion, if it has influenced later writers on the supposed location of Atlantis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm pretty sure that the article content is not Graves opinion, but need to check The Greek Myths to confirm. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, Graves' theory, if we elevate it to that level, was Lake Tritonis. He says in what i believe is his most extensive work on the subject[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1953/10/what-happened-to-atlantis/643053/]: {{tq|Under its waters, if anywhere at all, lay the true Atlantis...}} Pharos was "grafted" onto this earlier story. Stephen P. Kershaw, a seemingly trustworthy author, does not mention Tritonis or Pharos but addresses a part of Graves' argument:{{quote|There are those who have argued that Thopompus's narrative could indicate an Atlantis tradition that does not go back to Plato...Graves' suggestion is the purest speculation: there is not the slightest evidence to back up his assertion. There is only one source for the Atlantis story, and that is Plato.}}

::As an aside Kershaw has this to say:{{tq|Tony O’Connell’s useful resource, the Atlantipedia website, gives an indication of the enormity of the task, listing ninety-eight different theories that were produced between 2000 and 2011 alone, covering pretty well every corner of the globe: Alaska; Albania;...}}

::Location hypotheses of Atlantis looks like just a dumping ground to get rid of some of the content from the Atlantis article. Also, for what it's worth, Atlantipedia thinks [https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/graves-robert/ WP got this wrong]. fiveby(zero) 21:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Obviously Atlantis was at the southern tip of Manhattan Island… under tower 7… that’s why 9/11 took place! They had to burry the evidence! (Am I doing it right?) Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That depends, are you committed to the [https://www.atlantis-scout.de/charter.htm Atlantis Research Charter] or following the [https://atlantis.fyi/sources/criteria-for-the-search-of-atlantis/ 24 criteria] of the 1st International Conference The Atlantis Hypothesis – Searching for a Lost Land? fiveby(zero) 22:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Doug, i was going to clean references in that article but could not bring myself to remove the first citation checked: an article by [https://www.brunel.ac.uk/life/library/ArchivesAndSpecialCollections/world-war-profiles/Kingdon-Tregost-Frost K.T. Frost] even tho the use in completely inappropriate in context. Anyway kind of feel this presentation of "location hypotheses" is flawed from the outset. fiveby(zero) 14:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I moved this page because "Location hypothesis" is a bit too WP:PROFRINGE implying that there is an academic discussion of this idea within the context of the scientific method. jps (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Question about whether apparent skeptic and "UFO research" Steven Greenstreet's New York Post YouTube videos are reliable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{al|Make America Healthy Again}}

Attempts to whitewash the quackery underway; probably a worthy addition to your watchlist in any case. Bon courage (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, a big chunk of the content is not about the subject of the article. It mostly wants to talk about Kennedy's personal views and veers off into things like lyme disease and raw milk that aren't even mentioned in the report. GMG^talk 13:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's a movement rather than a report. And in any case taking the Autism Society of America's critique of its programme as "unrealistic and misleading" and watering it down in wikivoice into having a "potentially unrealistic goal" is one of many profringe thoughts currently in the article. Bon courage (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We're not doing a great job at examining it as a movement. It's kindof just asserted in the lead. In fact, we describe it as a movement more times in the lead than in the body. In the body we have a substantial section on the election and appointment. Most of the rest of the article is just about Kennedy's personal views. GMG^talk 14:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The article needs a lot of work. That shouldn't of course be along a weasel/pro-fringe track, like "Kennedy's statements about autism have been criticized by scientists as unscientific, by those that claim autism is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder that has no cure." Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The easiest remedy is to remove the passage entirely. The first source is specifically about Kennedy and doesn't so much as mention MAHA or a movement. The second is just a general page on autism. GMG^talk 15:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:incredible bit of white washing. might be worth telling NPOVN as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:That article was very shitty. I took a scythe to it, it needs a proper writing, let alone a re-writing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's a MAHA primer by THE BGR Group: [https://bgrdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/030425-MAHA-Primer.pdf]. It at least forms a basis of what might be discussed in an article. So much WP:COATrack and WP:PROFRINGE potential in that, though. The brief does not address the fundamental disconnect between the group and scientific evidence or public health consensus. jps (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:There are several articles at WP:SBM.[https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/maha/] Bon courage (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{la|United States gravity control propulsion research}}

Have you all seen this article? Looks a lot like original research and the stitching together of unrelated sources to me.

What do you think we should do with it?

jps (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Based on a quick look at the citations probably around 3/4 are inappropriate. Clean the ref's and see what's left over? I like the concept of History of anti-gravity research, but fringe topics don't often attract editors who will take a historical view of the topic. fiveby(zero) 16:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::That is very nearly a WP:TNT type argument. jps (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It includes "references" like "Confirmed on April 12, 2004 via private communication with Dr. David Kaiser". It's pervasively bad. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with the above. Clean, but remember WP:NPOV even if you are dubious or disbelieving. If a reference is not relevant either tag it or delete it. Any statements that are backed by true sources should be kept. Remove any peacock (I already did some) carefully.

::::Any sections which are not relevant and/or unsourced should be removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I like Kaiser's stuff, but think the article if it survives should be citing {{cite journal|author=Kaiser, David|authorlink=David Kaiser (physicist)|year=2018|title=The Price of Gravity: Private Patronage and the Transformation of Gravitational Physics after World War II|work=Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences|publisher=University of California Press|volume=48|issue=3|url=https://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/HSNS4803_03_Kaiser.pdf}} instead of his dissertation. But there has to be a better place for that content other than a WP article about anti-gravity propulsion research 1955-1974. fiveby(zero) 00:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Seems to be some COPYVIO from [http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/html-3/biefeld-brown-effect.htm here] part of [http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/html-3/the_montauk_project.html Montauk Project]. I'll try and find a copyvio tool to run the article through before rm'ing anything else. fiveby(zero) 16:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Tcisco}}, can you tell us who is the original author here and where first published? [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=United+States+gravity+control+propulsion+research&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zamandayolculuk.com%2Fhtml-3%2Fbiefeld-brown-effect.htm 98.2%] matching text. Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_gravity_control_propulsion_research&oldid=237435737 version from 2008] is the earliest i've found so far. fiveby(zero) 16:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::NM, looks like all the versions i'm finding are copying from WP. fiveby(zero) 17:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The more I think look into this, the more I come to the conclusion that the entire endeavor is little better than a conspiracy theory. I have no doubt that there was funding for various out-on-a-limb projects from time to time through NASA or the DOD. I also acknowledge that the Gravity Research Foundation has a fascinating history (though I think David Kaiser sometimes overstates the importance of these fringe endeavors much as he may have with How the Hippies Saved Physics). But as a coherent topic, I think this simply does not have a place. Most, if not all, of these individual ideas were entirely independent; some WAAAY out on the Steven Greer limb and others adjacent to legitimate research. So, what do y'all think? AfD? jps (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:After a bit of googling, my suggestion is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_gravity_control_propulsion_research&diff=prev&oldid=1295413157 this]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I suggest AfD and not prod, make it procedural, and in the AfD it would be good to dump all the sources/ref material in one go or link to this section:

:* Talk:United States gravity control propulsion research#All the current sources in the article and relevant data

:The toss that entire pre/nowiki blog into the AfD in a pre-collapsed note so it's saved for theoretical future wiki work. Whatever all that data's value (or not), it's nearly 20~ years of collecting by 100+ users. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

(Moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Promotion of anti-trans fringe theories on J. K. Rowling)

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Definitely bring this up at WP:FAR. If there is controversy over WP:NPOV, that is disconfirming for featured articles. I'm not sure this is technically about WP:FRINGE theories, though I agree there are a few such ideas floating around in these spaces. Consider cross-posting this concern at WP:NPOVN (and maybe closing discussion here since I think it is better posed as a neutrality question). jps (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Is ScienceOpen a reliable source? Doug Weller talk 16:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not surprised, but the details revealed are certainly worthy of explaining in relevant articles: [https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/ufo-us-disinformation-45376f7e?st=w3Horo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink] jps (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

: Can't read source, is this about Majestic 12? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry you can't read it! I linked a gift article, but apparently that's not working for everyone?

::It's in line with the Majestic 12 hoax, but these detail activities were largely unreported prior, as far as I can tell.

::"The [AARO] mission fell into two buckets. One was to collect data on sightings, particularly around military installations, and assess whether they could be explained by earthly technology. Amid growing public attention, the number of such reports has skyrocketed in recent years, to 757 in the 12 months after May 2023 from 144 between 2004 to 2021. AARO linked most of the incidents to balloons, birds and the proliferation of drones cluttering the skies....

::...The office found that some seemingly inexplicable events weren’t so strange after all....

::...The office’s second mission proved to be more peculiar: to review the historical record going back to 1945 to assess the claims made by dozens of former military employees that Washington operated a secret program to harvest alien technology. Congress granted the office unprecedented access to America’s most highly classified programs to allow Kirkpatrick’s team to run the stories to ground....

::...But Kirkpatrick soon discovered that some of the obsession with secrecy verged on the farcical. A former Air Force officer was visibly terrified when he told Kirkpatrick’s investigators that he had been briefed on a secret alien project decades earlier, and was warned that if he ever repeated the secret he could be jailed or executed. The claim would be repeated to investigators by other men who had never spoken of the matter, even with their spouses.

::It turned out the witnesses had been victims of a bizarre hazing ritual....

::...Kirkpatrick investigated another mystery that stretched back 60 years. In 1967, Robert Salas, now 84, was an Air Force captain sitting in a walk-in closet-sized bunker, manning the controls of 10 nuclear missiles in Montana.... Kirkpatrick’s team dug into the story and discovered a terrestrial explanation. The barriers of concrete and steel surrounding America’s nuclear missiles were thick enough to give them a chance if hit first by a Soviet strike. But scientists at the time feared the intense storm of electromagnetic waves generated by a nuclear detonation might render the hardware needed to launch a counterstrike unusable.... But any public leak of the tests at the time would have allowed Russia to know that America’s nuclear arsenal could be disabled in a first strike. The witnesses were kept in the dark." jps (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Nevermind, it seems to working for me now. Very interesting story. A cautionary tale on the power of conspiritorial thinking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{tq|A cautionary tale on the power of conspiritorial thinking}} [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giOzSmuV-aM Or so the Germans would have us believe]. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, I've not seen this before. "Or so the Germans would have us believe".Sgerbic (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the gift link. I see there is a second part. How should we as editors use this WSJ article? Do we wait for the second part? Do we wait for even more articles to come out from independent reliable sources? I remember when JAMA confirmed Havana Syndrome which was against the growing scientific skepticism consensus that it was most probably mass psychogenic illness and moral panic. Sgerbic (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Chetsford Seems to have already used it in a number of articles including the Robert Salas article. I think that AARO would benefit from having material added from this article. No need to wait for Part 2, which hopefully will help even more. jps (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If someone is enterprising enough to combine it with the Paul Bennewitz stuff and Steven Greenstreet's recent parallel story which provides additional info inline with the WSJ story[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcwkyRLpz4Q] (I started a discussion at RSN about the potential of a WP:NEWYORKPOST carve-out for Greenstreet's fringe topics reporting, similar to the carve-out we have for their entertainment reporting, though it didn't really attract much attention), it might even serve as the basis for a standalone article on Pentagon UFO hoaxes. I haven't really been following the UFO space that closely for the last week, though, since the original WSJ story hit, so probably am not very helpful beyond this amorphous suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oh interesting. Thanks I'll check these links out. Sgerbic (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Feoffer has also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malmstrom_UFO_incident&diff=1294374790&oldid=1285231799 applied it] where needed. UFO conspiracy theories is another potential article. Oh wait, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFO_conspiracy_theories&diff=1294556090&oldid=1293729988 he's already got there]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The WSJ article's use of the phrase "UFO conspiracy industry" is also telling for a mainstream media outlet. Perhaps it is time for an encyclopedic article on that business topic? It reminds me of a [https://badufos.blogspot.com/2025/05/skywatcher-uap-class-studies-bird-flock.html recent comment] by Bob Sheaffer, within which he presents "industrial" bone fides of Elizondo, Mellon, et alia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:From a folkloric perspective, it's hard to overstate the importance of the latest WSJ article, which documents a pattern of spreading false UFO lore going back to the 1950s. We've long known the practice occurred but we never knew the scale. It has the potential to help explain the claims of post-1950 recipients of supposed "insider info", from Keyhoe all the way to Mellon, Elizondo, Grusch, Malmgren and others. Feoffer (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really a fringe issue, I think it's more of an issue about inclusion. But issues about the reliability, and how to judge the weight of sources, that are critical of a subject are the kind of skills that you develop working with fringe subjects. Anyone who's interested see WP:RSN#Hugh Urban on Frithjof Schuon and Talk:Frithjof Schuon#NPOV Template. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This group does not exist. Their existence has been questioned since they were mentioned by Ilya Ponomarev following the killing of Darya Dugina. The Kyiv Independent[https://kyivindependent.com/washington-post-sbu-behind-duginas-death-target-was-her-father/] and Washington Post[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-shadow-war-russia/] reported that the killing was planned and carried out by the Ukrainian SBU. This is echoed by The New York Times[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/us/politics/ukraine-russia-dugina-assassination.html], the Kyiv Post[https://www.kyivpost.com/post/23139], the BBC[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2lvv3y6g9o], The Guardian[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/17/killing-of-russian-general-sbu-vengeance-ukraine], The Independent[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-assassins-sbu-targets-b2665664.html]. The "National Republican Army" has not been mentioned since the news surrounding Dugina's death had died down and there has been no new evidence of this group's existence. The only "evidence" of the group is a Telegram channel, and anyone can start one of those.

In addition to the two articles mentioned, the group is also mentioned here: Russian partisan movement (2022–present)#Assassination of Darya Dugina. Probably in other articles too.

Searching for the group on Google returns Wikipedia and a bunch of other wiki-sites that copied from Wikipedia. It would appear that Wikipedia is actively spreading disinformation. It'd be good if more editors took a look at this. Thank you. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what is it about WP:FRINGE that you would like us to action. I mean, are you asserting that the mainstream opinion is that the organisation does not exist and it's a slam-dunk case? If not, I'm not sure that FRINGE applies, and also I'm not sure what changes do you propose to the article.

:The current lead says this: {{tq|Commentators have expressed doubts as to Ponomarev's claims about the group. Media coverage of Dugina's assassination stresses that there is no independent verification of the Russian NRA's existence or its role in the assassination.}} - is that not enough for you?

:However, I did a Google search of Russian-, Ukrainian- and English-language media outlets with the after:2023-01-01 modifier to exclude any hits reporting on Dugina's murder (August 2022) to see if OP's right and maybe we ought to call it a hoax. There are in fact some later hits: [https://meduza.io/news/2023/04/04/natsionalnaya-respublikanskaya-armiya-vzyala-na-sebya-otvetstvennost-za-vzryv-v-peterburge Meduza, Mar 2023] - claiming responsibility for a bomb attack in St. Petersburg, [https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/russian-exiles-call-for-assassination-of-putins-regime-dzpxcgb0k The Times, Jun 2024] (rereported in [https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6792679 Kommersant]) - an article length report about Russian resistance.

:Al Jazeera [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1/25/russian-saboteurs-seek-to-hamper-putins-war-machine quoted an expert (Jan 2023)], Sergey Radchenko, who said that it does not exist; The Times article said the organisation merely "aroused some suspicion," as did [https://www.newsweek.com/meet-russian-rebel-groups-waging-war-within-putins-own-borders-1793715 a Newsweek article from April 2023] when quoting [https://jamestown.org/analyst/alec-bertina/ Alec Bertina] (I trust they truthfully reported what he said).

:All in all, I'm not sure what change the OP tries to achieve but the lead seems adequate in light of the sources, and IMHO FRINGE here does not apply. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I'm not sure what change the OP tries to achieve but the lead seems adequate in light of the sources}}

::I wasn't talking about the lede, but about this section in particular: Darya Dugina#Killing. The section starts off with long paragraphs about the "NRA", which is probably due to WP:RECENTISM. We now know that the "NRA" had nothing to do with the killing and they probably do not exist, so I don't see why so much text should be spent on them. They certainly shouldn't be the first ones mentioned.

::In the same vein, this section Russian partisan movement (2022–present)#Involved groups uses a lot of words to talk about a "purported manifesto" and also places the "NRA" in the beginning, i.e. prominently.

::In the article about the group National Republican Army (Russia) the section on their non-existence is called Debate over existence, while there isn't actually that much debate, with most WP:RS saying they probably don't exist. Presenting the issue as a debate makes it sound like their existence is just as likely as their non-existence, which isn't true. This is the WP:FRINGE part, there isn't a lot of evidence for them existing and as you pointed out experts doubt their existence. For example, there's no section in the UFO article titled "Debate about the existence" (and rightly so). It is against WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE to say there is a debate regarding the existence of something when there isn't. So at the very least the three sections I linked should be rewritten in light of what we know now and RS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The UFO example is actually not relevant. We don't know if UFOs aka alien spacecraft exist, and most UFO sightings are explainable by other, more prosaic reasoning, but there are some folks who publish totally outlandish ideas about the subject, which is why it is a FRINGE topic.

:::Here, there is really no pseudoscience, esotericism or conspiratorial thinking involved. Instead, the only issue is whether the claimed organised movement exists. It's not exactly like shadow government whose purported existence is by definition unverifiable. In this case, the organisation claims to exist but some say there are signs suggesting it is only a Ponomaryov's wet dream, so it's a falsifiable hypothesis. You are trying to stretch the application of FRINGE here, but I want other editors' confirmation on my opinion.

:::The article does not assert as fact that NRA doesn't exist for a good reason - there isn't consensus among sources that the organisation is definitely a one-man show (some do say that, but can you show that this is consensus?) There is, however, consensus that its real existence raises doubts ("most WP:RS saying they probably don't exist" is not my reading of the sources present in the article; but you can, and in fact, should, provide more if you can; just don't choose only those which confirm your suspicion). The issues you raise are more NPOV issues than FRINGE. I agree that Dugina's killing section may be shortened (WP:BALANCE); as for the partisan movement, you have the Newsweek article as a starting point to write up about other resistance groups. Do some research yourself and write up the relevant sections so that NRA's prominence is reduced (in this particular case, I believe it has more to do with incompleteness than deliberate promotion).

:::{{tq|We now know that the "NRA" had nothing to do with the killing}} Ukraine never officially admitted to the assassination (see The Times). The source of that information was anonymous officials in the Ukrainian government - which is probably "almost there" but not quite exactly there ("distrust anonymous sources"). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I'm just gonna let others opine. I think my position on this is clear. I have other stuff to do. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::While FRINGE may not be the best tool to use here i think we should still try to be as helpful as possible.

::*{{cite report|last=Peterson|first=Annabel|year=2025|title=The Enemy Within: Russians in Ukrainian Army Ranks and the Fracturing of Post-Soviet Identity|publisher=International Centre for Defence and Security|url=https://icds.ee/en/the-enemy-within-russians-in-ukrainian-army-ranks-and-the-fracturing-of-post-soviet-identity/}} [Estonian think tank]

::*{{cite web|last=Kruglova|first=Anna|date=May 2, 2023|title=The National Republican Army: A Potential Force of Resistance in Russia?|publisher=Royal United Services Institute|url=https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/national-republican-army-potential-force-resistance-russia}} [Commentary]

::*{{cite journal|last=Black|first=J.L.|year=2024|title=The Kremlin’s Responses to Anti-War Voices in Russia|work=Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies|volume=17|issue=1|url=https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/article/view/4385}}

::*{{cite report|last=Schmies|first=Oxana|date=March 2023|title=Building Up the Democratic Potential of the New Russian Emigrants|publisher=German Marshall Fund|url=https://www.gmfus.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Schmies%20-%20Russian%20emigrants%20-%20paper%20-%20web.pdf}}

::Academic analysis is seemingly sparse, tho there are more passing mentions elsewhere, and note three of the above sources three are think tanks. I don't know that there which can be done here, there is a complete failure on WP's part in finding a way to incorporate journalism reliably and neutrally into encyclopedia articles. fiveby(zero) 17:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)