Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Evolution of human intelligence
Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence. Currently [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_of_human_intelligence&oldid=1230696751] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics) where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Kanazawa is a red flag for sure. That section does a very poor job of explaining 'social exchange theory'. It also cites economist Thomas Sowell for claims that are (being extremely generous) way, way too simplistic. This should use reliable WP:IS to summarize instead of dancing around primary sources of wildly varying quality. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Historicity of the Book of Mormon
I've gotten into a bit of a disagreement about whether Mormon apologetics are WP:DUE in this article, and would appreciate additional eyes to let me know if I'm out of line. 68.170.73.15 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Mormon aplogetics should be mentioned, but never as WP:THETRUTH. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just stumbled upon Life of Joseph Smith from 1827 to 1830. The article repeatedly uses wikivoice to say Smith was actively transcribing from plates, which isn't in agreement with mainstream scholarship about languages, angels, etc. If I remove all of the obviously fringe content, I'm afraid there won't be much left. 68.170.73.15 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse scraps US filming plans after outcry from Native American Groups
See  Doug Weller  talk 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg
This IP that has a history of making POV edits on race and intelligence articles is reverting well sourced content on the Helmuth Nyborg article sourced to Danish news sources. Nyborg ‎is a well known far-right activist who attends neo-nazi and white nationalist events and meetings. For example, Nyborg has attended the Scandza Forum (Guide to Kulchur) as Hope Not Hate have noted. For background, there is some information about the Scandza Forum here with other sources. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For further background, the source I added is this source . It was written in Danish but it can easily be translated. It definitely passes WP:RS. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and have followed up at Talk:Helmuth_Nyborg. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also see Curtis Dunkel 51.6.193.169 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Rasashastra
Could do with some eyes, perhaps. Recent edits seem to have added undue fringe material about "purification" of mercury to the Toxicity section. Brunton (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Some ufo edits
Could someone please check this edit which uses the fringe journal Journal of Scientific Exploration as well as the edits on Roswell by the same editor, User:Mcorrlo. Also see their talk page for warnings about using the minor edit tick box and other problems. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Erie Stone
Does this need WP:MEDRS sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say no, this is a historical article. Also it would be hard to find MEDRS sources about an unknown substance. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if it ventures biomedical/health claims. I have to wonder though WTF the category "traditional knowledge" is, that this article belongs to! Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Traditional knowledge. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's much danger from "There's a substance, we're not sure what, that Native Americans used in traditional medicine." It's just not imitable, unlike, say, black salve. If someone wants to claim that a specific substance that might be Erie stone might have specific properties, then we have something we may need to deal with. Compare and contrast the much more discussed and robust Silphium.
 * Basically, I think MEDRS kind of requires a risk that someone will take the article as something they should try. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 08:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Feldenkrais method at RSN
Watchers of this board are no doubt familiar with the article on the Feldenkrais Method, which has been discussed here several times. There has been some recent activity at that article, which has given rise to a discussion at the reliable sources notice board. You can find that discussion at WP:RSN. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Now WP:RSN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Decided to rewrite the lede myself a bit. Kept it short and punchy, we'll see how this goes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Rajiv Dixit


Efforts are being made for a long time now to whitewash this article about a crank mainly known for spreading disinformation and unscientific health-related claims. Take a look at the talk page discussion too. Thanks Orientls (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Expect more new editors coming to support Hancock after a recent tweet
Following the post of a rather odd video by someone titled "Archaeologist John Hoopes Corrupts Wikipedia" Graham Hancock tweeted the video to his almost 500,000 followers saying "University of Kansas Professor John Hoopes contributes ZERO to science in his own work but spends much time pouring scorn on the work of others. By weaponising his editor role at Wikipedia to push his own agenda he brings archaeology into disrepute:" This may involve a number of articles. I've already seen one on Hancock's talk page. Note that Hoopes is an editor here. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Which articles might this affect? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

National Post on climate change at RSN
Something that may be of interest to this noticeboard is the topic of the reliability of Canada's National Post on the subject of climate change. It came to my attention that in a recent journal analysis of the publication it came out worse even than the likes of the Daily Mail on the topic, with ~30% of its output assessed as wayward of the scientific consensus on the subject. See this thread for more details on the potentially relevant issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Family Constellations
Cancel the "pseudoscience" description, it's all proven now! --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Abd-ru-shin
This is about. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
Please see Talk:List of common misconceptions. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)