Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#rfc 8F56AE1

Dawn Perlmutter is a scholar who has had books published by Routledge. On the topic of Satanic Ritual Abuse, I believe she is WP:PROFRINGE, and her works on that topic should not be used. Here are some select quotes from her book Investigating Religious Terrorism and Ritualistic Crimes, published by Routledge:

:One of the most controversial and heinous crimes entailing systematic indoctrination techniques is Satanic Ritual Abuse. Although there are numerous psychological interviews, police reports and physical evidence of survivors of ritual abuse, the extreme denial of these crimes has made it almost impos- sible to prosecute offenders.

:It is also why so many anticult organizations are concerned about the issue of Satanic Ritual Abuse where traditional Satanists have been prosecuted for infiltrating nursery schools and day care centers.

:Other famous controversial descriptions of victims of Satanic ritual abuse and entire Satanic communities practicing Traditional Satanism are described in the classic nonfiction (although some claim they are fictional) books titled Michelle Remembers and Satan’s High Priest. Both books describe in detail heinous ritual practices of Traditional Satanists. The religioustolerance.org website lists 41 multi-victim/multi-offender court cases involving allegations of ritual abuse.

:The debates about the influence of Role-Playing Games on violence were at their peak in the 1980s — the same time when allegations of Satanic Ritual Abuse were being taken seriously. Unfortunately, in the 1990s, there was a backlash against both allegations claiming that Satanic Ritual Abuse and Role-Playing Games were part of a Satanic panic.

:Juries prefer to believe that atrocities such as torturing, impregnating and having sex with your own children in the name of Satan could not possibly occur and opt to believe the cult apologist experts’ opinions instead of hard evidence.

Given that this explicitly advocates for the existence of satanic ritual abuse as a phenomenon, satanists infiltrating daycare centers, the legitimacy of Michelle Remembers, the blame of RPGs on violence, all very fringe opinions, am I correct in believing that Perlmutter's work on Satanic Ritual Abuse largely should not be used, despite the reliability of the publisher?

This was born of a specific dispute today over whether we could use her to call someone a "cult apologist" (I said no because she above calls everyone who didn't think satanists were human sacrificing children a cult apologist) which we will probably find better sources for eventually, but I have encountered this book before while looking into other topics about violence and found its tone and theses to be very odd despite its otherwise reliable publisher, so I thought it better to ask here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:As she is an academic, who had been published no. But we could only use here for her opinions, not for them being facts. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::"As she is an academic, who had been published no" ... I'm having trouble parsing this response. no to what part of my question? Do you dispute that this is PROFRINGE? PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No I am saying we can't dismiss her opinions based on what we think, she is a published academic, as such her views may well be fringe. But they are also by an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not all published academia is an RS, though. We can absolutely dismiss sources based on what they think if it departs from what the vast majority of RS say. That's what WP:PROFRINGE is. There are plenty of reliability published academics who published bogus stuff on say, race science, which is perfectly "Valid academia" process-wise but still unusable because it is fringe. This book is probably not like that on every topic, but if it is on one it is probably unusable for that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::We can opt not to use a source on a particular topic if its view on that topic is in competition with the view of most scholarship. We don't "dismiss" a lengthy book source covering numerous topics because of how we judge its views in one specific area. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, hence why I said it is "probably not like that on every topic, but if it is on one it is probably unusable for that one." PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Perlmutter's book is cited by government bodies and academia across a broad range of disciplines.{{cite report|author=Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation|title=Countering Violent Extremism in Fragile and Conflict Affected States|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c1a2803e5274a46612cda7e/20160701_SU_Report_CVE_in_FCAS_O.pdf|location=London|publisher=HM Government|date=December 2018}}(2005) "Background for The “War on Terror”," Human Rights & Human Welfare: Vol. 5: Iss. 1, Article 42.

Available at: [https://digitalcommons.du.edu/hrhw/vol5/iss1/42]{{cite journal |last1=Byard |first1=Roger W |title=Potential significance of swastika tattoos in a medico-legal setting |journal=Medicine, Science and the Law |date=April 2021 |volume=61 |issue=2 |pages=118–121 |doi=10.1177/0025802420973538}}{{cite journal |last1=Byard |first1=Roger W. |title=Cannibalism—overview and medicolegal issues |journal=Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology |date=14 April 2023 |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=281–287 |doi=10.1007/s12024-023-00623-4}} The book covers a wide variety of topics related to religious violence, much of which relates to Islamic terrorism. Its contents on one specific area, which constitute a small fraction of the book, are not a reason to discount this scholarly work as a source. I know little about Satanism or its misrepresentation, but I think PARKANYAA makes a fair argument that it should not be cited on the topic of Satanic abuse. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::It seems inappropriate for the topic of satanic ritual abuse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:It absolutely cannot be used to call someone a "cult apologist", not even as attributed opinion, not without an extremely strong and high-quality secondary source covering the fact that it made that statement. That's obviously a WP:BLP-sensitive claim and would require a source of the highest quality; a source that plainly has a fringe understanding of cults does not qualify. The above quote is absolutely WP:PROFRINGE, and absent extremely strong secondary coverage to illustrate that her opinion here is significant, that would mean, to me, that she shouldn't be cited on topics related to cults or Satanism or the like at all, not even as an opinion, not unless there's strong reason to believe a specific opinion she has is relevant. Now, as far as some of the other things people said above, does not necessarily render everything she says on other (non-cult-related) topics unusable but I would usually argue that a source being unequivocally PROFRINGE in one topic is a good reason to cast a critical eye on it for other topics, too, since it's a reason to suspect that the source may not have a {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, especially if secondary sources have noticed its fringe nature. That is to say, while we'd have to be cautious about potentially using it for fringe claims, we cannot ourselves simply toss the entire source in the dustbin based purely on our own assessment of what it says; but if secondary sources have said "wow this source is garbage because it's printing all these fringe claims", then the entire source is probably not a RS and is generally not usable for much, if anything. But at the very least the idea of using her for a BLP-sensitive claim related to cults is not defensible. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::The claim in OP is factually incorrect. The earlier discussion was not about citing the book '{{tq|to call someone a "cult apologist"}}'. It is not used about any person, living or dead, in any way. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Either way, see the review I posted below. After reading how thoroughly that eviscerates her, I would say that Perlmutter is not a WP:RS and should not be used anywhere, for anything, in any context. WP:USEBYOTHERS, as you have tried to use to argue for her usability, isn't a strong indicator (especially when it comes to government usage, of course; but even academic usage may only mean that one specific sentence or part is usable.) A review like this completely undercuts any claim that the source could conceivably have a {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Update: I found an academic review of her book. It is not flattering, to say the least:

::{{tq|It is perhaps fortunate, however, that very little of what Perlmutter writes is actually true, or is, at best, of questionable accuracy. In her glossary of terms, for example, she claims that the Necronomicon is a “testament written by the ‘Mad Arab’ Abdul Alhazred, in the 9th century A.D.” (p. 418), when it is in fact a literary creation of short story writer H. P. Lovecraft designed to provide a plot device for his Cthulhu mythos. Similarly, in her section on Satanism she includes Aleister Crowley, even though she freely admits that he “never considered himself a Satanist” (p. 120). More seriously, Perlmutter makes a number of claims about ritual violence and, in particular, the relationship between the Goth subculture and both Satanism and ritual abuse that are questionable to say the least. These include the contention that “traditional Satanists are proposed [by who, she does not say] to be a highly organized, international, secret cult network that is actively engaged in a variety of criminal activities, incluive [sic.] of arson, ritual abuse, sexual abuse, incest, kidnapping, child pornography and ritual murder involving mutilation, Nova Religio dismemberment and sometimes cannibalism” (p. 114). Going further, she claims that Satanic “religious practices include blood rituals, animal and human sacrifice and a variety of sexual sadistic ritual practices for the glory of Satan” (p. 114–15). The fact that little or no evidence for such claims has been found by either scholars or law enforcement agencies is not mentioned. Perlmutter’s book reads like a lurid, modern day Malleus Maleficarum, and describes a world of Satanic ritual violence, gothic sadomasochism, and so on that only exists either as a form of urban myth or in the minds of modern-day witch hunters. While the world she describes is fascinating, it bears little if any relationship to the reality of the marginal religions she describes. The fact that her book is aimed at law enforcement agencies, however, and presents itself as a form of manual for investigating the incidents she describes, makes it all the more worrying.}}{{cite journal|first1=John|last1=Walliss|title=Recent Studies on Religion and Violence|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2007.11.1.97|journal=Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions|date=August 2007|issn=1092-6690|pages=97–104|volume=11|issue=1|doi=10.1525/nr.2007.11.1.97}}

:Based on this I would say that she is absolute garbage as a source - clearly not generally a WP:RS on anything - and should not be cited, in any context, for anything, except via an extremely high-quality secondary WP:RS. (It is also worth pointing out that Perlmutter's background is an assistant professor of art and philosophy; ie. she has no actual expertise in any of these topics whatsoever, further underlining the fact that we have no business citing her for her opinion on them.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well said. It is entirely possible to be both an academic and WP:FRINGE, and Perlmutter is about as clear-cut an example of this as is ever likely to be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Soundly seconded. Sometimes openly expressing a sufficiently nutty view can itself be a strong sign that a source is unreliable regardless of other signs of reliability. Loki (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/asp/people/Perlmutter/index.html was interesting. Polygnotus (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yikes! Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::So what we're seeing here is another example of an academic deciding the whole world operates according to their specialty. With a specialty on the aesthetics of the sacred Perlmutter is treating an analysis of the aesthetics of the sacred as being the Key To Everything. She'd probably have fascinating and insightful things to say about the work of Caravaggio and its relationship to violence but she didn't stop there and instead decided to try and use the power of aesthetics to solve crimes.

::This is, of course, an aestheticization of politics and Walter Benjamin had some things to say about that which makes it unsurprising that the end result of her work is the unscientific creation of an othered scapegoat population selected on aesthetic grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::This rather refutes the idea that even as an SPS her use is valid, I stand corrected. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that this case might make for a good test case for WP:RSPS individual authors on individual topics. I can think of a few other people who come up a lot and this is a better way to handle sourcing than trying to parse publisher. jps (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:As for the general proposal, why? RSPS is already a nightmare. Listings by individual authors would be ever worse. If this was an outlet and not 1 person, this wouldn't even be enough to add it to the list, because it is for perennial sources, not everything that has ever been discussed. AFAIK this person's come up never, before this, other than a passing reference from someone trying to justify themself on the satanic panic talk page like a decade ago.

:I just noticed it because my interests sadly happen to line up a lot with the contents of the book so whenever I would search specific terms related to them, this book turned up with surprising frequency... but that is because I have weird interests, and though this book's quality is bad it has some really, really weird informational deep cuts. And when Cambrial added it as a source by some coincidence I already had the book open in a tab while looking for information on an obscure neo-Nazi guy who is mentioned for like half a page.

:This is not the kind of person or source who would ever be "perennial" anything, there's plenty of protocol for choosing not to use 1 source. I realize now that though we said it was Routledge before, it was actually originally from a publisher they bought out which while reliable is not quite as established as Routledge... generally, publisher is probably the best default look. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've mentioned before that I moonlight as a film and literary critic and I have a background in philosophy so, unsurprisingly, aesthetics is something that interests me quite a lot. As soon as I heard what her specialty was, and her approach, it was like a light turning on. Not only is it intelligible how she fell into fringe writing I can even access multiple critiques, from within philosophy, of that specific trap.

::

::But I agree that RSPS is not the right avenue here explicitly because reliability is contextual. I suspect that Perlmutter is probably quite reliable on the topic of religious art just like the physicist who decides quantum field mechanics explains consciousness is likely reliable for matters of subatomic particle collision and should be treated as unreliable for matters of psychology or metaphysics.

::

::I've said before at WP:RS/N that I dislike the tendency of RfCs to determine works to be WP:GREL/WP:GUNREL because deciding something is "generally (un)reliable" often leads to a cessation of interrogation of the text. "Of course it's reliable, the New York Times is GREL." We need not compound that error further.

::

::It's pretty clear that Perlmutter should not be used for cults or for the intersection of faith and violence. We can see precisely why she is not useful in the nature of the critiques of her work and in the nature of her credentials. But those same things establish a matrix where she might be reliable elsewhere (work on religious art). Let's stick to context-driven approaches to reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Completely agree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{talk-reflist}}

I think this is the correct place for this? I apologise if not. Is anyone free to take a look at the above article and see if this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triphala&diff=prev&oldid=1292550897] is suitable. I reverted the original edit as unreferenced but they have added it with some references. The reason I ask is because when they posted the refs on their talk page, at least two of the doi references didn't work. {{Noping|Hoq Md Rakibul}}. The reason why I think it belongs here is the connection to Ayurvedic. Knitsey (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Knitsey}} {{tq|I think this is the correct place for this?}} It is.

:I have reverted the edit.

:This is possibly part of the recent push by promoters of Ayurveda to publish on Wikipedia.

:Source 1 says things like {{tq| Triphala has a prabhav, meaning special action or trophism, for all doshas (energetics and mind–body types) and thus is balancing for all doshas and constitutions. The gunas, or qualities, of Amalaki are heavy and dry, and both Haritaki and Bhibitaki are considered light and dry.}}

:"Prabhav" - claimed to be a mysterious "special action" that can't be explained by normal properties. It's essentially a catch-all term for "magic effects we can't explain."

:"Doshas" - According to Ayurveda, these are three supposed body energies: Vata (air/wind energy) Pitta (fire energy) Kapha (earth/water energy)

:"Energetics and mind-body types" - the belief that people have different constitutional types based on which "dosha" dominates their body.

:"Gunas" - supposed mystical qualities like "heavy," "dry," "light" that herbs possess beyond their actual physical properties.

:I think Hoq Md Rakibul would have a better experience on an Ayurveda-wiki. Polygnotus (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for that @Polygnotus. I keep up with some of the Ayurveda articles but MEDRS sourcing isn't my strong point (in fact it's virtually nonexistent) so I tend to leave anything that's referenced to those who do know how to assess it. Knitsey (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Knitsey Which dosha dominates your body? Are you an Kapha Pokemon or more a Vata-type? Polygnotus (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Fat, fat is how my body is protected at the moment. That and I sometimes have to use a walking frame still. Thats great for not damaging my body by walking into things. I did once change all the interior door handles in my house as I had a beautiful kimono but it kept catching on them. That used to cause a few injuries. This is what you meant right? Knitsey (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Spoken like a true Kapha prakriti. Polygnotus (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::'''Physical Traits of Kapha Dosha

::::::Heavy and bulky body

::::::White and pale tint of the body

::::::Excess and over body weight

::::::Body weight once increased will be hard to reduce

::::::Slowness in all body activities

::::::Closed and proper teeth

::::::Slow and sluggish body movements

::::::Thick and shiny hairs

::::::Always sleepy''' I would be insulted. But you're not wrong. Knitsey (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|Knitsey}} {{tq|In short, Kapha prakriti individuals are Strong, Stable, Energetic, Intelligent, of quiet nature and with long life span.}}[https://sdlindia.com/characteristics-of-kapha-prakriti/?srsltid=AfmBOoolyQY0ZhlzOd90XfDA1lej9051b7oRp8ZhjbYhvDXVPz9T-ahV] Polygnotus (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Well thats much better. Knitsey (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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)