We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact.
If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, create new ones if needed, and discuss sources that are either usable as citations or which help us to better understand them.
New cryptid/UFO article with bad sourcing, prime deletion candidate. Maybe somebody is familiar with it and knows better sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Can we keep all UFO hypotheses named "UFO hypothesis" in their title, please? I just renamed two more: Space animal UFO hypothesis and Cryptoterrestrial UFO hypothesis. Without "UFO" in the title, it is easy for readers to think these are something more serious than they actually are. It's not as though they are acting as serious preregistered hypotheses or something for someone to go back to and check up on after we find out the Captial T-Truth. jps (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Excellent point. I will rename them as I see them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Gulyas, Aaron John (2015). The Paranormal and the Paranoid: Conspiratorial Science Fiction Television. Rowman & Littlefield.
looks like a good source. Can't find available online but can send thru WP:RX. I nominate Slatersteven to merge it, knew i'd seen this before but couldn't remember where. Why do you need an Afd? Why not just merge it? fiveby(zero) 15:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Was going to put this comment on the Afd, but what about the left over redirect? There are real "secret space programs" aren't there. Assume there is a Special Access Program office in Space Systems Command for dealing with something? I feel pretty Buck Rogers writing that but there's probably a list of historic now declassified soviet and U.S. programs that could be listed in a DAB? fiveby(zero) 17:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
There either is or there isn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Well i hope there is! They are landing rockets on their tails just like 50's sci-fi and Marvin the Martian so don't understand why i shouldn't enjoy being pro-fringe here. pew pew.
What i really meant tho is that there are historic and current projects (sometimes called 'programs') which are or have been to some degree "secret". But when a reader types "secret space..." into the search box (here or Google) WP is kind of leading them by the nose to a conspiracy theory.
Since the Afd is trending keep/don't merge i'm trying to find good overview sources to help decide what the primary topic for "secret space program" should be:
Secret space program (Goode) the current state of the content
Secret space program (conspiracy theories) probably best supported by the sources i've seen, but it's all piecemeal and no good overview source yet
Secret space program (Alternative 3) an argument which isn't flying in the Afd
Secret space program (real projects) which we should probably give the reader at least a chance at
Watchlisted Cooper and Behold a Pale Horse and keeping my eye out for sources. fiveby(zero) 15:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
What do you think? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
In fact, studies concerning ingesting individual components of panchagavya, such as cow urine, have shown no positive benefit, and significant side effects, including convulsion, depressed respiration, and death.
Should make the following corrections to avoid WP:SYNTH:
- Remove 'in fact', which is implying support for the previous statement not explicitly stated in the source.
- Replace "studies" with the singular since one study is being cited.
- Mention that the side effects were observed in mice.
- Study says that the side effects of convulsion, depressed respiration, and death were observed at "higher doses", with 'excitement' observed at low doses. Sentence should make this clear.
Cow urine can also be a source of harmful bacteria and infectious diseases, including leptospirosis.
- The study mentions that of the 124 cows included in the study, leptospires were found in one "heavily contaminated" cow urine sample. Antibodies to leptospires were found in blood serum of 40.3% of cows, but the specific association of cow urine with leptospirosis is weaker. Would like to see a source that more definitively supports this sentence. 11achitturi (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Another editor reverted, so I implemented the above suggestions.. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Last edit removed a WP:SBM link as "unreliable". Maybe other sources are needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Explore isn't named directly by many sources, but I was at least able to add a non-SBM reference to Emoto's work in Mind the Science though they don't really go into detail on it there. I'd argue that if the journal's criticism is going to be excised in the first paragraph it might as well be removed from the rest of the article too. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Side issue; I challenge anyone to read the sentence "According to the Journal Citation Reports, in 2025 the journal had an impact factor of 2.4." and quickly tell me from following the links whether that is a particular high or low number. Now tell me from following the links why I should care, and whether impact factor is bogus. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't see it as particularly useful absent information about how many articles the journal publishes in a year. I was tempted to remove the earlier sentence where it was "criticized due to its low impact factor". Nonetheless academic journal articles seem stuck with having this metric on every single page (Water (journal) etc.) -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, it's a major thing for all journals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Can we add info to the lead of Impact factor that quickly tells the reader whether a number like 2.4 shows a high or low impact? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't do it particularly elegantly but there you go. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Isn't SBM reliable? It's sometimes SPS, so it can't be used on BLPs sometimes, but it wasn't about a BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:SBM, yeah. I might not add it to the lead (quotes are rarely ideal in the lead), but that's more a dueness thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something major, there are quite a few differences here, and I don't see anything PROFRINGE on the Wikipedia article. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, the Wikipedia article is in fact written as if the shape of the planet had not been thoroughly established centuries before, and that this shape had for hundreds of years been understood by mariners, if not be certain WP:FRINGE notables. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I just found it to be interesting that the two pages use the same sources, but one mentions the pole halfway down the length of the canal that could be used to see curvature of the Earth between the two end points while the other conveniently omits that part of Wallace's experiment. Also the Flat Earth version contains a bald faced lie: "the court also determined that Wallace had, indeed, cheated".
The real lesson here is that you should start with the best sources you can find and write the article to match the sources, rather than starting with your conclusion, searching for sources that support it, and ignoring any that don't. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I think that that would be solved by adding a background section. I'll start working on it now. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 19:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Scholars describe Hancock's investigations of archaeological evidence, myths, and historical documents as mimicking investigative journalism while lacking accuracy, consistency and impartiality. They label his work pseudoarchaeology and pseudohistory because they see it as biased toward preconceived conclusions that ignore context, misrepresent sources, cherry pick and omit evidence that contradicts his claims. Hancock's idea of an advanced ice age civilisation is seen as a variant of the hyperdiffusionism hypothesis that has been advocated by various authors since the 19th century.
To me, it sounds a lot like it's saying "mainstream academia is hiding the truth". I half expected the paragraph to end in something along the lines of "but Hancock's theories are grounded in evidence and they don't want you to know about it". I'm going to rewrite it as soon as I finish typing out this comment, but I thought that I'd put this on the noticeboard as well. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 20:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
What do the actual WP:RS in play for each sentence actually overtly support for WP:V? That's what matters most. — VPP (t/c) 20:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't have access to Fritze's work and the citation for Fagan's book leads to a limited preview that doesn't go past the table of contents, but Hammer and Swartz say that Hancock cherry-picks evidence and his theories are mostly plagiarised from earlier authors such as Erich von Däniken, Charles Hapgood, etc. They also accuse Hancock of racism and hiding the racist origins of his theories. Looking at their conclusion briefly, it seems that they are also saying that pseudoscience is comparable to mythology and thus Hancock is making up myths. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:09, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, the paragraph conveniently omits the accusations of racism found in several of the sources they use (for some reason a few of the cited sources didn't transfer over when I copied over the text here). ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
You need an Archive account to borrow/read it. — VPP (t/c) 21:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't have an archive.org account, so that's a problem. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
They are free and instant. Just use whatever email you used for Wikipedia. — VPP (t/c) 22:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm just glancing at 217-218. You want access, there's a lot on Hancock. As usual, we barely use a source rather than treat it like a roast chicken, stripped to the bone and then used as stock base for soup later. — VPP (t/c) 22:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I just checked it and it looks roughly in line with the paragraph I replaced the previous one with and when I used the source. I could be missing something here (I have a tendency to miss things), but overall it doesn't change much. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
If you're still working on this did you get access to Fagan's Archaeological Fantasies? His chapter "Diagnosing pseudoarchaeology" uses Hancock as the primary example. Try WP:RX. fiveby(zero) 11:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately the book is only available to "patrons with print disabilities"(no, I have no idea what that means) on archive.org so I don't have access to it. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Capitalist. The only available to "patrons with print disabilities" is due to Hachette v. Internet Archive. IA no longer lends digital copies of works from some publishers where there is not a digital version sold by the publisher. Wikipedia does seem to claim fair use for book chapters, and other editors can provide these resources through Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. You will tho have to link an email in your user preferences for Wikipedia:Emailing users. fiveby(zero) 13:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia does seem to claim fair use for book chapters
While you're bringing that up, what's the PAG that gets into the use of sentence level quotes, or multiple from one source, like this?
I often in drafts/scribbling locally put in the entire relevant sentence I'm working off, then typically pare it back entirely like this, or just use keywords/snippets like this for people to find whatever I drew from. Your words there got me wondering if I'm being overly cautious now. — VPP (t/c) 16:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:COPYQUOTE is part of an essay, WP:Non-free content#Text a guideline, and WP:NFCC3A policy. Seen some discussions about this with complaints about the extent of quoting and responses claiming it's a useful thing to do while developing an article. Most of the quotes are never removed or trimmed. I'd say you are being over-cautious worrying about fair use: it's irrelevant until someone complains, not a real issue until you get caught out, and not a problem until you get penalized for doing it.
I would say it's bad practice to leave such quotes in the article. You are supposed to present a neutrally written summary not give the reader a bunch of snippets which purport to do so. And this is sometimes a tactic of POV-pushers in controversial articles. Cherry-pick a quote they like and add it to a "ps" to overemphasize something. A summary of a source(s) is about all the relevant content of those sources, not snippets. Leave the quote in only if it benefits the reader. Some of those left in articles tend to obscure other parts of the source such as qualify or contradictory information. fiveby(zero) 18:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of "mainstream academia is hiding the truth" is wrong. I don't see it. We already hit readers over the head in the first sentence with "British author known for promoting pseudoscientific[2][3] explanations of ancient civilisations". We need not bend over any further to pander to those poor dumb readers who might still be confused. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
They label his work...because they see it as... Sounds a bit defensive I think. "Label" = obviously the wrong word for ideas rejected by the mainstream. Thanks for the edit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, "seen as a variant of the hyperdiffusionism hypothesis" is something interesting given his "theory" explicitly falls under the definition of hyperdiffusionism. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@F0malhaut42 Sorry for reverting you, I mistakenly thought your edit was adding "seen as". Hypnôs (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Having subjected myself to the first two episodes of Ancient Apocalypse (I didn't have the will or the patience to keep watching), "Scholars describe my investigations of archaeological evidence, myths, and historical documents as mimicking investigative journalism while lacking accuracy, consistency and impartiality" sounds like an actual quote from Graham Hancock. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
To me, it sounds like it's saying GH is a crackpot. So... Accurate. VdSV9•♫ 14:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
In the Ars piece there's a WHO statement on unethical human experimentation. Per this february Science post, sounds a big scandal. These are the problematic related entries I could find. They appear created by undisclosed COI editors. More eyes needed.
I think the proposed Guinea-Bissau trial could support its own article at this point. On a side note, Non-specific effect of vaccines would be an odd thing for antivaxers to work on, as it is generally about unexpected additional benefits of vaccination. For this reason, however, the "Controversy" section of that article is out of place, since the asserted detriment discussed there would therefore not be considered a "non-specific effect" , as the term is used, at all. BD2412T 02:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I have started Draft:Proposed Guinea-Bissau hepatitis B vaccine trial. Given the police raid, the formal Council of Ministers vote rejecting the study, and the involvement of three national governments generally, I think this rises to the level of being its own article. BD2412T 03:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The draft article seems a decent addition. I still think this likely belongs in an article relating RFK or the HHS under RFK or similar. The US governments funding of this coming from RFK seems to be significantly discussed in sources. While it's more difficult to gauge exactly how significant this is in RFK's tenure, the fact it's a controversy in the news over many months suggests it is significant when it comes to RFK, probably more so than some of the other stuff currently covered. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The article is now live at Proposed Guinea-Bissau hepatitis B vaccine trial. It is orphaned, for the moment, and I would recommend adding a line about it to the RFK article, and to the various related articles listed above. BD2412T 23:23, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
By the way, does anyone know if there is an infobox for something like this? BD2412T 00:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Just to see if this is one of those questions an AI can answer I asked Google AI "What would be the best infobox for the Wikipedia "Proposed Guinea-Bissau hepatitis B vaccine trial" article?" It suggested Template:Infobox medical trial and even gave me an infobox all filled out that I could (if I was stupid) simply cut and paste into the article.
Except that it doesn't exist. It is a plausible-sounding AI hallucination. The correct answer is Template:Infobox clinical trial:( --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, for good measure, here are other unreviewed new articles related to fringe theories that would benefit from a look (consider becoming a reviewer):
I've tidied up the lede to 'Hypothetical causes of UFO reports' a little, though the article needs more work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Since the 1940s, mainstream explanations of unidentified flying object (UFO) reports have attributed most of them to people misidentifying ordinary objects and phenomena, while according to NPR "a sizable chunk remains a mystery." The "mystery" bit attributed to NPR (not exactly an authoritative source on the topic) seems tacked on to add some drama and explain the origin of fringe views. It's really not needed since "most of them" already covers it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Halbared (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
It misrepresented the source. NPR actually wrote The Pentagon's new office for investigating potential UFO sightings received hundreds of new reports in 2022, and while it can explain more than half of those events, a sizable chunk remains a mystery. 'These events'. Ones reported to the pentagon in 2022. The NPR report is dated January 2023. I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Meanwhile, User:ජපස will likely have a problem with the article title implying the fringe views are "hypothesis". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
For consistency, the (main) article title can simply be UFO hypothesis. Then someone can figure out if we need all these separate articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
UFO hypotheses is the natural choice for an umbrella article title, but ජපස has long expressed ambivalence about the using a term that might imply some level of actual scientific rigor where none actually exists. Feoffer2 (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh I thought ජපස suggested adding "UFO" to "hypothesis" as a necessary distinction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I had always felt it a kind of placeholder. These are really just UFO denominations, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
scientific consensus maintains Bigfoot remains firmly within the pseudoscience of cryptozoology and is not a real creature.
Scientific consensus argues the existence of Bigfoot is not credible, and such stories are more plausibly explained as hoaxes, folklore, misidentification, or other mundane factors.
the evidence is a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, and the creature is dismissed by scientists as not a real living animal.
Makes me want to go qualify all of history in WP articles as only a "consensus of historians". There is often much less justification in what WP asserts than would be in simply stating "Bigfoot is not a real living animal". fiveby(zero) 14:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, a scientific consensus doesn't "argue" for one thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Taking your statement overly literally your are incorrect and illustrating my dislike of the term. To argue for something means to present the reasons why it might be true:
scientific consensus maintains Bigfoot is not a real animal "argues for" something in presenting a reason for it, the basis is "scientific consensus"
Bigfoot is not a real animal does not "argue for" something, it is a declaration that something is [not] true
i take it tho that you mean "consensus" wording is not taking a side in an issue or debate. I agree but think WP best informs the reader by simply declaring this [un]true. Do it all the time in article with less justification than in this case. fiveby(zero) 15:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The Spielberg comment under "Alien visitors" looks more like speculation than hypothesis, and, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in the "time travellers" section. Brunton (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
It's the human beings making the claims that are the causes of UFO reports. This appears to be an article about how various people explain UFOs themselves. jps (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Yup. When you put it like that, the title isn't just clumsy, it's wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
The interdimensional UFO narrative, the demonic UFO narrative? fiveby(zero) 23:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Something like "Origin theories in ufology". It's good to establish origin as the topic and Ufology as the context. Theories, of course, in the informal sense. Hypothesis sure, but it always sounds so pretentious. Other words for theories could be "speculation" or "proposals". - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I thought narrative pretentious, like "lost cause narrative" and so too much implying an explanation of real events. But people say "UFO narrative(s)" meaning more than just a specific account, "ancient astronaut narrative", "extraterrestrial narrative" (mostly meaning gods were aliens), etc.
An origin myth is a mythical tale explaining a real aspect of the world, and "origin theory" even more so makes it sound like you're trying to explain the origin of real aliens. Like the "in Ufology" part tho. The origin here is stories, tales, accounts and a subculture combines them with other stories to create yet more stories. Was looking at Cryptoterrestrial UFO hypothesis and what should be a major source A Culture of Conspiracy. Barkun would probably prefer "UFO conspiracism" or "UFO conspiracy theory" but story, tale, account, legend, lore, myth, motif are frequent descriptors. Belief would probably be next most common.
I don't really care all that much, just spitballing from jps's "human beings making the claims". Doubt any title would satisfy many people, except "hypothesis" which satisfies the UFO subculture. fiveby(zero) 02:14, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
...conjecture as in your other words for theories? How about speculocatenation—the linking together of purely speculative ideas? fiveby(zero) 02:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
"Speculative interpretations of UFOs/UFO reports"? Feoffer2 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't suggest using "theory" but Stone Tape theory is an interesting example of subculture hypothesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
They all sound reasonable, I like 'Origin theories in ufology,' it's succinct, accurate and NPOV. Halbared (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
"Theory" makes it sound like it's science, which it is not. As such it is very POV. ~2026-42943-14 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
"Beliefs and speculations in ufology". These various hypothesis are all either things people believe or have made guesses about within the context of being interested in (what they feel is) the mystery of UFOs and publishing about it (ufology). It's a bit bigger tent than "what are they" but nicely keeps context (ufology) clear. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah. Both of these seem to be largely AI-generated as well, so stubbifying or WP:BLAR are probably the best directions. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe I am misreading the issue here, but I don't think the word "hypothesis" suggests anything at all about rigor, validity, sanity or commonsensicality. "Alien visitors", "time travelers", "drug-induced hallucinations" and "people making stuff up" are all examples of hypotheses for why UFO reports occur and calling them that is not an opinion about their worth. Zerotalk 05:10, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The hypothesis is the most powerful tool invented by human beings to achieve dependable knowledge. In essence, a hypothesis is a testable, tentative, and reasoned (but unproven) explanation for a problem or observed phenomenon based on partial evidence. It provides a satisfying answer to the research question and serves as a statement that can be empirically tested.
The case of ufology shows that cultural packaging—a sort of once-removed indication of scientific authority—can be key in creating knowledge accepted as scientific. This adds a new dimension to the argument that scientific legitimacy is constructed, not just from scientific methodologies and institutional location, but also of language, culture, rhetoric, and symbols. Fringe researchers can make their cases for legitimacy using a variety of strategies—few of which involve actual research. Outside of the scientific community, scientific-sounding explanations and proclamations of expert statuses hold sway. Ambiguities about what constitutes science can be capitalized upon by groups like ufologists that assemble shards of legitimacy using science as a cultural template... These groups, ignored or exiled by mainstream science, include researchers of cold fusion (Simon 1999); parapsychology, paranormal metal bending, and psychokinesis (Collins and Pinch 1982); phrenology (Gieryn 1999); and, of course, unidentified flying objects (Ben-Yehuda 1985). These “sciences” have survived to varying degrees as sources of credible scientific claims for some audiences despite their rejection by and exile from conventional science, their failure to employ conventional scientific methodologies, and their rejection of much of theconventional scientific canon. How should this be understood? Reminiscent of Michel Foucault’s connection between cultural language and power, more recent scholarship outlining definitions of scientific power provides certain explanatory hints. Scholars have noted,for example, that language and rhetoric are key to understanding the power of conventional scientific practice. Richard Brown understands scientific authority as being based at least partially in narrative (1998). Correspondingly, Pierre Bourdieu grounds authority not in pure research, but arising instead from agents’ capacity to speak in a way that conveys legitimacy (1999).
—Cross, Ann (2004). "The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers". Qualitative Sociology. 27 (1).
we don't like it. fiveby(zero) 05:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I made a comment about "hypothesis" and you responded about some formal notion of "scientific hypothesis". I.e., you didn't actually respond to my comment. In common English, and also in philosophy, a hypothesis is no more than a proposed explanation for something with no requirement for being sensible or testable. (But I can't help noticing that all four of my examples are testable in principle.) Zerotalk 13:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Now you feel that you are not misreading the issue? Happy i could help. fiveby(zero) 15:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Bloop coordinates
Bloop has an iceberg-based explanation written out but also a coordinate that is incompatible with it. I am not sure if the coordinate is actually sourced, either. Probably needs a replacement or a rewrite. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 07:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
What does my first motorcycle have to do with this? It was a Suzuki B120, which inherited its "bloop" nickname from the B100P. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The sources seem to say otherwise; do you have a source that says it's impossible? Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
What WP:RS says it is incompatible? — VPP (t/c) 15:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
+, essentially - 50 degrees south is far north of the Antarctic sea ice boundaries and notably, these sources do not discuss how or why an iceberg sound would originate this far north of the sea ice boundary. That said, the source for the coordinate does not actually seem to mention the coordinate in question? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like NOAA itself puts it at those coordinates? I guess most of the sourcing derives from that. — VPP (t/c) 17:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says this lies "far north of the Antarctic sea ice boundaries". Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
See the maps and images above. And, come to think of it, this one. ^^So I guess that that citation needs to be swapped. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
That source does not say that. In fact Fig. 1 shows a lot of Icebergs north of 50. Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Only in the Atlantic or upwind of New Zealand, though, at 100W one has to go quite far south to get any icebergs (never mind sound-producing ones, I presume) - never mind that the new source says "between the Bransfield Strait and the Ross Sea" which is definitively not close. But OK, I guess we can just say that the old version of the source gave the coordinate and the new one an azimuth (the text currently doesn't reflect this change) and call it a day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Recent somewhat credulous expansion from WP:PRIMARY sourced documents. Did some copyedits, but likely needs more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
This has been tagged since December 2025. We need to either address whatever the issues are or remove the tag.
Puthoff is one of those cases where someone does some real science and then dives off the deep end into pseudoscience.
Similar cases, presented so we can compare how Wikipedia handles this sort of thing:
Louis Leakey: Prominent scientist. Some people (including archaeologist Mary Leakey) think that his later work on the Calico Early Man Site was somewhere in the range of pseudoscience to disputed science.
Linus Pauling: One of the greatest scientists of all time. His later claims that vitamin C prevent colds, treats cancer, and treats brain-injury in children were pure quackery.
Duane Gish: Prior to 1971 he authored or co-authored approximately 40 technical, peer-reviewed papers in reputable scientific journals within the field of biochemistry. Then he went all in as a creationist and never did any real science after that. So he was a real scientist, but not a particular notable one, and is super notable as a creationist.
Did not know that Leakey and Pauling went off the deep end in their later career. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I think we split the career and early life from each other and merge and greatly reduce the size of the other sections into a section called "Fringe theories". I'll also note that this page has a few AI tells. Nothing drastic, but enough to raise my eyebrows here. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually scrap that, probably half of this page is AI. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
That certainly is one heck of an infobox image! -Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
There is almost definitely a better image available. Where to find it, I don't know. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Good luck. I spent an annoying amount of time tracking just that one down. — VPP (t/c) 12:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually scrap that, probably half of this page is AI.
It is half AI? What half? Most of the article appears unchanged since at least January 2000:
The parapsychology and pseudoscience section is filled with AI tells, and I have quite a few suspicions over the early life and career section as well. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Nevermind. Looking at the revisions again, nearly half of what I thought was AI has been here since 2000. The section headers are a problem though. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Spell out the exact text you are alleging is AI? — VPP (t/c) 21:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Right now, the exact text which I think is AI is "Early life and career" and "Parapsychology and pseudoscience". Those two alone are enough to set alarm bells off in my head but humans are notoriously unreliable at detecting AI so there's every chance I could be wrong. All of the other tells I originally suspected have been there since 2000. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, those two are pretty huge AI tells, especially the "early life and career" one, so I don't think I'm grasping at straws here. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
"Early life and career" is a common staple section name on Wikipedia articles. — VPP (t/c) 22:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I've never seen it. Most of what I've seen is two separate sections called "early life" and "career". It appears I am wrong. I withdraw my statement. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Johnjbarton I apologise for the AI accusations. I should have been more thorough in background checking. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, are your entire AI tells... the section names...? — VPP (t/c) 22:01, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes. I'm being serious here. Not only is this an AI tell listed at signs of AI writing, but I've been conducting a bit of research into AI writing recently and it's come up a bit. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Harold E. Puthoff as an article doesn't even have one of those sections. Perhaps you should move on from these AI allegations. — VPP (t/c) 22:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
It is a general "x and y" format of section titles, but awards and recognition is the most common one. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Just FYI, User:Johnjbarton is apparently the main editor of Harold E. Puthoff, and is a very well respected editor on Wikipedia. I have notified the main author of the article, apparently post 2014 from edit stats, of the AI/LLM accusation on their talk page:
There may possibly be some AI-generated text in recent edits. If there is, it can be fixed. Dealing with the broader issues will likely resolve this anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
(I appreciate your kind words). Based on the edit history I rewrote the "Zero point energy" section in Feb 2024. The edits since that time include some small additions, corrections to citations, and formatting.
I don't see any evidence of AI involvement in these additions. I removed the AI tag pending evidence from @F0malhaut42
The undue tag was set by @LuckyLouie in Dec 2025 I can't see how three paragraphs amounts to undue weight given the complexity of the topic. Note that the fringe theories that Puthoff was involved in was parapsychology not ZPE. I'm sorry did not catch this at the time.
@Johnjbarton there's the first two section titles, the fact that source 8 is cited twice in the same sentence, the rule of three in the lead, Terence Hines's writing being introduced twice and in two separate ways. The fact that Zero-Point energy is a separate section to parapsychology and pseudoscience is also slightly interesting, although that one could be human error. But given the rest, I am fairly confident that this was AI assisted. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Shouldn't this discussion be on the Puthoff talk page and not here? Why is an article being discussed in-depth in "what to do with it?" way outside of its talk page? And no, Linus Pauling did not go off the deep end on his emphasis on humans should take over 1000mgs of Vitamin C daily (unless the deep end is where the good stuff is). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Guy Macon The Harold E. Puthoff was, in my opinion, mistagged, so it is easily fixed. I don't understand you overall post however. Verifiable facts presented in a neutral way about Puthoff, Leakey, Pauling, or Dish belong in the encyclopedia independent of our opinions on the character of those facts. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
No need to ping me. If I make a comment I see any replies on my watchlist.
I am well aware of Wikipedia's rules on sourcing, having edited Wikipedia for over twenty years. Yet there are still areas where editors have to make decisions. Consider scientist A, who publishes a few run of the mill papers before converting to pseudoscience and becoming on of the most prominent slingers of bullshit ever. Now consider Scientist B, who makes major discoveries and wins Nobel prizes, late in life comes to believe in a bit of pseudoscience, but is in no way famous for doing so. In both cases we present verifiable facts in a neutral way independent of our opinions, but we also apply WP:WEIGHT when deciding what to put in the first couple of sentences and what to put much farther down in the page. Look how far you have to go down the Ted Kaczynski page before you see any mention of his work in geometric function theory.
Just as the lead of the Ted Kaczynski page highlights the bombings, I think the Harold E. Puthoff page should highlight the claims of psychic powers, remote viewing, communication without electromagnetism, zero-point energy, UFOs, and alien technology. Right now it doesn't, and that violates WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The Puthoff introduction concisely summarizes the article. Nothing undue about it. It is almost exactly what you wrote minus the bits barely mentioned in the article. The article has one sentence about UFO/alien technology "Puthoff is a participant ...". Omitting this trivia from the intro is normal.
The article is fine, we should move on. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Nice changes, but the article still reads as PROFRINGE. I don't have the time to rewrite the article right now but I'll do it in a few hours if nobody else has done it already. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
