Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Regarding facts and opinions

Regarding facts and opinions, this change [1] doesn't clearly explain that there's a difference and give you the "if" disclaimer proscribed by WP:ASF. That's why I said the "if" is critical to being NPOV compliant. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Facts are not opinions, opinions are not facts. We need no "if" because the two sets are disjoint. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We need the "if" because NPOV has the "if". If NPOV has the "if", obviously many people don't know the difference between when a statement is fact or just someone's opinion. Yes, they two are separate things, but two separate things often confused. This is a guideline. We're supposed to be helping people by informing them of best practices. If the best practice is to separate clearly, like NPOV says, then it's "best" to do that here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no "if" as you are describing it in WP:ASF. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a distinction between something solely someone's opinion and fact. The "if" is "if not solely so and so's opinion". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Neal. Can you provide a direct quote from WP:ASF? I don't know what you're talking about. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to be more clear: In WP:ASF, it says "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." If here we're going to say here that this is a situation that doesn't require attribution, to be compatible with that statement, we have to be very clear and distinguish between fact and opinion and clearly say "we're not talking about opinions". I'm open to other wording that does that, but it's really needed considering the amount of confusion people seem to have with this (should be straight-forward) section. My wording clearly said we're not talking about opinions, and that's what I've been basing my support of it on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording we currently have does that. It says it point-blank. The problem with your wording is that it states a conditional when there the inverse is an empty set. It's like saying "If the dog is not a cat then treat the dog like a dog." There are no dogs that are cats so the conditional is superfluous and actually misleading in itself! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it. You guys are giving me a headache. I'll just assume my vote to close on my wording is vetoed by you and them since everyone but me seems to think it needs to say something else for whatever reason. They're saying it needs more lawyer-like wording. You're saying it needs less. I'm stepping out of it before I do something really bad to my monitor. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm really confused as to what the controversy actually is, but I changed the wording to make it as clear as possible that we are talking in the last paragraph about using facts rather than opinions. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the change, but the issue they're talking about is that when people see a guideline that mentions facts, which is totally proscribed by policy, they get paranoid that someone's going to assert pseudoscience as fact. The guideline doesn't need to say "Don't assert pseudoscience as fact" because it's absurd to think it would need to list all the things you're not supposed to assert as fact. Still, you could make it really simple by publically promising not to use it to assert pseudoscience as fact, and I'm sure the issue would be resolved. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What something is categorized as is an opinion, certainly, since there is no solution to the demarcation problem. When something has pseudoscientific attributes, we can point them out. For example, stating something like "there is no scientific evidence for paranormal activity" would be a fact that certainly should not have particular attribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Everything that happens in nature is ... natural and normal. Even paranormal psychic activity[2]. We just don't know the explanation... Lakinekaki (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you're allowed to believe that. Good luck finding sources that agree that we don't know the explanation for the overwhelming lack of evidence for paranormal psychic activity. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Twisting other peoples words. You seem to want to be good at it, but sadly you are not. Lakinekaki (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to develop that statement a little more so one understands that by "no scientific evidence" you really mean "no evidence that has ever been accepted as valid by the scientific community" (because that would be a non-seriously disputed statement), but yes, you are essentially correct. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I suspect that in SA's view of the world there is not distinction between "no scientific evidence" and "no evidence that has ever been accepted as valid by the scientific community". in all of the conversations I've had with him where the issue has come up, he has equated a lack of scientific evidence with determinate falsehood. this is why, I suspect, he can so confidently say that 'facts are facts and opinions are opinions', because there really seems to be no middle ground for him. I don't know what to say about that, but... --Ludwigs2 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Get ready for an influx

Hopefully, people will agree that the version that Neal and SA have hammered out is a good one. I haven't commented much because I don't think that much needs to be changed, frankly. I wanted to drop a notice that the IP address that may or may not be a Davkal sock has dropped an inflammatory note on a wikiproject noticeboard regarding these proceedings. Antelan^talk 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

no agreement yet with your first point, sorry, though it will be interesting to see how the rhetoric on this plays out on the project page. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible elegant approach to handling and defining fringe theory articles

I don't think I'm going to be able to handle all mentions of fringe theories in articles, but for articles about fringe theories themselves, I would like to humbly submit my thoughts on how we might be able to help handle neutrality and criticism weight in articles about fringe theories.

Specifically, I see a lot of heated discussion about "criticisms" sections in the articles on fringe theories. Generally the debates appear to be a deadlock between those citing WP:Undue against the criticisms, and those challenging that the criticisms are notable and merit inclusion. (For some reason that is unfathomable to my humble understanding it seems that these arguments are often divided among proponent/opponent lines...). I would like to propose three related suggestions for how to balance the need to fairly present the theory with the need also to present the theory in relation to mainstream scientific consensus. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories versus non-mainstream scientific theories

First off, I would submit that scientific debate and research, conducted within the scope of peer-reviewed publications and within the mainstream scientific community should, by definition, not be fringe. Cold fusion is an example I think falls into this category. This is research being conducted by qualified (in many cases respected) scientists, and the results are published in respected and peer reviewed publications. Such research should be considered minority, controversial, and mainstream, rather than fringe. I would like to add a paragraph reflecting this to the guideline, but comments first. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the RfC on this topic[3], most consider cold fusion fringe. It doesn't matter how rigorous the science is or where the debate takes place. It's fringe because it departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories. Such is the case with cold fusion. There's no theoretical framework in orthodox science that supports it. Granted, it may not be as bad off as some of the really bizarre fringe theories out there, but it really is fringe. The researchers involved acknowledge that it departs significantly from mainstream science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Up front disclosure of theory status as an alternative to long criticisms sections

Fringe theories can become burdened by an issue of weight and merit of criticism versus content. Specifically, if there is more scientific criticism of a theory than there is published information of the theory, arguments may arise over how much weight it appropriately gives to the theories claims versus appropriate weight to criticisms, and whether not including those theories represents promotion of such theories. For any theories whose scientific validity can be seriously questioned, I would propose putting a clear and neutral statement towards the end of the header that makes clear what the relationship between the theory and the mainstream scientific community is. This would keep the reader informed of the status of the theory, while avoiding any article-structure arguments about promoting a theory. In the main article body, criticisms can be summed up in a "key criticisms" paragraph, and a sub article can be created if necessary to address the criticisms fairly. I have presented a few example sentences. Any thoughts? HatlessAtless (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Unresearched: (I recall seeing a National Enquirer article once that stated oil was found on the moon...)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because very little scientific research on the subject has been conducted or published in peer reviewed journals.

2) Unproofed: ((WTC conspiracy research has been published, but the MSC hasn't recognized any of it as conclusive)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted significant evidence of the theories' claims has not been published.

3) Actively Disproofed: (Free energy machines keep getting disproven)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted, the evidence presented appears to run counter to the theories' claims.

4) Contested: (Cold Fusion research publications are all over the map)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted meaningful evidence both in support of and counter to the theories' claims appears to have been presented.

5) Case-By-Case: (Cryptozoology spot on with the giant squid, but the chimera not so much)

This discipline or field of study as a whole has a mixed reaction from the mainstream scientific community in part because the study examines a number of independent cases, having had differing levels of success depending on each case.

For any theories whose scientific validity can be seriously questioned, I would propose putting a clear and neutral statement towards the end of the header that makes clear what the relationship between the theory and the mainstream scientific community is.

And how do you figure out the mainstream within each branch of each subject of science? Or non science? That in itself would often be a research (WP:NOR).

This would keep the reader informed of the status of the theory, while avoiding any article-structure arguments about promoting a theory.

Interesting. So you would rather describe what people think about, for example, an apple, than properties of an apple.

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because very little scientific research on the subject has been conducted or published in peer reviewed journals.

References please! Give some references for this statement.

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted significant evidence of the theories' claims has not been published.

Published where? Mainstream corporate media?

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted, the evidence presented appears to run counter to the theories' claims.

Appears? If evidence counters claims, than there must be reference for it.

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted meaningful evidence both in support of and counter to the theories' claims appears to have been presented.

Uh... What?

This discipline or field of study as a whole has a mixed reaction from the mainstream scientific community in part because the study examines a number of independent cases, having had differing levels of success depending on each case.

Reference?

Lakinekaki (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. Let me respond point by point:

And how do you figure out the mainstream within each branch of each subject of science? Or non science? That in itself would often be a research (WP:NOR). It would, but tertiary sources such as textbooks make excellent work of summing up majority or mainstream thought on a given topic. The policy you quoted, WP:NOR provides an excellent breakdown of sources, and WP:V, which are two of the core content policies, provide plenty of guidance for defining mainstream thought on a topic.

Interesting. So you would rather describe what people think about, for example, an apple, than properties of an apple. You present this as an either/or choice. Take a look at WP:NOTPAPER; we can fully describe an apple while still making a statement that most people think an apple is different from an orange (while providing a reference of course).

• Each of the 5 characterizations is presented as a suggestion; off the cuff food for thought, as possible examples describing the relationship of a fringe theory to the mainstream. In each of the 5 cases you criticize, the editor making the claim would have to provide an appropriate tertiary or secondary source to back up the assertion (as well as word the assertion correctly) of the relationship between the fringe view and the mainstream.

As I used to argue before on this page, WP:Fringe is totally useless 'guideline' that only further complicates and confuses good editorial guidelines, and brings nothing beneficial to WP policies: N, NPOV, NOR. ps. and it was brought overnight from an essay to a guideline status without a wide consensus. As Jimbo Wales has stated so abundantly in his formulation and vision for wikipedia, this is not a place that is friendly to fringe theories. A guideline for how to deal with them appropriately is important. If you don't like the existing guideline, help me improve it. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So would a textbook from here be acceptable source for defining mainstream views?

In regards to improving this article page, is there any particular problem it is trying to solve that other better WP policies are unable to solve?

Lakinekaki (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki, I think you're missing the point. the problem with a lot of Fringe pages is that they become battlegrounds between editors who want to push the virtues and possibilities of some particular theory, and other editors who want to push the flaws and stupidities. I think what Hatless is suggesting is that a well-designed classification system (if one can be designed and implemented without violating OR) would obviate a lot of those battles. me, I actually envisioned a 'Fringe Science' infobox, that would say up front things like 'there is no active research on this topic', 'this topic has been refuted by such and such', 'this topic is an untestable belief system', 'this topic has occasional verifiable successes', etc. As long as these were all properly sourced, it could solve a lot of the nastier conflicts in the article. I'm not saying hatless' categories are perfect, but there's a thought here that's worth considering. me, I think I might break it down this way

• research status: refuted, no current research, current non-scientific research, current scientific research by advocates
• theory status: non-refutable belief system, historical theory, pseudoscientific theory, scientific speculation
• cultural diffusion: small group of adherents, slight recognition (perhaps as part of a larger field), broadly recognized

--Ludwigs2 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

they become battlegrounds between editors who want to push the virtues and possibilities of some particular theory, and other editors who want to push the flaws and stupidities

if there are references, editors can put either. if there are no references, editors can put neither. that is WP:V. so what is WP:Fringe for? Lakinekaki (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

as far as suggested categorization (refuted, non-refutable belief system, small group of adherents, ...) if there are references, than that's o.k. if that's some editor's interpretation, than it is OR (WP:NOR). again, what is WP:Fringe for? Lakinekaki (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So would a textbook from here be acceptable source for defining mainstream views? In an appropriate article and with correct attribution, yes.

An infobox might be interesting. I think the trick is not so much to create a "classification system" but I think that a simple (sourced) statement about the relationship between the theory and mainstream science would be a useful up-front clarification for a reader. I think though, that over time commonalities in the phrasing of the statuses will organize the fringe theories all on their own. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, textbooks are tricky as RSs.To show the consensus, they have to be a/current--remember that it takes several years to write a textbook, so it is always at least two years out of date even when just published b/standard and widely accepted c/quoted in context. An explicit statement to the effect that such and such is the consensus but that some other thing is also suggested is particularly useful as a quotation. d/ Representative: there are in most fields more than one textbook, that come to different conclusions about such things. In general, I'd suggest a recent review varticle from a leading authoritative journal is best--also in context. That';s why we use Cochrane Collaboration so much on medical topics. DGG (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki - if there are references, editors can put either. if there are no references, editors can put neither. - this assumes that editors are willing and capable of approaching the topic in a fair and open-minded way. my experience on fringe topics, however, is that this is the exception rather than the rule. editors on fringe topics (on all sides, mind you) tend to be highly opinionated and aggressive, and seem to get more so where reliable sourcing becomes thinner. WP:FRINGE is supposed to set some guidelines to keep things from flying out of hand in these difficult conditions. or at least that's my take on it, anyway... --Ludwigs2 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that editors on fringe topics ("all sides") is not correct. RS for Fringe theories are lacking, because they are fringe theories. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

my comment referred to the opinionated and aggressive attitudes of editors on all sides, not to their sourcing. that is an observable fact, OM, not intended as a criticism of anyone. --Ludwigs2 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs here. A fringe theory is defined as one with limited to no coverage in reliable sources. However, we should be careful to note that this definition is not commutative; we may not define a theory as fringe and then claim it has little or no coverage in reliable sources and use that as an excuse to downgrade, denigrate, or disregard reliable sources for such a theory. This is of particular importance when talking about alternative theoretical formulations as defined by the ArbCom as opposed to true fringe theories. The minute someone provides meaningful secondary source coverage of a fringe theory, it may still be fringe, but it becomes a different discussion from one that is simply not believed. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Expanding on DGG's point about textbooks, they tend to work much better as convenient sources of fact than for anything contentious. If a textbook makes a statement that people in the field would consider possibly contentious or flawed, it probably should not be used. Here, for instance, I cited a textbook for a well-known physics theorem. Any comparable text would also contain such a proof, and the fact of the theorem is never going to change. If either or both of these conditions do not obtain, I would be leery of citing a textbook, as they often oversimplify for pedagogical reasons. If you are writing outside of your area of expertise and would like to know if a textbook is "standard", WP:RS/N may be of help, and there is some hope that the reputation of an institution is reflected in the quality of the textbooks used by its professors. For matter where recent comprehensive reviews exist, though, they should be preferred. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My underlying point where I brought up textbooks was that textbooks often contain broad compilations of references and make statements about the status of mainstream thought on their subject matter. I assumed that examining the quality of sources and using the best one went without saying. We have plenty of guidance (the discussions of sources, prestige of institutions, etc is carried on ad nauseum on the approptiate guideline and policy pages). I hardly meant that we should cite textbooks indiscriminately, but more that a high-quality and up to date textbook would likely be one place (of many) to look for information on the current line of reasoning for mainstream thought. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, sorry if my reply seemed a little cranky. I was distracted from the actual point by a personal pet peeve against the conflation of 'printed in a textbook' with 'true'. Probably WP:BEANS applies. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all nice and well in theory, but in practice it is little 'more interesting'. There are probably hundreds of textbooks on any particular subject, and it would be interesting to see why some would select one over the other.

And regarding 'printed in a textbook vs true' thing, WP is not about truth but verifiability, so there comes the problem again -problem of selecting sources. Lakinekaki (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I have to agree. textbooks are baby-talk; they are intended to make broad, simplified, largely inarguable (if not particularly precise) statements on a topic. even Wikipedia considers them tertiary sources of limited usefulness. but isn't this discussion starting to stray from topic? --Ludwigs2 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:) topic was about categorization of (fringe) theories, and supporting such categorization with verifiable sources, and figuring out what is mainstream take on the topic, and finding the mainstream take in textbook sources, and then finding and selecting textbook sources, and then I guess its all somehow related ;-) Lakinekaki (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Im going to be integrating this concept here over the next few days and then I'll post it for discussion. A note on the textbook utility is that as a tertiary source, it actually is particularly useful (among other secondary and tertiary sources) for describing mainstream thought. As an integrator of a large number of sources, textbooks are often one place where one can find an explicit and encyclopedic statement of the current mainstream thought on a topic, which is the best and most explicit statement we'd need to make a proper assertion of a theory in terms of its mainstream status. Remember, proper and careful selection of sources goes without saying, and using a lousy source is bad. We already know this. Once my edits differ from the current version siginificantly we can fire up the draft talk page and discuss the changed version there. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just a quick comment on textbooks: Collegiate textbooks used at the graduate level from good universities are not the same thing as a grade school or high-school primer text. I have a book from 1993 on high-speed digital design. It is still one of the foremost texts in its field, and it and its follow on books are still in use as of 2008 as first-line textbooks in graduate electronics design. (its the handbook of black magic on my user page). Real academic graduate level textbooks are a far cry from grade school and highschool primers. Primers are not academic textbooks, I agree (and therefore suspect as sources), but real graduate-level no-BS textbooks are first-rate academic sources, and are usually excellent at talking about the state of research in a field, to within a pretty reasonable margin. If you are encountering baby-talk in a textbook, it is not, in my mind, a rigorous textbook; it is a primer text, and not a suitable source for wikipedia. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

how can a random anonymous user know

how can a random anonymous user know if the idea he/she heard about today in the supermarket is fringe? after googling it and finding some webpages on the topic, editor added a sentence to relevant wikipedia article. how can that editor know if that idea is fringe? to know whether idea is fringe, one actually needs to have quite good knowledge on the subject. and not only how it is thought in the country, but also what may be thought in some other countries. he/she also needs to have access to scientific journals. and access to many of them, as there are thousands, so editor should read at least a few major ones. or maybe coverage in the news is the answer. but than, did the news reporter satisfy all of the above? and finally, if all above is fulfilled, than that editor certainly has to be an expert on the subject. so is this becoming an elitist encyclopedia? do users like ScienceApologist have this extensive knowledge on the subject on which they claim some idea is fringe? furthermore, are users like ScienceApologist experts in all these diverse articles [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] they are placing WP:Fringe label on other editor's edits?

i think that it is plain absurd to believe such a thing is possible. users like ScienceApologist place label 'fringe' on ideas for quite different reasons. they 'initially don't like them, and labeling ideas 'fringe' makes it easier to delete them without having to actually argue reasonably. they place extra load on the other editor to prove idea is not fringe. but is another editor an expert on the subject? is he/she able to prove it? 'Really' exceptional claims already require extensive citations. why adding this extra burden of 'fringe'? what does it mean? how can one prove it, in light of above example? why exceptional sources are not enough? i will tell you why: exceptional sources can be found much easier than can be 'proved' that idea they cite is not fringe.

i think this 'guideline' is destructive for wikipedia and propose revert to 'essay' status, as it used to be.

Lakinekaki (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I redacted a few personal attacks from the above. Please consider talk page etiquette. - Eldereft (cont.) 11:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you deleting an example of ScienceApologist, user who is well known to other editors here. He is a very good example of what I illustrated above. I placed now above specific examples of his more recent WP:Fringe labeling. Examples include: Solar cycle, Chiropractic, Astral Projection, Unified field theory, Nephilim, Michael_(archangel), Garden of Eden, Parapsyhology, Dendera light, Applied kinesiology. Is SA really such a polymath, a notable expert in all these fields who can just label an idea fringe without bothering to explain the labeling? Lakinekaki (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Our hope is to have articles that are written by people who have "quite good knowledge on the subject". That makes our encyclopedia better. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki, here is the idea: contributors to Wikipedia do all of these things (find reliable sources, verify the information, parse out the appropriate amount of weight to be given to each viewpoint) so that people who know nothing about the subject can learn. If you know nothing at all about the subject, it will naturally be more difficult to write an article on it. This doesn't mean that you can't or that you shouldn't, by any means, but it means that you should not be surprised or personally offended if someone who is more familiar with the subject modifies your contributions. The fact that it is difficult for neophytes to understand appropriate weighting of viewpoints is not an argument against this guideline, but is instead one of the best arguments that I have heard for WP:AGF on the part of experienced contributors and new contributors alike. Antelan 15:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My example showed how users can misuse this WP:Fringe much more than any other WP policy or guideline that deal with similar matter. AGF is not enough, one also needs to justify placement or deletion of sentences. By citing 'fringe', editors often avoid to do so. And I was not talking about neophytes, but (may be very experienced) editors who contribute to topics they don't KNOW much about. There is a HUGE difference.Lakinekaki (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Within that topic, you would be a neophyte; e.g, being a longstanding contributor to British literature would not preclude one from being a neophyte at physical chemistry. When it comes to subject-matter knowledge, experience is not transitive. And I certainly agree that justification should always be given for contested changes. Antelan 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

look, I have to agree with Lakinekaki here, at least to an extent. it's not wikipedia's job to decide what is and isn't valid science; it's only our job to point out what experts in the field say about it. now while I can see how a little 'Free Market competition of ideas' between editors might eventually approach neutrality on the subject, the kind of 'shoot first and ask questions never' approach that ScienceApologist (and a few others) takes is reprehensible. these are not attempts to achieve a balanced and neutral perspective in articles; these are efforts to impose the worst perspective possible on topics that SA happens to disrespect (and believe me, I've argued with him enough to know that he's no expert at science). is that what we want wikipedia to be? --Ludwigs2 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's left to just a few people like SA to mark patently ridiculous claims as fringe or pseudoscience is embarrassing. He may not be diplomatic, but we need more people doing what he's doing. If we were all more responsible as contributors and pulled our weight in this area, maybe SA wouldn't have run so completely out of patience with people pushing nonsense as Truth and not understanding the difference. kwami (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

look, I could argue with you about what SA does (and I think the result of that would be that I agree with you about 80%). but the way he does it is out of line. I wouldn't want to live in a city without police, but I also wouldn't want to live in a city where cops are free to shoot suspects on sight. if he's out of patience then he should take a nice, long vacation, recover his cool, and come back; wikipedia will still be here. however, I can't respect the protracted efforts he puts in to assassinate any idea (along with the sources associated with it) just because he doesn't like it, and doesn't have the patience to try and communicate his objections reasonably. --Ludwigs2 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate venue for you (I am specifically referring to you, Ludwigs2 and Lakinekaki) to be complaining about the actions of a particular editor. Please, if you have a problem with him, take it to his talk page. Discussion here should be kept along general principles or particular articles, not particular editors. Antelan 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with this guideline which is written is such a way that it enables and fosters 'fringe' labeling behavior (examples I gave above). Do you want me to show here how other editors do it to, besides ScienceApologist? I thought his example would be enough. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. If you're truly arguing for a representation in line with respected scientific thought, it should be trivially easy to cite reputable sources in support. Without this guideline, Wikipedia would be overrun with in-universe writeups of every idea that someone felt motivated enough to describe on a website somewhere. If an idea is truly "fringe" (or, better, "not accepted by mainstream science"), then what's wrong with "labeling" it as such? A reader deserves to know at least that much about it. What specific change to this guideline would you like to see? MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Antelan, but the only way to talk about problems with 'general principles' is to talk about the way specific editors use those principles. it's not my fault that SA has made himself a prominent example of how fringe theories and the guidelines can be abused, and I have nothing against him personally for doing it (trust me, I would be the first in line to shake his hand if he decided to stop). but as they say in the newspaper business, it's not libel if it's true. if he doesn't want us to discuss his behavior, then he shouldn't present us with behaviors that we need to discuss.

MastCell - that's pure hyperbole; please don't use straw man arguments. and if the problem were only a question of labeling, it wouldn't be much of a problem. the actions presented above go well beyond 'labeling'. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Labelling" was Lakinekaki's formulation of the problem. I'm not trying to use hyperbole; I honestly don't understand what concrete changes are being proposed here. The only thing I can take away from this thread so far is that people don't like ScienceApologist. But I already knew that, and there are a few dozen other forums where people are probably complaining about him right now. I'd like to know what changes to this guideline are being proposed. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to 'labeling' of fringe stuff in articles as such. I object to editors like SA labeling in edit summaries the content they delete as 'fringe' without explaining it further or giving any citations or reasonable arguments.

I proposed reverting the status of this 'guideline' to the status of an 'essay'. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you object to this policy, I'd suggest bringing the idea to the village pump for community input, and making a link to it here when you've done so. You will probably need to provide a rationale for your proposal, and I will be unimpressed if your rationale is simply "I don't like when SA uses this policy." Antelan 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, it sounds like your problem is specifically with ScienceApologist. If the relevant proposal is to downgrade this guideline to an essay, then I strongly object, though you are of course welcome to solicit additional input. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also a waste of time for an established user to have to point out every reliable source that establishes a view as fringe anytime a new editor (to the topic) tries to add these fringe views to an article. Anytime the WP:REDFLAG is raised by an edit from a new user, their edit should not stand simply because they are new. They need to verify that their information is relevant and not fringe like any other user by using the talk page, particularly on controversial subjects. This is not just a problem encountered by random anonymous users. Jason Patton (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This sausage making can never be a serious body of work, as it reflects the very unprofessional nature of butchery, for butchery sake. Too much politics, too many agendas, and way too many gatekeepers more interested in making appearances, than promoting a body of knowledge. I've sat here for months watching articles upon articles fought over what is "fringe" and what not, yet it's not so much about promoting knowledge equal to a print encyclopedia, it's more about pushing their own POV (e.g., "I know what is science! I will TELL you what science is! As I know what's best for you TO read!" No, I know what's best for ME to read, I don't need gatekeepers!). Then on top of it, certain individuals can carrying on worst than a child, over and over and over for the nth time. No matter what changes in policy, like this definition of "Fringe" (a label clearly designed to smear ideas that isn't "mainstream"), it wouldn't matter if the inane editors gets a green light to do it over and over and over again from the police itself. And such individuals are even shielded and protected (when no one else can get that many blocks and still be allowed to edit, that person is protected. Most editors are banned for much less). This is a folly, almost like a window dressing exercise, as nothing is going to change, as the leader is not home to even care about the mice playing to care. You can get a new definition, but when the law is but 12hrs long on each block (often reduced even) on those who make a mockery of making a "respected encyclopedia", this mindless warring will continue for as long as it's allowed to continue. Wikipedia will never be a serious encyclopedia, simply because the medium was never serious about providing knowledge in the first place. [Looks around this mess and seeing why even in the 21st century mankind is still chasing his own tail. And these are the people who are trying to tell me what is the "truth"?? O-k-a-y......]. FResearcher (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I like WP:REDFLAG. It is very specific. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Do you see the difference between this and the use of WP:Fringe? An editor needs to examine sources given and not just delete the content without even bothering to explain why sources are not satisfactory. Editor also needs to actually know something about the subject in order to be able to see that claim is surprising, contradicted by relevant community, or exceptional, either from editors own expert knowledge, or from the context of the article. With WP:Fringe, not-knowledgeable editor just labels something 'fringe' and than article has to hope that some very knowledgeable editor will come and explain to not-knowledgeable editor why such sources are good enough (see the top of the section for example). With WP:REDFLAG it takes a knowledgeable editor to dispute the sourced statement and explain why such sources are not appropriate. (Unknowledgeable) 'FRINGE' deletes sourced statements without explanation. (Knowledgeable) 'REDFLAG' deletes sourced statements with explanation. Lakinekaki (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Jason - I've seen editors delete properly sourced academic articles on fringe subjects without discussion (go over and look through the history on quackwatch to see how often Hufford and Ernst have been repeatedly REDFLAGged from the article, despite being respected academics published in highly respected presses). I'm not a new user, and I still see my edits reverted without comment or discussion (except for some supercilious edit summary). there is a problem with a guideline that allows that behavior. --Ludwigs2 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in this guideline that allows someone to consistently revert your edits without comment or discussion. While that is problematic behavior, this guideline is not the root cause. Quackwatch is a mess, and the best advice I can give anyone, regardless of their viewpoint, is to dewatchlist it and do something else with their time. It's worked for me. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Labeling something "fringe" is an effective way of saying that the subject is not believable, which is an unnecessary characterization. Any encyclopedia that seeks to be balanced must avoid characterizing subjects. For an editor to make the determination that the subject is not believable is placing that editors opinion above all else. It really has nothing to do with whether or not the editor is a subject matter expert, or a dominant veteran editor, if we allow subjects to be characterized in such a way that the characterization leads the reader to a particular conclusion, then there will always be the opportunity for abuse.

If the article on fringe is a policy, then that abuse will happen--or I should say it will continue. Tom Butler (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The questions is always, and always has been, what do the reliable sources report? Antelan 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored this thread. It started with base accusations and Personal Attacks on SA, but has grown into the sort of run-around we see all the time here, and i would instead suggest archiving it in a special archive, and sending all those who whine about this policy there to read it through. ThuranX (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Concise definition needed

All, I've been working on my reconstruction of this guideline, and I noticed that we're missing a concise, meaningful definition of a fringe theory. I'm particularly disappointed in the statement "fringe theories are those that depart significantly from the mainstream view" as there are fringe theories that are similar to mainstream thought, and there are mainstream "alternative theoretical formulations" as defined by the arbcom that depart from the mainstream view but are most certainly not fringe.

Suggestions please HatlessAtless (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since ArbCom does not make content guidelines, their opinions on this matter are not binding and, frankly, irrelevant. Antelan 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have reverted your edits (which just consisted of adding skeletal outlines of sections you're suggesting). This is best done in userspace, since this is an active guideline. Antelan 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest something along the lines of: "Fringe theories are those which are not supported by current mainstream academic thought, as expressed in reliable sources. Fringe theories also include those explicitly classed as such, or as pseudoscience or scientifically implausible, by such mainstream sources." MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. I thought I was in userspace at the time. I'll be more careful in the future. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MC, I like that definition. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... MastCell, can I suggest a version that's a little more object-oriented? "Fringe theories are theories which are presented as scientific, but have no significant use or place in current scientific research as determined by reliable sources. They may may be theories which mainstream sources consider scientifically implausible or pseudoscientific, theories which are plausible but offer little or no practical use or supporting evidence, or theories which were historically significant but have outlived their era." the presented as scientific is to keep things like religions from being classed as Fringe theories, the use in research phrase is (I think) more objective than academic thought, and the ending list is just to give a broad perspective. --Ludwigs2 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My 2c worth: Rather than saying it has no significant use or place in current scientific research as determined by reliable sources, it should be the other way. ie/ Fringe theories are theories which are presented as scientific, but have no reliable source showing significant use or place in current scientific research. In this way, a reliable source is needed to show "significant use or place in current scientific research" rather than at the moment where a reliable source is required to show "no significant use or place in current scientific research". This puts the burden of proof of "significant use or place in current scientific research" back onto the Fringe Theory rather than RS' showing that it's scientific. Shot info (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

interesting - that's a good point. --Ludwigs2 06:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My current working definition is based on scientific traction, and I am keeping it simple: "Fringe theories, simply put, are scientific claims that have not been taken seriously my mainstream academic thought and publication. Fringe theories may be expressly classed as such, or may be classed as 'scientifically implausible' or Pseudoscience.". The idea here is that while fringe theories may or may not receive mention in peer-reviewed journals, the key hallmark of a fringe theory is that it has not been taken seriously or considered plausible. When a reliable, independent source (or more probably, multiple RS's) treat the theory in a manner that is considered plausible, or take the theory seriously, then it ceases to be fringe, and becomes tiny minority. I am also working to expand the scope of WP:FRINGE so that it provides adequate treatment of tiny-minority scientific opinions and social movements with rejected scientific claims. Comments are welcome as I try to draft the guideline into a better form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HatlessAtlas/fringe_rework. HatlessAtless (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all of these formulations (Ludwigs, Shot info, and Hatless') are reasonable. It's good to see we're generally on the same page here. MastCell ^Talk 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability is our guideline here and we can use the logical principle of falsifiability to help us. The burden of proof is indeed on those clamoring for inclusion of their nutty ideas. We can simply make statements like this one: "There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians." (That statement happens to be sourced, but if it lacked a source, that statement could still legitimately be used until any editor who produces well-sourced proof against it did so. Falsifiability is a rule unto itself in these situations. We should formulate a definition that includes notability and falsifiability as key points. -- Fyslee / talk 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That statement happens to be sourced, but if it lacked a source, that statement could still legitimately be used until any editor who produces well-sourced proof against it did so. No, actually I disagree. The burden of proof lies with an editor making a claim, positive or negative. If the author of an article made a claim with respect to acupuncture that was dubious and unsourced, it could be justifiably removed or flagged. The same is true of your claim about acupuncture. A negative claim that is unsourced is OR just as a positive claim is. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And I would add, sourced statements cannot be removed just by quoting WP:FRINGE, but it has to be explained first why sources are not credible enough, and maybe example given of the opposite statement with an example credible source. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourced statements cna be removed for any number of reasons - because of concerns about the reliability of the source, because the statement misrepresents the source, or because the statement gives undue weight to one aspect of a topic. Reliable sourcing is necessary, but not sufficient in isolation, to include material on Wikipedia. This is spelled out in the lead of all 3 cornerstone content policies - they are not to be interpreted in isolation. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sourced statements can be removed for any number of reasons, but those reasons have to be stated. So in light of the topic of this page, it is not enough to say it is fringe, but editor who deletes a sourced statement has to explain why such sourced statement is fringe, and why those sources are not solid and reliable enough. Lakinekaki (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey guys, don't forget, "Fringe Theories" isn't just about science. There's fringe history for example. There's fringe... (anything in this list). There may be some confusion here between fringe theories and pseudoscience. They're not necessarily the same thing (and that Wikipedia redirects fringe theories to fringe science shouldn't mean they are). The distinction by ArbCom that there are alternative theoretical formulation in science was to say that's not pseudoscience, per se. Depending on how wide of acceptance that alternative formulation is, it may still be a fringe theory. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, Neal, that reminds me of an approach to this I had a while ago. maybe it's worth trying it again here, as a more general solution to the problem. to whit: "Fringe Theories are belief systems that make claims to academic or scientific authority, but have not been given serious consideration by reliable sources in mainstream academic or scientific publications. They may consist of scientific or pseudoscientific speculation, conspiracy theories or alternative histories, untested, untestable, or unreplicable research programmes, or to any of the claims or practices that derive from these". a bit different of course, but it escapes the 'pure science' realm and accounts for funky ideas that occur in other parts of the human world.

P.s. Fyslee - I just have to comment that while there may be"no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians", acupuncture is one of alternative medicines that actually gets prominent use in major medicine (it's used as replacement for local anesthetics, for instance...). that's one of the dangers with dealing with fringe topics - some of them in fact work.  ;-) --Ludwigs2 23:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, since fraud by the Chinese was involved in the original claim about acupuncture anesthesia. To avoid violating TALK, let's continue this on my talk page. See you there shortly.

As to your proposal above, we already include such theories as long as they are notable enough. Skeptical criticisms of such claims are already considered acceptable notable notice for inclusion. -- Fyslee / talk 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think cold fusion researchers would want their research characterized as a belief system. It's fringe because it departs significantly from mainstream theory, but it wouldn't really be characterized as a belief system. What Hatless wrote above about "mainstream 'alternative theoretical formulations'", those aren't fringe theories. If mainstream, it can't be fringe. It's just a competing school of thought, a disagreement (no consensus). Fringe theories are those that depart significantly from general consensus. Eg. David Bohm has lots of mainstream work under his belt, but his holographic paradigm is a fringe theory because it departs significantly from the consensus in theoretical physics. Still, it's not a belief system. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one for you. At Wikipedia, we call it "mainstream thought". Often, elsewhere, it's called "orthodox opinion". We can't imply "orthodox" so easily in NPOV because orthodox literally means "right thinking" -- orthos ("right, true, straight") + doxa ("opinion, praise", related to dokein, "thinking"). However, if you don't define it that way, but consider the use of "unorthodox", that's the definition of "fringe theory". It's "wrong thinking" where the so-called "right thinking" is the general consensus. How do you word that neutrally, when there's no "right" and "wrong"? Well, you say (like we do here) that it "departs signficantly from mainstream views" (implying no right or wrong, just outweighed). It's still considered "wrong thinking" everywhere else. Now, again (since people sometimes mistake what I say), we shouldn't define it as wrong thinking. But if you consider that as the actual definition, you'll see that "mainstream alternative theories" aren't fringe because there's no agreed upon "right" thinking when there's a dispute at the mainstream level, and it's not cast out as wrong either (fringe). Likewise, none of that is really what people consider "belief systems" either. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the etymology of orthodox, but not the only denotation of the term in the English language, thereby alleviating us of this problem. Antelan 14:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally think of fringe theories as ranging from theories that almost qualify as alternative mainstream theories down to things that have just barely too many scientific chops to be called pseudoscience. I would make an analogy to the way a penumbra (in a simple situation, with a single extended light source blocked by a large object) runs from full light at one side to full shadow at the other.

Some fringe theories were taken seriously as alternative mainstream theories for at least a little while and then were rejected. Plasma cosmology would be an example. Cardamon (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - I don't really care whether the Cold Fusion people would like their work classed as a belief system (any more than I care if physicists object to my calling quantum mechanics a belief system). all a scientific theory is is a belief system that has a bunch of evidence backing it up, and when the evidence doesn't pan out, what you're left with is a belief system. recognizing that these things are belief systems makes this entire debate so much simpler, because we can point at a fringe theory and say well, it's something that people believe that's not really supported by evidence or accepted by mainstream science. and then you can leave them with their beliefs and point out that the beliefs are scientifically groundless in the same moment. if you don't acknowledge the fact that people believe these things, then you just make trouble (because in the absence of belief, you have to start making the kind of twisted 'right vs. wrong vs. orthodox vs. neutral' arguments you made a couple of paragraphs up). forget about who's right and who's wrong: there are accepted, validated belief systems, and there are belief systems that aren't either, and there's a whole range of belief systems inbetween. --Ludwigs2 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to say it's technically a belief system, you could also say it's technically defined as a "wrong" belief system. Fortunately Wikipedia doesn't characterize things like that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... that almost sounds like you're agreeing with me, MC... --Ludwigs2 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the beauty of NPOV. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cardamon, please note my comment below on that idea. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is there enough argument to downgrade this guideline to the status of an essay?

Is this guideline doing good or bad to Wikipedia and its editors? Article and talk page histories show lots of disputing, and even dispute tag reverting/page blocking. Does this guideline really have a consensus?Lakinekaki (talk · contribs)

• Keep as a Guideline. All of our policies and guidelines go through periods where they are disputed. That is not really a problem, and in the long run make the policy or guideline under discussion all the better. This guideline is very useful, as it helps define when and how we should discuss fringe ideas. Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as a Guideline. There is a desperate need to keep the raving nut-jobs at bay so that our encyclopedia is not overrun with serious-sounding articles about crazy theories. In an open encyclopedia where (if we're honest) most articles are seriously under-referenced even when they are true and correct - there is no way for our readership to distinguish a fringe theory from mainstream science. That's an exceedingly serious problem that continued insistence on adequate referencing is not likely to fix. The nut-jobs out there are more than capable of producing reams of convincing-looking web pages - and at first glance, many of these articles appear well-referenced. The problem is that scientists don't write articles debunking these crazy theories and if you apply other Wikipedia guidelines, it's very tough to produce a balanced article. Hence, we must properly recognize the difficulty of proving a negative with adequately referenced truth - especially in scientific areas. We need some special consideration for this class of article. Far from downgrading to an essay, I firmly believe that we need to continue to refine this guideline to the point where it may become concise enough to become firm Wikipedia policy. There is vigorous (mostly intelligent) debate here - but that's a good thing, it clearly demonstrates both the importance of this guideline and that there is continued interest in refining it. As a working editor who doesn't participate much in the politics of Wikipedia, I find this guideline one of the most useful ones - and I'd like to personally thank everyone who has worked hard to create, maintain and evolve it. (Evolve it? Hmmm - maybe "Intelligently design it"...who knows!) SteveBaker (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep as a Guideline. Core content policies allude to this as a guideline, not an essay, and define a strong need for such. WP:OR and WP:NPOV make reference to minority and fringe views. This makes the WP:FRINGE discussion, whether policy, guideline, or essay, have the force of a guideline whether it is labeled as such or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatlessAtlas (talk • contribs) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Upgrade to Policy. (If I thought that had a serious chance ...) This is one of our strongest and most reliable guidelines for keeping the nut jobs off this project. If this wasn't here, the number of AN/I threads about edit wars at Cold Fusion, Skyhooks, Bacon stretchers, Ouiji, Homeopathy, Psychic brain eating, and Long Distance Telekinetic Masturbation would increase exponentially. (For those wondering Long Distance Telephonic Masturbation is over there). That numerous pro-fringe editors are discouraged and insulted that Wikipedia, like most of their relatives, doesn't want to hear their cockamamie tin-foil hat nonsense, is a good thing, otherwise those idiots, who clearly don't understand sourcing, research and references, or they wouldn't be spouting the nonsense they spouted at all (as long as they stay on their pills), would be wasting all our time adding CN tags, and removing foolishness. Just because anyone can edit, doesn't mean everyone should edit. Some people aren't the right fit for this place, and people who really think that statues bleed holy juice, or that their cats talk to them, are on that long list of people who need drugs, not internet hookups.FRINGE lets us push such people into areas they can edit responsibly and reasonably, or off the project. That's not a bad thing. We welcome you to try it here ,but if you can't work with us, or you'er just going to disrupt, then good riddance. ThuranX (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychic brain eating? I don't want to know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It involves crazy straws, Astroglide, and an all night Meg Ryan estrogen-a-thon. It's awful, and worse if done without Sleepless in Seattle playing. ThuranX (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Upgrade to policy Per Thuran. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as guideline. The guideline isn't causing the disputes; these disputes would occur regardless. Some editors have the bad habit of rubber-stamping content "fringe" in disputes, using it to circumvent discussion. And some define the guideline too expansively, using it to eliminate all "woo" on sight or to justify non-neutral debunking or adversarial style articles as opposed to encyclopedically descriptive articles. However, when properly viewed, this guideline is helpful in sifting the most representative content and judging the significance of particular sources or topics. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• No more than an essay!. I know Wikipedia is an important service to humankind and all of that, but there is a growing appearance that it is being used as a tool for social engineering. "Fringe" serves to brand a subject as a minority view. "Pseudoscience" serves to brand efforts to understand that subject as false. "Quack" serves to brand people who are interested in or study the subject as untrustworthy. All of these terms have been expanded in recent months so that they all are or are equivalent to policy.

The last thing needed to make persecution of those who believe in non-mainstream ideas is to find some way of branding them as unethical. Efforts to change the "Civility" policy to being okay to "Call a spade a spade" tends to make it okay to attack people who believe in or want to study that subject. There are many who would make that change and I predict that it is just a matter of time before it will be institutionalized.

Creating labels like these is exactly the tactic used in ideological struggles to defeat an opposing view. Religions have used the tactic to overcome an opposing system of belief, as have dictators to control portions of the population. When you consider how many young people use Wikipedia for school work, one must acknowledge that it is beginning to have the appearance of this.

Phrases by editors such as "need to keep the raving nut-jobs" and "keeping the nut jobs off this project" are symptomatic of a community that is beginning to accept the assumption of moral authority created by the use of such labels. An encyclopedia is charged with explaining what a subject is, and to characterize it in ways that serve to guide what the reader thinks about the subject goes well beyond that charter.

Most of you editing here are now the majority view in Wikipedia. You have the social responsibility to represent all views here in a neutral light. Tom Butler (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In a word, bullshit. Look at a print encyclopedia. They barely cover the stuff you'd have us give equal weight to. Most of the FRINGE stuff is flat out bullshit, propped up by the hopes and dreams of people who are either to stupid or stubborn to accept that it's bullshit. Most of what's not in that category is people who are genuinely deranged or criminally deceptive. The last bit, are true believers. At best Cold Fusion, for example is some stubborn people, some scammers, and a few desperate True believers. However, all the science available, discounting the couple of unreproducable results (thus, barely science, and mostly scam), says it's not going to work. Then look at Homeopathy, which says basically that the soul of a substance can cure you of the physical form of that substance. At least real Religion articles have the benefit of millions of reasonably rational adherents who use them as social and moral structures, and which have entire librarys of reasonable scholarly work about them.

To assert that we have some ridiculous Moral Obligation to validate this stuff as being equally legitimate to Chemotherapy or Solar Power is bullshit. It's simple. We report what there is out there. Reliable Sources discounting crackpots. We look at who's more respectable, and we believe them. If we can't do that, shut down the entire project.

If we have a 'Moral Obligation' to do anything, it would be to open Wikipedia up to those truly schooled in a discipline, and allow them to edit here in their specialized subject areas. I rarely skirt the edges of my actual fields of study and employment, because we aren't allowed to edit in those areas. That would be the best thing we could do. Imagine real scientists explaining Global Warming or explaining why Homeopathy doesn't work, or why Conservation of Mass disproves the Bacon Stretcher, or how Gravity precludes the Skyhook. The more muscle we can put behind eliminating scads of material about crap, the more we can improve the project overall. Note that no one here is advocating the deletion of all FRINGE topics. Not even ScienceApologist, that I've ever seen. All of us simply want that lunacy limited to what's actually substantiated by Reliable Sources, and the backing up of policy or a strong guideline when we insist that any source be strictly and stringently reviewed. In those disciplines, a strong policy is specifically needed, because of the ridiculous amount of Wikilawyering, gaming and flat out rule-breaking that goes on there. It's only a matter of time until the Flat Earthers or someone decide to launch a coordinated editing effort to force our articles on them to sound 'true'. FRINGE as policy avoids Truthiness and "The Truth" in favor of reality. And in reality, the earth is round, and materials do not have souls. ThuranX (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom Butler writes: "You have the social responsibility to represent all views here in a neutral light." No, only notable ones, especially when the promoters and inventers of some pretty nutty and deluded ideas are trying to misuse Wikipedia to promote them. There is no need for the promotion of non-notable nutty ideas here, only the notable nutty ideas like homeopathy. Notability is our rule here, and Wikipedia is not to be used to create notability for nutty ideas. -- Fyslee / talk 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making my point for me. First, Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. It is edited by the public and not paid editors. It is a publicly funded organization chartered by the government as a service to the public. Further, you do not get to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Thinking you have that right is proof that you are operating from the perspective of an ideology.

What on earth makes you think you are smart enough to know with sufficient certainty that all of those subjects are fraudulent to keep the public from having the opportunity to decide for themselves?

Fyslee, I have seen SA, with the backing of about everyone here, go to the extent of character assignation to argue that something is not notable. You are simply practicing a deception if you really believe that the rules of Wikipedia are being applied as intended. Tom Butler (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

All of our policies and guidelines can be misused by the overzealous. That does not mean we should get rid of the policy of guideline. The fact is, this guideline is actually quite simple in what it says: it does not say that Fringe Theories should not be discussed on Wikipedia... it simply says that for a theory to be discussed it has to have achieved a degree of notability. And, if that threshold or notability has been reached, it is appropriate to lable fringe theories as such when discussing them. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to second Tom on this point. it's one thing to make sure that fringe topics are properly presented as unaccepted and unresearched (which is a matter handled easily by proper sourcing); it's another thing entirely to start referring to fringe theories as 'bullshit' distributed by 'crackpots' (as ThuranX so eloquently puts it), and then trying to impose that perspective on articles. there are editors here who practice a kind of pro-science proselytism that would give the shivers to any actual scientist; that kind of pseudo-religious scientific fervor could be handled by normal editing (like any other attempt at POV-pushing), but not where there's a guideline that tries to legislate it into fact. now I'm not against having this as a guideline, but right now it really ought to be an essay, at least until the fanatics get a clue and start taking reasonable perspectives on this issue. --Ludwigs2 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You have an unusual viewpoint on the world. Who are the fanatics? "Pseudo-religious scientific fervor?" Would you like to attack anyone else? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it was tongue-through-cheek. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where a dispassionate reliance on sourcing and verification is considered fanatical pseudo-religious scientific fervor. The major problem with Fringe theories is that if there is insufficient weight given to the science, then an innocent reader might think that orgone energy might actually do something useful. That's an ethical problem with the article, not fanaticism on the part of editors who want to add back science.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar has it right. Yes, there are editors who are on a mission to "debunk" ideas they consider BS. There are also editors who are on a mission to uncritically promote fringe ideas under the fig leaf of "neutrality". Neither side has a monopoly on character assassination and underhanded tricks, as the last few threads here should make clear. The solution is not to change this guideline, but to address problematic editing behavior more effectively. Most of the truly uninvolved people commenting here are telling you this. The cry that we need to throw everything out there and "let the public decide" is self-serving. In order for the reader to decide, you have to be honest with the reader, which means presenting fringe theories as fringe theories. That's all the guideline is saying. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your sentence: In order for the reader to decide, you have to be honest with the reader, which means presenting fringe theories as fringe theories. But that is not what guideline is saying, nor how some editors interpret it. Guideline and its overzealous implementors want to remove any mention of fringe theories ideas, and even not so fringe ideas. Labeling them as fringe in article is O.K., not placing them is less so. The most problematic part is actually determining what is fringe and deserves to be included. And that's the huge problem, as it turns out at the end to be outnumbering of beliefs of editors. What would be more appropriate is that if something is fringe, it be presented as that, and not simply eliminated. Other WP policies ensure that. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolute straw man. No one here has said 'eliminate all fringe articles' which is what you posit as our position. Instead, we say that FRINGE should be treated and written about in such a manner that makes it clear such things are not scientifically supported, not credible, and/or not real. that's all. Stop assuming this is a backdoor to rampant wiki-wide deletionism. It's not. ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit.[16] Lakinekaki (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

you built up a false case to tear down, distracting people from the real issue. No one here seeks the elimination of all fringe articles, as you keep trying to say we said. We simply want fringe theories treated as fringe theories, which means precluding the use of wikipedia as a platform for fringe theory advocacy. We keep seeking to do so, and you seem interested in obstructing anythign which precludes the so called 'even treatment' agenda you're pushing. However, your 'even treatment' says we should write those articles using their unchecked, agenda oriented publications, writings by involved, COI holding peddlers of such snake oils. The proponents of such theories decry the entire scientific method because it doesn't accept the circular logic that thetans can only be audited by a licensed thetan auditor, who can't explain theta auditing until your thetans have been audited, which can't happen until you accept that thetans can only be audited by a .... and so on. So when the scientific method turns up bupkis, they assert that it's a conspiracy. Sadly, Conspiracy theories work almost the same way, but it's a self-fulfilling situation that people don't believe. If everyone believed, it would probably mean the theory was proved, then the secrecy of being a 'real knower, on the inside', would be gone, and that would mean you're normal again. and so on. ALL the fringe stuff has similar flaws. that's sort of why it's on the fringe: The adherents for various reasons cannot see the failings of their beliefs, but refuse to accept that their idea is a matter of faith, not fact. By insisting faith is fact, they create a situation in which logic falls to faith. We need to stop that on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

'No one here seeks the elimination of all fringe articles, as you keep trying to say we said.' You need to read again what I wrote, and try to understand better what 'I keep trying to say you said'. Here I will elaborate again, just for you:

In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

Problem is that average editor like me may not know the fringe within some random topic, and another common editor like SA now has a tool that with the same lack of knowledge, without argumentation, and just by an assumption deletes sourced statements.

As for the rest of your comment about even treatment, autiting, conspiracies, faith as fact... I don't really get the point. Lakinekaki (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You linked me to two personal attacks against SA. Is your point that you can attack me as well? And that you don't get the circular logic problem in most fringe sourcing shows you're missing my points. I'm done debating you, you're using personal attacks against one editor as an argument against me. That's so lame, so disgusting, that no matter what you say in response, I'm done addressing you. ThuranX (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Describing someones behavior is not a personal attack. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think zealous pro-science editors want to eliminate fringe theories either; I think (in their minds) they want to expose fringe theories and make sure that everyone who reads wikipedia knows that they're crap. that means keeping fringe theories in, but exposing and debunking them (and defrocking supporters as frauds) with unashamed prejudice. we could discuss the nobility of that purpose, if you like, but it clearly takes them well beyond wikipedia's scope - wikipedia is not supposed to be the self-appointed archangel of scientific credulity.

and MastCell, you can talk about how we need to address problematic editing behavior more effectively, but whenever suggestions get made that might limit the more problematic editing of pro-science editors, you oppose it. if you really believe that to be true, let's here how you suggest we reign in science-zealots... --Ludwigs2 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm one person, I have no real authority here, and at the moment I feel that I'm pulling my weight in terms of dealing with problem editing. If you have specific examples in which you feel I've enabled inappropriate "pro-science" editing, then please let me know, though perhaps this is not the forum. Reining in "science zealots" can be accomplished the same way we rein in any kind of zealot here - by shining a light on them and getting outside input. If you do that, and the outside input doesn't agree with you, then consider whether the problem is in fact one of "science zealotry". MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim a special authority to do so; nor exceptional knowledge. However, I'm not a fucking mushroom, kept in the dark and fed bullshit, either. I have a brain that can weigh the input and findings of respectable scientists who demonstrate by extensive explanation of theory and reproducible results that some stuff is plain old bullshit. The other side, as in Cold Fusion, cannot reproduce results, a failure of the 'science' of that idea. I look at both, and decide that if science can consistently and repeatedly debunk the idea, and no one can consistently support it with hard evidence, just dogma, then it's bullshit, FRINGE, and should go. And all of wikipedia should adhere to such an ethos as well. To assert that we have to give equal time and space to non-sense like that will soon have us giving pedophilia a rah-rah vibe, and White Power, and to other despicable lines of thought. WP:FRINGE and WP:TABOO should fit like perfect jigsaw pieces, giving a solid bulwark against all sorts of weird and twisted POV pushers. ThuranX (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

and that, TX, is about the most marvelous expression of pro-science zealotry that I could hope for. You've just said that you yourself can see this stuff is bull (by the power of your own brain, no less), and because you can see it, you feel perfectly justified in denying anyone else the opportunity to make up their own mind about the issue. you should go back and read wp:NPOV#Reasoning_behind_NPOV, particularlly the last paragraph, where it reads: "when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence (emphasis in text). it's not our (and by our I mean your or my) place to dictate what is and is not truth for the readers of wikipedia - they have brains just like us, and if left to their own devices can make their own decisions without our help. --Ludwigs2 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. I thought it was perfectly clear. We need to give people that choice, and you want to prevent that by allowing Fringe writers to fill their articles with nonsense citations to non-peer reviewed articles about non-reproducible results made up in the heads of true Believers. You asked how I get the authority to determine if fringe crap is fraudulent. I answered. I'm not trying to keep others from seeing that it's a sack of hot horseshit, still slung 'twixt carriage and steed. I'm absolutely in favor of making as many people as possible see that. When we get citations from 'homeopathy monthly' about some patient that no one else is allowed to see, swearing that extract of lead cured paint chip eating or similar nonsense, we need to eliminate that. It's not real, and it's not a reliable source. That you can't seem to grasp that the heart of this is that it's easy to bullshit, and hard to prove bullshit, but not impossible. Review the sources. Any source that fails scrutiny should be removed, fast. Sources which discredit fringe topics, however, are easy to source. They can, and often have been reviewed by peers and so on. They are in credible sources, utilizing methods which can be reproduced. This stuff really is that simple. The preponderance of solid, reliable evidence is that it's crap. YOu seem so intent on protecting the right of idiots to decieve themselves that you miss that allowing them to do so in the case of fringe topics would require us to vacate WP:RS. Fringe is fringe for a simple reason: it's bullshit! ThuranX (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. WP:V

'Review the sources. Any source that fails scrutiny should be removed, fast.' Huh, you mean you want to peer review the source again after it has been published? WP:OR

'Sources which discredit fringe topics, however, are easy to source.' Exactly what I am trying to point out. If editor thinks something is fringe, he should explain why and provide these discrediting sources.

'Fringe is fringe for a simple reason: it's bullshit!' Have to disagree with this. Fringe may be fringe simply because not many people care about it. some additional arguments relevant to this statement

Lakinekaki (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX - I'm tired of you insulting my intelligence, and I'm tired of listening to you spout off against things that no one here is advocating. your failure to make basic logical distinctions is simply getting in the way of this discussion, and I'd appreciate it if you'd back off until you can participate meaningfully. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as guideline: This is an essential guideline if Wikipedia is to have any hope of fulfilling its stated goal of becoming a serious, respected reference work. The wording can certainly be improved, but there is absolutely no reason to scrap it. Re: policy, none of our notability guidelines are policy, so neither should this one be. The relevant policy aspects are codified in WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a guideline, or maybe even split into two guidelines The content policies apply to all articles in Wikipedia, not merely to specific topical areas - and this will never apply to more than a small but meaningful fraction of articles on Wikipedia. So it really is not suitable for consideration as a policy. Additionally, the vast majority of the support it has is derivative of the core content policies, rather than as an accepted practice actually used regularly by most editors. Since it is derivative, it is at most a guideline. If we look at the current content, it is attempting to be two guidelines in one page. First, a guideline on when to have an article on a subject that fits the topical area. This aspect of the page is a notability guideline, not significantly different from any of the other notability guidelines, none of which is or should be policy. Second, a guideline on how to write about a subject that fits the topical area, whether in an article subject to the first guideline or as part of an article on another topic. This aspect of the page is a style guideline, comparable in importance and acceptance to the 100 odd other style guidelines in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Articles on elections or Wikipedia:Pro and con lists. It might be useful to split the page into two guidelines, one on when to have separate articles (becoming part of the notability series), the second on how to write about such topics (becoming part of the style guide series). GRBerry 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a guideline. This is one of the last lines of defense against the misuse of Wikipedia to promote nutty ideas (see my reply above to Tom Butler). -- Fyslee / talk 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, as guideline per Thuranx and Fyslee. R. Baley (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as guideline, but only with major revisions - this guideline, as is, is way too POV to be kept as a guideline. without revisions it ought to be an essay. --Ludwigs2 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "POV", as in WP:NPOV, is an article-content policy. I suspect that what you mean is that it's biased against fringe theories, as written? MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • no, I meant POV. the article is written from a perspective that clearly considers the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories to be a far more significant problem than the unwarranted criticism of fringe theories (you can see that from the fact that the first problem gets a major heading and explanation while the second problem is barely mentioned, or if you prefer I can go into a more detailed analysis of the text). it's not a huge POV, but it's enough that it allows fanatics on one side of the issue a lot more leeway than fanatics on the other side, and that creates bias in a whole lot of other articles. certain sections of the guideline (most notably 'particular attribution') are overtly biased, yes, but mostly this guidelines just suffers from tunnel-vision. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I have a problem with your equating the Promotion of a theory and Criticism of it ... Promotion and Criticism are not equal things. There is no such thing as warrented (or justified) Promotion of a Fringe Theory (nor anything else) on wikipedia. It is not our job to Promote things. In fact we barred from doing so by WP:NPOV. However, there is such a thing as justified criticism of a theory, and if a theory is criticised by the mainstream, it is our job to mention that criticism in our articles. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

interesting - maybe you could tell me how you segued from a 'unwarranted promotion and unwarranted criticism' to 'unwarranted promotion and justified criticism'? I'm not talking about justified criticism, I'm talking about unwarranted criticism. or are you trying to claim that there's no such thing as unwarranted criticism? I'll add that (while it is certainly not our job to promote anything on wikipedia) we do have an obligation to report reliable sources who promote fringe theories, at least to the extent that it describes what the fringe theory is about. or do you disagree with that as well? --Ludwigs2 22:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course some criticism can be unwarrented. But my point is that a lot of criticism is justified. No promotion is warrented. This is often at the heart of the debates about this guideline. Editors who agree with or support a Fringe theory often object when told their pet theory is not notable, when justified criticism is discussed in an article, or when a fringe theory is labeled as such. This guideline explains (or at least trys to explain) when and how all this is to be determined. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately, many editors do not see the distinction between warranted and unwarranted criticism, nor do they see the distinction between promotion and explanation. if I describe a Fringe Theory in its own terms, that's explanation, not promotion; but I have been opposed heavily for trying to do exactly that (on the apparent thought that any neutral description of the theory must be POV promotion). right now this guideline does very little to foster or explain those distinctions; do you think that it shouldn't? --Ludwigs2 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you continue to intertwine promotion and explanation. A simple explanation, without giving appropriate weight to the fact that the fringe theory is shown to be fringe by nearly every reliable source, is POV. See Orgone for a fringe idea that is conveniently missing the full weight of science. Someone reading that article might think it works. Which it doesn't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The relevant distinction is simple: use reliable, independent sources. A fringe theory's description should not come diectly from snakeoil.com - it should come from the New York Times describing the snakeoil.com phenomenon. This guideline explains that very nicely, and requires such independent, reliable sources as a condition of a fringe theory's notability. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, MastCell, the problem with that is that (for fringe theories) nice, neutral, reliable sources rarely exist. if they do, great; but if they don't then the only way to achieve a proper balance in the article is to present something from each of the sides in the discussion - a description from good old 'SnakeOil.com', along with a rebuttal by the few scientists who are sufficiently annoyed by SnakeOil.com to bother talking about it. you can't treat the latter group as neutral (you can treat them as factually correct, in some cases at least, but as we've discussed before that's not the same thing as neutral).

and OM: you don't need to establish your credentials as a pro-science zealot; we are all aware of your POV on these issues. you could at least attempt to discuss the matter properly, however. for instance, don't bring up articles where we have a certain amount of agreement as though we have radically different opinions. it just makes for needless confrontations. --Ludwigs2 04:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem we're citing:"(for fringe theories) nice, neutral, reliable sources rarely exist". Yes, that's right. Most sources come from the people selling, promoting, or otherwise partisanly advocating the fringe theory. You should not be able to source the benefits of Anti-wurblefitzer vibration tarnish cream from the Anti-Wurblefitzer Vibration Tarnish Cream Company. And yet there continues to be advocacy thereof. The AWVTCC will tell us that AWVTC will prevent Anal Goblins, Herniated Frabbling, And Monkey Pox in subterranean frogs. Naturally, the amount of Wurblefitzer Vibration research, and the effects of Wurblefitzer Vibrational tarnishing on human endocrine cells, is nil. In other words, with no reliable sources, Our article should say 'AWVTC is a cream made by the AWVTCC.' end. That's the stub, and that's all it should get until someone points out that AWVTC is made of people. Fringe theorists, however, would seek to tie in Wurblefitzer's long association with a prostitute who believed in Homeopathy, and her use of Chui's immortality rings, and so on, based on sources like the Wurblefitzer-Chui symposium on disposing of hooker corpses. It's not going to happen. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:N deals with this. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. where 'reliable' means Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:RS. So there is really no use for WP:Fringe, as if there is no reliable secondary source, it will be deleted per WP:N and WP:RS.

Further in WP:Notability it sais: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles. Here is another problem with WP:Fringe, it wants to control not only which articles can be included in wikipedia (Fringe used to address articles, not ideas), but also which ideas can be included within articles. That IS the main problem in my opinion because WP:RS used to deal with statements within articles, but now you want to place stricter conditions over individual statements, than exist for the whole articles! Why do you think WP:N, WP:RS don't provide enought control over what can be placed in Wikipedia? Lakinekaki (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I realized an example for above would be useful: Imagine an article about XYZ is determined notable and not-fringe, and is included in Wikipedia. Now, per WP:Fringe, all statements within article have to be non-fringe. It is possible that X is not fringe, and Y and Z are fringe, or maybe that all individual statements X, Y, and Z are fringe, but together they create a non-fringe article. So by applying WP:Fringe to individual statements, they get removed one by one, and at the end the initial non-fringe article gets deleted. This is just a theoretical example, but it illustrates the point. Lakinekaki (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki, Where does the guideline say "all statements within an article have to be non-fringe"? I think you have a misunderstanding of what this guideline actually says. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The very first sentence in the nutshell box sais: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should..., and since anyone can claim for anything to be fringe, the editor who added an idea has to prove it is not. Lakinekaki (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that, as a co-director of an organization dedicated to the study of EVP and things etheric, ThuranX, I find your choice of words both insulting and very disturbing. If you were to dominate in this wiki, and it appears your kind do, then there is no way that I would ever expect it to fairly represent any subject that you do not agree with, which seems to be everything but what your god, mainstream science, allows it to be.

I personally do not gain financially or even socially by having EVP mainstream and I do not give a crap if you do not like the subject. Unless you can show me how I am deluded, I suggest that you stick to just what it is. Public asks: "What is EVP. Answer: "EVP is said to be this. This is where the idea came from, this is what it looks like and these are the theories from delusion to dead people speaking." Instead, you will call it is a fringe subject that is pseudoscience, proposed by quacks trying to deceive the public."

There is a direct consequence of your actions on my work--at least the actions of the skeptical community. The farther a subject is from mainstream, the more you all yell about it corrupting unsuspecting minds of the public. From our conversations with mainstream scientists, they would love to study what we are reporting because it poses an interesting challenge, but they will not get close to it because it would mean career suicide. Funding for research is the same way. Of course, I do not expect you to accept that skeptics are responsible, but from my perspective, you are obstructing research which may well prove the EVP is not real. We would be delighted but it is not going to happen any time soon because you all have pretty well poisoned the well with your ideology.

I am not advocating that you open the door to every idea. In fact, I have tried a number of times to have the EVP article deleted. What Wikipedia is charged to do is create articles that inform the reader without suggesting conclusions. You are not doing that and this "Fringe" essay as policy will only be one more assurance that you will not. Tom Butler (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow... supporting censorship and an exclusively biased POV, and a straw man argument, all in an excessivly wordy post asserting victim status. Is this a joke? Verbal chat 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

verbal - are you disagreeing with Tom, or simply trying to wp:poison the well in the hopes others won't take him seriously? if the former, you might want to try actually saying something... --Ludwigs2 21:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pointing out the major flaws in his "argument" in a concise way. The question was serious, but looking at Tom's user page I guess he isn't joking. Is pointing out flaws a flaw now? Was there a salient point to his post that I missed? Verbal chat 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX - again, you're failing to make distinctions and ranting. let's take an easy example - Royal rife. on one hand, the people who make references to Rife and his theories in the modern world are either self-deluded or charletans: many of them I would attribute bad intentions to, but many I wouldn't, and I see no point in confusing the two groups. on the other hand, Rife himself was almost certainly an earnest scientist who just happened to be wrong (as many scientists turn out to be). He was hardly doing anything different than any other scientist in the world - most scientists in the world are interested in discovering something they can patent, copyright, and sell (be it a new kind of computer architecture, or a medicine, or a publishable social theory about something or other). most of those scientists fail, and some of the failures develop cult followings regardless. trying to villainize all of these people just because you personally can't conceive of anyone honestly believing any of this is silly POV-pushing. --Ludwigs2 21:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, it is fair to ask if there is a point if you really don't get it. Asking would have helped.

The point is that this is not an exercise in which editors get to play at being editors. This page is public,as is all of the other pages that have hosted this tribal warfare. Some of the comments here are intellectually embarrassing to the author, and to me as being associated with Wikipedia. You can find such comments on just about every talk page.

Every teacher and professor I have spoken with about Wikipedia tell me that they caution their students away from using the material. The reason is always the same ... need I labor the point? At the same time, the average person does not have guidance from a teacher, and from experience, I know they tend to accept the authority of Wikipedia as a respected encyclopedia. If the professors are correct in guiding students away, then it is reasonable to think that the average person should have been guided away. To me that makes editor's work something of a menus to society.

Meanwhile, the skeptical community has no research of its own and can only destroy knowledge to win their point. By the power of their numbers, they are obstructing progress and suppressing free enquiry into what history will show to be at least occasionally new science. If I could name names, I could show that the skeptical community is driving scientists and funding away from new discoveries. Wikipedia has become an important tool for the skeptical community and that can be pretty easily proven.

So my point is that there is a consequence to how you all vote on this fringe issue ... how you edit in general. You can do what you want, but if you do so without considering the consequences of your actions beyond just scratching your skeptical itch, then you are abdicating your responsibility as a contributor to what is supposed to be a trusted body of knowledge. Tom Butler (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not really fair to assume that those who disagree with your position do so for a lack of consideration of consequences. The reverse is likely true (i.e., that they disagree with you after having considered the consequences). Antelan 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a scientist, not a sceptic. How we vote affects how we edit? That's your point? Scientists are a sceptical bunch - and they should be, especially of their own research and conclusions. What would you prefer? Also, I fully support the idea that wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source by students and academics - if I refereed a paper citing wikipedia as a source I'd probably ask them to find a better reference in my report. We all use wikipedia, but we should be sceptical of what's written here because of its public and changeable nature. It's a good starting point, or to look something up you already understand but need the details of, but as a reliable reference for academic work it falls short - but that is the nature of this beast, and why we need good references for the articles Scientists don't do research? Verbal chat 22:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

hey, I'm a scientist too, and every time I ask people to try to maintain a little scientific objectivity on fringe topics, I get told I'm a POV-pusher. what's up with that? Wikipedia ought to be something I could tell my students to use as reliable encyclopedic reference - if they have to read wikipedia with a skeptical eye for bias (which is what I tell them now, and grade them down for if they don't listen), then wikipedia is failing in its purpose. I mean, this seems like such a no brainer to me: an 'encyclopedia' that's geared towards instructing people that fringe topics are 'wrong' is not an encyclopedia, it's a pulpit. what use is that to anyone? --Ludwigs2 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this argument is becoming repetitive and there's clear consensus to keep this as a guideline, I would suggest letting this go and closing this RfC. MastCell ^Talk 00:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as a guideline per Thuranx and Fyslee and others, without the POV changes suggested by Ludwigs2. Without something of this nature many scientists would abandon the project. Verbal chat 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as a guideline per all the editors who wrote it. I've seen a great deal of thought put into every section. It has strong consensus. The so-called history of disputes only come from a handful of editors. And they're usually over a single word, or at most a paragraph, not the entire guideline. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep In fact this should be upgraded to a policy, as one of the foundations of WP:NPOV along with WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:WEIGHT. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and consider upgrading to policy. Downgrading this guideline would open the gates to all sorts of homeopathic/timecubic/perpetually moving/chronically lyme diseased/moonbat claim on any given article. NPOV does not require sympathetic treatment of pseudoscience, only that the sources are chosen and accurately described in accordance with this guideline. Skinwalker (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Social engineering? That's usually reserved for things that are at odds with reality as known by most and as desired by the few. And Skinwalker, what's wrong with moonbats? The moonbat was a very pretty plane.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a guideline and enforce rigorously but fairly. An upgrade to policy may be in order, but I would prefer a separate discussion to lay out the merits clearly. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as a guideline, consider upgrading to policy or incorporating basic elements into WP:NPOV/FAQ policy. By coincidence, in a current post Dr. James F. McGrath, assistant professor of religion at Butler University eloquently expresses the importance of such standards. . . dave souza, talk 08:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Upgrade to policy. This is one of the most practically useful guidelines in terms of how this encyclopedia is shaped. Without it, this encyclopedia would have major problems with overweight of ideas that can make someone wealthy or famous, and underweight of ideas that can't. Antelan 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep as guideline but modify and improve I believe WP:FRINGE is needed and relevant for the question of when minority opinions belong in articles on other subjects (when a point of view is "significant" and includable in an WP:NPOV discussion of multiple significant perspectives). This said, I think the current language could stand improvement. However, I would ditch much of the language regarding notability and about when fringe views should get articles. I believe the standards for notablility should be the ordinary ones. Many fringe views are notable, and I don't think articles on views that meet standard notability criteria have any business being deleted on any other grounds. I would also remove most of the language about reliable sources. That language belongs in the reliable sources guideline and an elaborate discussion here only creates redundancy and potential conflict when the different guidelines are updated based on two different discussions. Finally, I would make this guideline more general. I would focus it on attempting to answer the question, when is a minority view, of how we determine when a minority view is significant enough to deserve a mention and when it doesn't. It seems to me that this guideline in its present state may have been skewed by various science/alleged pseudoscience debates, and it might be helpful to attempt a more generally applicable guideline. For example, in an article on (say) a novel, or almost any topic in culture, religion, politics, etc., how do we determine which views to include? Certainly not by reference to how well different critics etc. check facts! It would be helpful to keep the broad spectrum of articles in mind rather than crafting a guideline with a broad scope based on a non-universal and sometimes narrow set of issues. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: It is useful to clearly reference the policy sections, and clarify how they apply to Fringe theories: This is one of the basic things a guideline should do. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as Guideline and sanction Ludwigs for WP:TE and POV pushing on this guildline. He is pretty much single handingly attempted to completely water down this guideline to suit his own POV while raging against the vast majority of the community who wishes the guideline to stay as is. Pretty much textbook cases of WP:TE. Shot info (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

silly reverts

ThuranX, OrangeMarlin - this isn't significant enough to make trouble over, but I have to point out you're being silly. Creation science is prohibited from being taught as science in elementary public education; it's not prohibited from being taught, and I'm sure there are any number of public schools that teach about the creationism issue in social studies classes. you are (almost literally) making a federal case out of a simple clarification. don't be so overreactive. --Ludwigs2 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point I think. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Look, it's true that the teaching of the THEORY of creationism as a facet of religion has been discussed and/or implemented in curriculums across the nation. However, that is expressly different than actually teaching creationism, which is what you're altering it to state. To be absolutely clear, in the former, you might, for an example hear 'Many people in the world adhere to an origin of the universe theory called Creationism. Those people believe in either a literal or near literal interpretation of their religion's origin myths. Today, we're going to compare eastern, western and ancient creation myths to find common themes'. In the latter, you hear 'The holy being made the universe in seven 24 hour periods, and this is the holy, and only, truth.'. You edit promotes a false understanding of the latter, which is rarely even taught in catholic schools anymore, much less public schools. It is that matter of the content of the edit you seek to make to which I object. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

as I said, this isn't significant enough to argue over. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, it is. Period. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Upping the inclusion criteria for fringe claims

Right now the guideline includes this statement, which is also contained in the "Fringe theory in a nutshell" at the top of the page:

1. "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

Our notability requirements are one thing, but we are dealing with exceptional ("fringe") claims, and therefore the notability inclusion requirements for these cases need to be upped accordingly, in light of the due caution and logic expressed in this modification of a classic addage:

2. "Exceptional ("fringe") claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources." If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

I suggest that we modify statement 1. above to read "two major publications", and add "mere mention is not enough" to the end. Let's discuss this. Maybe it's too radical, or maybe it can be used if tweaked. -- Fyslee / talk 00:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure - if a fringe theory is non-notable then we're done. Delete the sucker. The problem is that many fringe theories are EXTREMELY notable. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell gets 5.8 million ghits. It's been reported on in many serious TV shows and established newspapers. Excluding an article on the topic is unthinkable. Sadly, none of that makes the theory true. So we're back to being pretty much forced to write about some theory that's certainly not true or correct. There are plenty of topice about which there NEEDS to be encyclopedia articles...take Mood ring for example. They sell in their millions - people widely believe that they change color in accordance with your mood. It's not at all unreasonable to expect large numbers of readers would come to Wikipedia to find out about them. We can't (reasonably) exclude the article on grounds of non-notability. So - we're faced with writing an adequately sourced, informative article about these rather silly gadgets that tells the truth and excludes the bullshit. It turns out that they are really liquid crystal thermometers that measure (very poorly) your skin temperature - which does not relate to your mood - but rather to your general health, what time of day it is, where you are in your menstrual cycle, what the temperature of the air around you is...all sorts of thing - but not your mood. This fact is easy to demonstrate as a scientist - you can look at how they are made (from thermochromic liquid crystals) - you can do double-blind scientific experiments to prove that they don't show someone's mood - you can demonstrate that they respond to body heat and there are plenty of resources that show how body temperature depends on too many external factors to measure "mood". But there's the problem. You can get sources for all of those separate facts - but it's so far proven impossible to find a scientific paper that says that mood rings don't work. It's almost impossible to write the article fairly and accurately without falling foul of WP:REF, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and probably a bunch of other guidelines and policies. For that reason we need these guidelines. SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm all for inclusion of all kinds of nonsense, as long as it is notable, even if that notability is only provided by the criticism it gets from skeptics (i.e. "or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.") and its coverage in the media. Those are considered RS. A "major publication" doesn't necessarily have to be a scientific publication of any kind. The writings and criticisms from scientific skeptics are a notable form of mainstream POV that often qualifies as a RS, in lieu of the obvious silence from scientific research. -- Fyslee / talk 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example of widely (and thickly) spread bullshit is the oeuvre of Alex Chiu. We have less problems, of course, with Chiu's obvious pseudosciences than monied interests like the homeopaths and the energy quacks. The phrase "high-quality sources" reminds me too much of Dana Ullman's lengthy obstructionism - which led to Homeopathy - it is too open to gaming, especially when combined with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Anyone can claim that their source is better than yours, especially when these low-profile altmed and "scientific exploration" journals are proliferating. I'd really like to see a guideline that prioritizes academic sources by journal impact factors and number of times a particular source has been cited. Of course, this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting consensus - too bureaucratic and difficult to game. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an enhanced set of sourcing restrictions needs to be codified, or if we should simply clarify what constitutes acceptable sourcing in light of the extreme claims behind fringe theories. Nice as academic source prioritizing sounds good, i agree that it won't pass. Further, because of the exclusivity of access, I'm not sure that it should. as that really would deliver a wide range of fringe articles into the hands of the scientific side almost exclusively, which would be bad. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - I was only talking about academic sourcing - there have been some ugly POV-pushes on homeopathy and related pages over how much weight we should give to articles from fringe journals like Homeopathy and Journal of Alternative Medicine. Now that I think of it, prioritizing academic sources by citation numbers is not a good idea. I've seen some horrid mainstream papers that were highly cited - usually due to the primary author's pre-eminence than anything else. There are also mainstream specialty journals that cite each other a lot, creating a clubby "you cite me, I cite you" atmosphere that distorts a paper's importance. I'd rather not get into arguments that paper W published in the New England Journal of Medicine with X cites is better/worse than paper Y published in Homeopathy with Z cites. Skinwalker (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A very good point. ThuranX (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Truly? Do you actually know what happens with this "publication requirement"? First, they'll argue about it didn't come from a "major" publisher". Secondly, it wasn't an "objective" publisher (solely of the opinion of the guy who doesn't like the publication). Thirdly, if it was even published there will add some other requirement (then spend at least another week arguing the other requirement). You can ask for only one publication, and they'll still be warring. As designed by the stallers. Disrupt, stall, wear down the editors, and then call for a RFC. Any more "requirements"? Letters of recommendations from bodies that are impossible to acquire? Dead bodies even? You know this won't be enough, there will be more "requirements" not written (like a lot of unwritten rules at Wikipedia). The evidence can be 20 citations from the best publications on Earth, they would be still argued it as worthless, much like a cheap political debate. If you're going to require publications, it's going to have to be the "law", no disputing them if produced. Otherwise, this is a folly. FResearcher (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Whose calzone are you? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Paranoid, uh? Well, I AM a person none of you know (thank goodness), and a person who cares about knowledge (I careless what, but knowledge itself). A person who has watched for months how this sausage is being made, and seeing the recipe repeated in batches across Wikipedia in the name of "truth". What I don't see, in this zest to label, and to remove self-promoters, is the same light shined on the accusers who setup shop as self-promoters themselves as a self check (you know just like the scientific method to ensure objectivity?). Wikipedia will never be a research source if this is where the time and energy is spent, setting up political camps between debunkers and whoever else. Because it's not "labels" that is needed to be addressed, it's the environment for editors to do their jobs to attract and keep experts (not harbor anything that the cat can drag in, as that is all that is willing to work in this hell hole). You only get what you have with editors who thrive in such an environment -- and pages like this is the result -- zero professionalism, not much knowledge of the topic, let alone the label itself! Tomorrow the definition requirements will change in the "field" (as countless other rules that get violated by this bunch, almost daily). Why have rules when they won't even be enforced? If I see that dude (you know the one that's being protected?), for the nth time get his punishment reduced for acting like an nub, I know this page has been a folly, as he'll just come back and abuse "FRINGE" over and over and over like a racist with the "N" word. BTW, this mess has gotten to be what it is because folks like you have made it into a combat zone, complete with the instant camp accusation for posting about the subject at hand (FYI: I'm mostly pro-science, but I never bitten the poisoned debunkery apple, one that has the potential to turn science into the 15th century Church). But, thanks for illustrating how paranoid it has gotten. When objectivity is lost (e.g., the checkers not being checked), that's the result. FResearcher (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. What, pray tell, is "this bunch"? "[f]olks like [me]"? "[N]ot much knowledge of the topic"? What topic? Which topic? I'm sure you were trying to make a point, but you missed it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can't respond appropriately, just don't respond at all. Have no time or interest to babysit 15 year-olds. FResearcher (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose using anything other than Wikipedia's standard notability critera as the basis for deciding whether or not to have articles about views and theories. This is a separate issue from whether the view should be included on any other article other than itself ("significance"). Notability is no evidence of truth, or even non-wackiness. WP:NOT#CENSORED strikes me as a critical requirement and something we should stick to here as elsewhere. I see no more reason to exclude subjects because the hard-nosed science sub-constituency finds them scientifically embarassing and unrespectable than to exclude because people find them blasephemous, too sexually frank, or any other of the many other reasons why various Wikipedia sub-constitutiencies sometimes find inclusion embarrassing and not respectable with respect to their frameworks. It they're a notable human phenomenon, include, and truth has nothing to do with it. Scientific prudishness and hang-ups does not strike me as a legitimate basis for censorship any more than prudishness and hang-ups of any other kind. We include false, rediculous, and highly offensive subjects all the time. If it's notable in the usual sense, inclusion comes with all the usual baggage, including noting that the academic community thinks it complete garbage if this is so. Use of self-published work etc. can be addressed through WP:RS. However, I would oppose "heightened" sourcing for anything except BLP where we're legally compelled. A source either is reliable or it isn't. Notability always requires independent sources. If science people feel they can't show the encyclopedia to their colleagues because they'd be embarassed if their colleagues found it has an article on X, join the club of people embarassed by Wikipedia's plethora eof mbarassing articles, from the bizarre sexual techniques to the articles on minor athletes, pornographic actors, and minor TV, comic book, and video game characters. One person's embarassment is no better or worse than any other's. Notability has got to be the measure, equally and fairly applied to all. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly mere mention does not suffice is perfectly in line with N, and I would support making it more explicit as Fyslee suggests. Stating at least two sources instead of the current requirement of at least one major publication seems a little arbitrary. If there is not sufficient material in the only available independent source to write a properly unbiased article, we should exclude it on those grounds. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not unbiased, concensus. Topics like this are edited by two warring camps, and what survives the war is what's left to present. That doesn't mean it's unbiased (as the two political forces are doing the editing in the first place -- it can't be unbiased, as they're too blinded by their own dogmas). Have to understand subjects like this are being policed by a debunking "skeptic" group, along with a parapsychology group (and some others interests). Each has their own agendas, and they sure don't want the "other side" getting a leg up. All anyone can do is get some type of sausage out of it, and hopefully one worth eating. FResearcher (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember that the whole point of notability for fringe theories is that they are notable for things other than their "scientific merit". The criterion Fyslee has proposed actually serves as a pretty reasonable start for a notability guideline for serious scientific work, but for fringe stuff, the standard notability criterion should apply until we get a handle on the two unique needs of fringe theories, both scientific and nonscientific. Secondly, words like "major", "serious" and "extensively" might actually cause the opposite of what Fyslee is looking to accomplish to happen. If a fringe theory generates a body of literature with decent readership and with one or more "peer reviewed journals", it can still be junk science, but junk science with all the robes and trappings of serious science, which provides a wedge for edit warring. We need a better way of handling that. HatlessAtless (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to HatlessAtlas, there is an interesting clause we already use once that could be included twice (to bring this up to our "third party" sourcing requirement): "that is independent of the theory."

It could be included here (as underlined):

• "in a serious manner, in at least one [or two...] major publication[s] that is independent of the theory." That might be an effective method of dealing with fringe groups who attempt to "stack the deck" by creating their own notability. Multiplying fringe sources doesn't equal non-fringe or make it any less fringe. "The plural of anecdote is not data." - Roger Brinner

As I wrote above, this thread is for discussion. "Maybe it's too radical, or maybe it can be used if tweaked." Whatever happens, this discussion is productive, except for the gross violations of NPA and TALK. Otherwise people are coming up with some interesting thoughts while they discuss this. We're all learning here and this is a good way to do it. -- Fyslee / talk 05:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's some interesting ideas in this; including specific requirements for independent verification is nice, but unfortunately, I think that it might lead us right back to the same problems with sourcing covered all over this page. I wish we could include the Brinner quote on the page, it's certainly a fitting quote. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically this is all about how mainstream science deals with information and judges whether it is fringe or not. It's all a question of definition, and that definition is always in relation to "mainstream". "Fringe" cannot be defined in isolation. Therefore various mainstream scientific skeptical quotes from notable skeptics and scientists would be perfectly appropriate. Just attribute them properly. My user page has a number of significant skeptical quotes. Maybe some of them can be used. -- Fyslee / talk 05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My issue isn't so much about the publication requirement itself, it's that when folks do provide good cites, folks bicker about if it's valid or not (despite it is a good cite; does come from a respectable publisher; and maybe even reviewed). Went back and read some of the what that dude was editing awhile ago, and saw exactly that tactic (and it is a tactic -- did that dude take debating in high school or something?). If folks don't follow the rules that already exist -- or Wiki lawyer articles to a standstill to wear editors out [basically hijacking articles] -- all this is really a folly. The Law must be the Law and editors follow it to the letter, not find loopholes (or certain editors are protected from breaking them). Neither side is going to win this war. Sure some battles will be won on either side, but the war itself won't be won. All the crying and moaning and acting like asses won't change that fact. This is why a conductive environment between the parties is needed. You may not like the subject as much as I don't like mustard greens, but folks eat those mustard greens and love it regardless. I read a lot about "professional and respected" here, and if that's the will, then please act the part, not just talk about it. Talk is real cheap. FResearcher (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The current guideline handles this very well... it allows for discussion of fringe theories that have achieved a certain level of notice (or perhaps notariety is a better word) by the mainstream. It does not matter whether that notice is positive or negative, accepting or disparaging. All that is required is that the mainstream has taken serious note of it's existance. This is a good ballance between "report anything no matter how fringe" and "don't report fringe". If no or little note has been taken of the theory, we do not mention it. On the other hand, if a particular theory has achieved enough notice, then we do. Assuming a given theory has achieved enough notice ... we then have to move to the issue of how to word things when we report it. That can not be dictated by a policy or guideline, because it will depend on the individual theory. In other words, I see little reason to change the existing guideline. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Fyslee. We have to be careful not to let a bias on the topic color our evaluation of the source, but we should hold such extraordinary claims to extraordinary standards. I will say, however, that this needs some tempering. For example, some 'fringe' has a longer history, sometimes a history where a much larger part of the world adhered to something, like 'flat earthers'. In such a storied historic coontext about a fringe topic, the 'extraordinary sources' thing may not be needed, the long historical context can be adequate sourcing for the basic belief, and only a write-up of the 'proof' of a flat earth needs to be held to the higher standard. My understanding is that Plasma Cosmology] had a similar wider following at a time. Similarly there, the historic context of the beleif and debunking could be covered by normal sourcing; only the 'this is still true' section, countering the debunking, would need extraordinary sourcing. My point, to sum up, is that while the 'extraordinary sourcing' is good, it must be applied ONLY in the context of the claim itself, not the article, to become a viable and responsible addition to FRINGE and to our general ideas of good sourcing. Think of it as a scalpel, not a claymore. ThuranX (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because one author years ago claimed that "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" doesn't make it a Law. It's like here, it's one man's opinion. Just because, for example, Bach may have said something about music in A minor is superior than music in B flat, it doesn't mean that only music in A minor is important and correct -- nor to dictate music composition and theory. The danger of debunkery, compared to actual Skeptism, is that they take things so literally and have a tunnel vision on quotes and quips. Then they wrap everything around this framework, and refuse to see anything but this scripture. You guys are trying to wrap things around that guys idea (it's nothing more than the Bach example above), and trying to force the rest of the universe into it. Much like the Church with the belief that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Step back and look at the larger picture, as you're not helping science (science actually doesn't need it's own Blackwater anyway). You're pushing a man's personal view about science and your own biases about a subject, not the principles of science itself. FResearcher (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA. This is a formal warning. Comparing those who support serious sourcing rules are not a paramilitary hit squad, nor are we fascists about what we're supporting. Next NPA vio will be reported for a block request. ThuranX (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And this is a formal warning to you: if you take things out of context as you did, I will ask for a block request on you, as you're trying to start war, by doing so. I'm very careful in how I write, and that is misconstruing it way beyond what I wrote to cause a stir -- and you know it. You know it, because you went for the big guns right from the start. You don't issue warnings (as you're no admin). Get back to the topic, or let's get the admins in. Because you have to answer for your second commentary below, too. Want to dance? Let's go. FResearcher (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From a certain perspective science as a whole is simply one aspect of human culture and scientific therories are beliefs with cultural impact, as are ideas derived from philosphy, religion, fiction, or elsewhere. A belief's notability is a measure of its influence -- how much people of different kinds have discussed it and to what extent it has been part of the culture. This is independent of what realm the idea comes from or what people's basis for believing or discussing it is. (An idea that people have discussed substantially is notable, whether or not anyone believes it). I feel this guideline could better take into account the cultural aspect of notability. It could be more helpful in dealing with pure culture subjects (For example, how do we determine when an interpretation of a novel, or a political or theological perspective is fringe?) In addition, when an idea has both cultural and scientific aspects or has potential notability (or not) in multiple circles, it might be useful to talk more about the cultural aspects. Many historical ideas came to have a significant impact on society independent of later rejection on scientific grounds. For example, to this day we still say "the sun rises" and the "sun sets", and use many other phrases refering to the sun with vocabulary based on concepts originating in a geocentric worldview. This cultural influence of geocentric thought on language, among other cultural impacts, deserves mention in the Flat earth and related articles. As another example, the Logic article indicates that the question of whether the rules of logic are independent of or determined by empirical observation is currently a hot topic in Metaphysics. Whether Logic can best be regarded as a science or as some other kind of human knowledge depends to some degree on which side of the debate one takes. The very question of what science's proper boundaries are is sometimes still an open question. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How can one know whether something is fringe withing some area of knowledge? One needs to actually do some research and figure it out. How many people actually do that before putting a label 'fringe'? Why require more exceptional sources for something one thinks is fringe than for something one does not think is fringe. Why not require exceptional sources for everything. For non-fringe ideas they will be easier to find, so there is no contradiction here.

How many books are indexed in Google Book search -- commonly used tool for finding references? There are more than 30 million books only in US libraries [17]. How do you determine fringe from non fringe authors? Lets make an A PRIORI list of conditions one needs to meet to be non-fringe, and than lets exclude all others even when they support mainstream ideas.

How many scientific papers are in Google Scholar search? There are hundreds of thousands of papers published only in open access journals[18]. What about 15000 selected journals in the ISI database[19] many of which are unaccessible for search to general public? How do you figure out which of these are fringe journals as some of you are doing that too. I suggest lets make a big A PRIORI list of these fringe journals so that Wikipedia editors don't waste time and energy reading and citing those. In the same time, those won't be able to be quoted even for mainstream ideas. In the same time, if non-fringe journal talks about fringe idea, it won't be able to be disputed as a reference.

EDIT: even open access journals are not entirely searchable, nor indexed by Google, like for example this random paper[20]

How can you claim something is extraordinary claim and fringe until you actually do Assume Good Faith and show some Scientific Open Mindedness and actually try to see if idea is fringe within the topic and who writes about it. Even then, how do you do it without having access to most of this human knowledge?

Even news articles cannot be searched fully, as they disappear after a while from mainstream websites like CNN. Therefore, after a while certain news can only be found in less popular news sites.

Lakinekaki (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that's how the "game" is setup. First, if you question the status quo, you must provide the evidence. Then when you do, they have the luxury of just discounting it, because they are the status quo. They really don't need to have any rules of engagement, as the status quo can change them to meet their needs. As the point is -- "don't question the status quo". The whole debunkery movement is to stall time, and wear those who question convention down. What started as an effort to self-correct one extreme, turned into yet an extreme in it's own right (much like any political movement). You can see here, how it works in a nutshell. All talk about rules of order; "professionalism and respect"; and unbiased coverage. But just pull back the curtain, and you'll see the real story -- arguing over the very things they even asked for to be evidence. Once that's finished, onto another tactic. If you survive this process longer than six months you're a hero, because if the status quo doesn't break you, they'll run you out of Dodge (but they'll still won't win the shoot out, as time has a funny way of self-correcting the extremes. The only saving grace for the trouble). FResearcher (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember, however, that the "prestige" or "goodness" of sources applies to any science, and notability is established by impact. What I mean is this: mainstream science or not, we have to be careful to cite secondary sources to establish notability in the first place. The Awesome Peer Reviewed Journal of Junk Science may be defensible as a good solid source, but its a primary source. Take homeopathy for example; the fact that it is easy to substantiate in secondary sources the number of practitioners and how many people use it and believe in it, as well as its impact, is what drives its notability. The "truth" or "quality of research" behind it is irrelevant to its notability. Now, the argument comes in as to whether or not it is taken seriously in scientific articles is another matter, and one that gets ugly since it really takes subject matter experts to wade through the arguments and sources and sort it out. The problem with sorting through sources is this: if we label a claim as "extraordinary" and then demand extraordinary proof, are we risking applying a double standard to things that do or do not fit our own preconceptions? Granted that in certain subjects I am an SME (Subject Matter Expert), I am only one in a narrow range of fields, and this is true of everyone who is an SME. HatlessAtless (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember also that conventional medicine has just started to research alternative medicine, and it's sub-specialities like homeopathy (only within the last decade opening an office at the NIH, even). Heck, it finally relented on the chiropractors. It even had to rely on research from Germany on St. John's Wort, because American medicine just didn't persue it. Because of this, and because US medicine is just exploring non-conventional medicine, there will be a shortage of documentation in these journals. Debunkers know this, and is another reason they stress it (and boy, they sure don't like publications from foreign countries). And if someone does bring up something about St. John's Wort used to treat, say, depression, and drags resources from German publications, you can rest assured this group will declare it invalid. That's my point. Nothing is good enough. There's a lot of good talking about "fairness" and "good faith", but when the history is a mile long otherwise, it takes a t-a-d more than written assurances now. FResearcher (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FResearcher, stop painting the supporters of fringe as martyrs to a repressive regime. All that shit about the 'status quo' being an immovable object and a game against you is nonsense. As for Lakinekaki's claim that "nothing is fringe until we prove that it is fringe, but we can only prove fringe by treating nothing as fringe, and if we can prove it's fringe, we've done things wrong so we have to start all over' is asinine. It's very simple. Covering some subjects as if they had credibility when they demonstratively don't, and justifying it by invoking NPOV, is not how things ARE done, and it's not how things SHOULD be done. Most fringe topics exist in WP:WALLED GARDENS, and if we were to treat them seriously, we would pretty much have to write from within such a garden, and hope that people outside would be able to see the invisible walls. That's not reasonable, as we write for the REAL world, the one outside those gardens, where science is based on repeatable results, hypothesis and experimentation. We're simply trying to make sure that there is a reasonable formulation for fringe topics to be presented in a neutral way while being clear about the fact that there is no science which does not discount them, no proof that they work that isn't from the advocates, and so on. You know all this, but continue to disingenuously protest and assert that there's no such thing as fringe and we're all biased. At this point, I think you know your behavior is obstructionist in nature, and not interested in helping formulate solid reliable standards for good sourcing. As such, I see no reason why, after the obstructing and personal attacks, we should bother to listen to you at all anymore. ThuranX (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Either provide evidence I'm, "painting the supporters of fringe as martyrs to a repressive regime", or retract it and apologize for again exaggerating my words. You can't have it both ways, ThuranX, and especially without evidence. FResearcher (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Because that's how the "game" is setup. First, if you question the status quo, you must provide the evidence. Then when you do, they have the luxury of just discounting it, because they are the status quo. They really don't need to have any rules of engagement, as the status quo can change them to meet their needs." there ya go. Your words. Now stop it, and address the actual problems and how to improve them, or get out of the way. ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? Because that isn't what you accused. Now, either find that evidence that I said I supported "fringe as martyrs to a repressive regime" or pull your accusation. Don't let that paranoia become your prisoner, and certainly don't pigeon-hole me into, again, what YOU believe. That, again, isn't facts. Now you either find that evidence as you wrote, or start housekeeping and pull this accusation. If you don't, this will be taken up with whatever maze Wikipedia has to fix it. As that libel stops here. Again, no double standards. FResearcher (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please drop the personal attacks FR, and take this tedious exchange to your talk page or somewhere else more appropriate. Your claim of libel is getting close to a legal threat - I suggest you strike it. Verbal chat 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! A WP:LEGAL Violation! Strike it now, and drop the personal attacks you're making all over this thread, or I'll find an admin to follwo up on your legal threat. ThuranX (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please escalate it to whatever Admin noticeboard. I'm new, so don't know which one to pick! It's about time this is duked out at a more appropriate venue. Want to see the latest conspiracy theory, anyway (it maybe even better than the X-Files!). FResearcher (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Note that FResearcher been given an indefinite block for blatantly misrepresenting himself at WP:ANI as a newcomer and then showing that he/she obviously was not a newbie. Would troll be too strong a word? Doug Weller (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

draft version of complete reconstruction up and running

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HatlessAtlas/fringe_rework

Please take a look above or in the guideline history (included for ease of diff) of my proposed rebuild of this guideline. I created it to address what I see as some aspects of the way this guideline is built that prevent it from being a useful barrier to editors who are using fringe pages to POV-push. I have preserved much of the material in the existing guideline, but I have made it more internally consistent and presented it as a specific reading of wikipedia policy in terms of fringe theory rather than as a set of specific guidance points that are obviously hindsight solutions to edit wars. In particular, I have done the following:

• The extant guideline harps on quality measurements of primary sources. This puts editors in the bad position of having to evaluate "peer reviewed journals" for validity, which is beyond the expertise of most wikipedia editors. This doesn't help anyone. I have recast this guideline to be more in line with the core policy WP:NOR, in particular, the part where it explicitly states Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources..

• The extant guideline approaches different topics at different points with different degrees of emphasis. This opens the guideline up to argument and wikilawyering since the different emphasis can create apparent conflicts of priority within the guideline sections. I have rebuilt the guideline to say much the same thing as it had, but maintain the same tone within the guideline, so as to eliminate any aparrent conflicts.

• The extant guideline reads as an admonition to editors pointed to this page. While that is exactly what the page should be, this guideline will be more effective and more useful if that is not what this page sounds like. I have corrected this by maintaining an even handed tone throughout the draft guideline. While it is intended to have the same intended effect, maintaining an evenhanded tone should be more successful.

• The extant guideline does not have a coherent thesis. While NPOV is invoked initially, most of the guideline deals with NOR, RS, and NOTABILITY. I have rebuilt the introduction to provide a clear thesis, as well as provided clear scope and parameters for the guideline.

• The extant guideline does not give editors a useful heads up as to the what they can expect to encounter. I have made the introduction spell out clearly what editors can expect.

• The structure of the proposed guideline provides editors a clear and useful way of guiding tendentious editors to this page. It allows an editor or administrator to point to a specific policy, and then explain exactly how and why the TE is violating that policy in terms of the guidance provided here. By being careful with internal consistency, there is less recourse to other sections of the same policy to conflict with such an admonition.

Please tell me what you think, provide comments, make suggested changes to the draft on my userpage, etc. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One item I note which I think many can agree on is restoring the examples. I'll hold off a bit on other items, till i really try to work out what was moved, what was really pulled out, and what was really added in. Two read-throughs isn't enough for that. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I had an issue with the examples as they were presented in that they appeared to me to be pulling the guideline into what was recently, or what might have the potential to be, a hot edit war and an active dispute. I have used examples where appropriate in the text of the draft guideline, but I believe strongly that we should give the guideline a bedrock-solid foundation in historical and completely non contentious and settled examples. Then we don't risk this guideline being made part of the battle instead of the guideline being the solution to the battle (even if its an administrator pointing to a clear subsection in a block justification). If we have consensus for examples, however, toss in draft ones to the discussion, please, that's why I am posting it for discussion. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this version does a fine job of defining what a fringe theory is. There are really three cases where fringe theories are a problem for editors:

1. Non-notable fringe theories. These are easily dealt with using existing notability guidelines - nothing more need be said here.
2. Notable fringe theories that are being placed into mainstream scientific articles. This version does a reasonable job of explaining what we should do - but I feel it would be better to cut the discussion to the bone and come out with a small set of clearcut guidelines about what editors should do when this happens. (IMHO: Move the fringe theory out into a separate article - link to it with a BRIEF statement in the mainstream article - then treat the fringe theory as a problem by itself). But the guidelines laid out in this revised guideline is adequate in saying that...it could just be a clearer, simpler statement of what we should actually do.
3. Notable fringe theories that are in articles of their own - where the following applies:
   • There is ample coverage by supporters of the theory, ranging from it's original author and from hundreds - perhaps thousands - of other documents, including perhaps even TV coverage and mention in non-scientific places such as newspapers - but none of which is in mainstream/peer-reviewed science journals.
   • There is zero coverage by scientists who could easily debunk the theory.
   • The theory can trivially be debunked by referenced mainstream scientific theory - but only by violating either WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS (the last is the hardest to avoid).

That third case is by far the biggest problem. Take (for example) the current rush of shysters who are selling "hydrogen fuel enhancement" gizmos that claim to make your car use 60% less gasoline by fully combusting the gasoline and thereby eliminating unburned fuel. There is an unending tidal wave of documents by the proponents. Their claims have been seen on TV and in respectable newspapers - where they are treated as true - but without critical evaluation. It's trivial for me to debunk them by pointing out (for example) referenced, respectable documents that show that only about 2% of the fuel in a typical car goes unburned - so a 60% fuel economy improvement is impossible. But we can't say that - it's OR. We can maybe come up with other scientific reasons why these things won't work - a combination of scientific principles will lead to a clear debunking of these systems - but then we fall afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. (That's a particularly nasty requirement to meet - it means that no matter how much scientific references you can come up with that relate to parts of the problem - unless you can find one single article that "puts it all together" - you're guilty of WP:SYNTHESIS violation. The problem is that scientists don't need to write proper articles that "put it all together" because the action of putting together well-understood existing principles to come to an obvious conclusion is exactly the kind of thing that'll cause mainstream journal editors to reject your paper from their journal!

So the Wikipedia guidelines almost always conspire to prevent us from telling the mainstream scientific truth...and that's a HUGE difficulty in writing a decent encyclopedia that doesn't end up being full of crap written by nut jobs.

What our WP:FRINGE guideline needs is complete and highly specific statements of what editors who wish to keep this class of notable and (seemingly) well referenced articles under control so as to avoid undue weight. Don't tell us what NOT to do - we already know that. Tell us what precisely we're ALLOWED to do. What is the official Wikipedia solution to writing well-balanced articles "of the third kind"...because right now, I'm screwed at every turn.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, there is a reason for WP:SYNTHESIS, and I agree with it and the difficulties it provides. To respond to your example, automobile engines only operate at about 20% thermodynamic efficiency; they are governed by Carnot efficiency, related to the maximum combustion temperature in the engine. To say that a 60% fuel efficiency increase is impossible is quite a stretch. It is not feasible with today's technology, and certainly not economical, as high temperature materials approach the cost of gold, that is an entirely separate discussion. However, if you tack on the word fraud to those searches, you'll find most of those claims debunked or challenged. Generally, if you can't debunk such a claim by finding a reliable source that states so explicitly, you're either not looking hard enough (because there are plenty of consumer protection websites that debunk them just fine) or they're so non-notable that they can be challenged on those grounds. The history channel did a documentary that explicitly labeled those devices as crap! Additionally, many of the "reports" are parroted press releases. By emphasizing independence, secondary sources, and impact, it removes the validity of parroted press releases as a valid source.

In either case, my draft guideline deals with exactly these cases. By explicitly describing the two different notability criteria, it is easy to differentiate why something might merit an article, but when that is used as a wedge to force a fringe theory in a mainstream article, just point to the notability discussion and state that the author has failed to present sufficient evidence of impact to justify its inclusion. Secondly, if the editor were to get several sources from cnn, the new york times, and the washington post taking the theory seriously, then we would be obligated to reevaluate the status of the theory and whether it deserved mention or not. (and for fringe theories there won't be, see my incentive description)HatlessAtless (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside - as a committed atheist - I subscribe to the view that we should not give undue respect to religions. I therefore strongly object to the section that says that religious articles be treated somehow differently from other fringe theories. Creation theories are a matter of mainstream science - when a religious article claims that the universe was created by some magical being 4000 years ago, it's just as bad as Stanley Meyer's claim to have produced a car that runs on tap water. I don't see ANY reason to treat them differently. Hence, there most certainly should be sections in articles on religion that state that these are fringe theories and that mainstream science does not support their claims. (However, I'm realistic enough to realise that there are a lot more religious nuts than there are free energy nuts - and this kind of thing is unlikely to gain consensus). SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing for a Wikipedia article to say, "In the tradition of religion X, the world was formed 4,000 years ago." It's entirely different to say "The world was formed 4,000 years ago." I would agree that the latter is inappropriate, but not necessarily the former. WP:UNDUE is helpful here. Antelan 06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference in my mind between a "creation myth" and a "creation theory". A "creation myth" makes no claim of being actually true, and there is no need for scientific debunking of such a myth. We don't need to go and state, for example, "there is no scientific evidence for a historical person as the source of the god Cronus"; there is no claim as such. I threw that section in there to point out that things that are understood to be nonliteral from the outset are already described as "myth" or "article of faith" in their introduction. As such, we detract from the encyclopedic content (and piss editors and readers off) when we insult their intelligence by telling them twice that a myth isn't necessarily true; first when we point out its a myth, and then second when we point out that there is no scientific evidence to support it. Let me be clear however, I agree with Antelan above, and should a theory like young earth creationism make scientific claims, then a scientific dispute section is warranted, but only if those scientific claims are notable enough for mention. In a nutshell, a everybody already knows myths and religious stories are not literal truth, and do not claim to be. As such, they do not need to be formally and scientifically examined; doing so itself could violate WP:UNDUE with respect to historical science vs literature. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I caution you against developing the draft on a separate page. Opponents tend to ignore it until it is copied on the main page. I encourage you to incrementally improve the existing guideline. I do support the view that the guideline needs significant rework, after my experience with the cold fusion page. So I do support your effort. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank HatlessAtlas for working on this proposal, but reserve comment until I can review it more thoroughly.

Reply to SteveBaker - as I understand the current guideline, the advice for your first situation would be to say "reliable source says that a claim of 60% is made. Typically, 2% of fuel is lost to incomplete combustion,(cite)". Similarly, our electromagnetic hypersensitivity article (usually) includes a statement to the effect that a great number of highly reliable scientific bodies have judged the typical exposure levels to be extraordinarily safe. For your second point, I concur that religious sources should never be cited to claims about reality, but they are socially significant enough that it is probably worth devoting a section to making this explicit. The policy on neutrally describing any topic applies equally to all articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As this is a fundamental rebuild of the extant guideline, I wanted to build a go-ahead consensus before making the incremental changes. I felt that doing such a massive rebuild would be inappropriate without building consensus here. Thanks for the support! HatlessAtless (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I advise you against that. Let me clarify: I think it's perfectly OK to request comments on your draft, but working on it towards consensus would be a loss of your time: better to work on the article itself directly. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The extant guideline does not give editors a useful heads up as to the what they can expect to encounter. I have made the introduction spell out clearly what editors can expect. And even if it did, how do you address a situation like this? [21] This is one of the main bone of contentions with using sources, since on the face of that link it's factual, but it's not the absolute truth a third party reader should know. The editor above knows this (he's no country bumpkin), but tries to pass off a bias into a body of knowledge as an absolute truth. The absolute truth is, the NIH didn't even have a Alternative Medicine office to investigate non-conventional fields of medicine until a few years ago. That means mainstream medicine didn't even have a chance to embrace the concepts among peers, and the medical publications reflect it (no great body of studies to date). Technically correct isn't absolutely correct, and those who know the background gringe at "technicals" are being passed as "the fact or facts". When even theories are openly talked about as, "Yes, theories are fact", editors are going down a slippery slope of double standards. Where convention can state "theories are facts", and non-convention is laden with the "exceptional evidence" collar, even if a theory (or publication) is thoroughly vetted. FResearcher (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll remind you to read WP:V. We do not deal with absolute truth. We deal with what can be verified. If something is factually inaccurate and you can substantiate that, correct it. Complaining about people making rediculous claims is counterproductive, since they'll make them no matter how good the guideline is. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I already disagree with many points in the draft, for example[22] While fringe doesn't mean pseudoscience necessarily, fringe does mean at the outer edges of science. It's entirely about levels of acceptance. What's written there ultimately says to take your pet theory and ignore WP:WEIGHT if it's been published in a scientific journal. Many fringe theories get published in scientific journals. Parapsychology appears in many scientific journals. It's still fringe. Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia only reports on levels of acceptance whether they are fringe or not. At cold fusion there was an RfC on whether it was fringe. The consensus was that it is. This novel reinterpretation of minority views in science places cold fusion as a mainstream idea when it isn't. Both parapsychology and cold fusion lack a theoretical framework for the theory. It's still often explored in journals as a speculative idea, but it's not accepted in the mainstream exactly because it lacks a framework. It's alternative. Fringe. Until it gets mainstream acceptance. Excluding minority views in science as not fringe (at least provide a source for that argument) opens the door to wikilawyering of pseudoscientific topics: "No, it really is science, just a minority view, thus not fringe".

I fundamentally disagree that we should be making content decisions on specific topics categories as well. This is a guideline meant to apply to a broad range of fringe theories. In the draft it excludes Book of Genesis as a topic that should be covered as a work of ancient literature, not as a fringe topic, ignoring the peripheral theories surrounding the BoG, eg. biblical literalism. Biblical literalism is a fringe theory, whether it's promoted as science (creationism, intelligent design) or not. It's a fringe theory in religious circles as well. I may be wrong, but I don't even think the Catholic church officially endorses Genesis as a literal account. You start listing topics where WP:FRINGE doesn't apply and you end up with wikilawyers saying "It says in FRINGE that Book of Genesis isn't fringe" ignoring the intent to treat it simply as literature. Flip it around, and you've got, why should it be treated just as literature? These peripheral discussions are important too, and sometimes have nothing to do with it being a literary work. Biblical history, for example, doesn't treat it as literary. Where do we get the authority to define it as literary?

Finally, I haven't seen where anyone's made a good case that WP:FRINGE is broken, much less needs a substantial rewrite. Instead, you have an RfC where there's an overwhelming positive response to it, where some are even saying it should be policy. Do an RfC on whether it should be rewritten to see if there's any consensus for that, before trying to get consensus for specific massive changes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse the bold, but this is an important point that needs to stick out: Where's the consensus that it needs a complete reconstruction? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this question needs to be debated. I don't think the article needs a full rewrite. I agree that some science may be fringe, like cold fusion, but science nonetheless (another RfC concluded that cold fusion is not pseudoscience). Nevertheless, I see 2 areas of improvement with the current guideline.

1. The guideline should be made compatible with what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." That decision should be clearly stated in the guideline.
2. What sources do we need to establish the "mainstream" view ? Editorial comments elaborating on "what most scientists think" is not adequate, because most scientists do not write on fringe topics in reliable, published sources. Instead of the sociological consensus of scientists, the mainstream view can only be the scientific consensus as documented in journal papers or official statements from scientific bodies, if we can find it. As an example, the Intelligent_design article gives several statements from official scientific bodies. Cold fusion is the perfect example where official statements are vastly different from "what most scientists think": we ought to follow the official statements in that case. If we can't find any such statements, and papers have been published in reputable scientific journals on the topic, we ought to consider the topic as scientific, but unresolved, unless a reliable written source is found to the contrary and even if most scientists think otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Number 2 is easy: WP:RS#Claims of consensus. We don't need to rewrite the guideline for that. I'm not opposed to putting Number 1 in there as long as it is metered by a referece to WP:WEIGHT. That is, although Wikipedia should not characterize legitimate scientific alternatives as pseudoscience, they should still be proportionately represented by prominence. As you concurred, neither of these demonstrate that WP:FRINGE is broken. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved my second comment to the WP:RS#Claims of consensus talk page. Concerning the first one, I would suggest to scan the ArbComm's decisions related to Fringe theories, and use them as a significant source for this guideline. This decision is another example of decisions that should feed the guideline and be indicated as a source. Just as articles are based on reliable sources, guidelines should reflect ArbComm's decisions. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I don't know all the intrinsic details others are duking out (as it's too long of a read, frankly), but from what I've read generally, the problem is the definition and it's application. From my own view of the debate, and why I stepped in, the problem is more about how the sourcing is currently and will be used in the "field" (my example above is but one episode that this "in the field" application of sourcing can be used, and not as truthfully as it needs to be. Biases are entering the equation). Currently, "Fringe" as a label is being used as a club, to mock non-conventional theories/ideas. Personally, I would've preferred that the words "Extreme" or "Edge" would've been used as a definition (as it's done in computing), as it accurately defines it, as even lay people can understand it as being non-conventional without the stigma, too. BUT, political forces want to use stigma to keep the status quo the status quo. Don't feel Wikipedia should be used as a gatekeeping service, but as a gateway for folks to start their research. Knowledge can't begin and end at one source -- it's ever expanding -- and readers need an index to research sources further. One that is fair to both warring factions. FResearcher (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about editor behaviors. Guidelines are independent of bad behavior. They represent "best practices" independently of how users may or may not abuse them. Editors abuse WP:NPOV all the time. I recommend dispute resolution versus rewriting policies and guidelines to suit your side of the debate. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking policy. The reason to have policies is to keep disputes to a few, and if disputes occur they occur due to definitions not finely tuned to new material, not as a policy itself. Technically correct sources aren't truly correct sources, and for an encyclopedia that strives for accuracy, the sources have to be as truthful as possible. This is a must not only for the casual reader, but for researchers who must have pristine sources of information. Give any editor this much wiggle room makes the making of this proposal a folly, as it's only a guideline with no teeth but constant dispute resolutions (that option was never designed to be used as a catch all for faults of policies, anyway). Editors will just Wiki law it half the time, ignore it the rest, otherwise. Editors need to know the law, and the law needs to be quite clear, and to the point of what happens when Editors stray. These petty wars are created because it isn't clear. FResearcher (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FResearcher... may I suggest that you read Wikipedia:The rules are principles... an extreamly good essay that explains why our policies and guidelines are not "the Law". Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best to simply drop references to specifics, otherwise we can get into a big can of worms. Briefly, Arbcom's pseudoscience decision never said that claims to be "fact" have to be scientifically based. It only said that claims to be "science" have to be scientifically based. The distinction is a critical one, and Arbcom made it carefully. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, I don't need consensus to state what I feel (that the guideline needs a rebuild) and second, I don't need consensus to propose a rebuilt guideline. What I am hoping is that this will generate discussion and that the good points of my draft will be used to improve the guideline. Since this discussion has rapidly hit TL/DR, I think thatr I'll make my changes for discussion piece by piece now that editors are aware of what I am proposing and several have expressed support for my effort, if not any of the specific changes. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

True, you don't need consensus to offer suggestions. Sorry if I implied that you do : ) It would help, at least for me, if you presented the changes one at a time, perhaps a section for each core change you'd like to discuss (in the spirit of TL/DR, which I agree with). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction

Fringe theories, simply put, are claims that have not been taken seriously by mainstream academic thought and publication. Fringe theories may be expressly classed as such, or may be classed as 'implausible' or pseudo-science, -history, etc. Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

Fringe theories also happen to be one of the most active areas of dispute on wikipedia. This guideline could be thought of as the "Geneva Convention" of for disputes about fringe theories. This guideline seeks to explore and provide concrete guidance on how to find the right middle ground when discussing fringe theories.

When editing the wikipedia we must remain neutral, we must not present original research and most importantly of all, we must say only what can be verified. Proper handling of fringe theories requires adhering to these rules, and all of the other rules of discourse. Finally, wikipedia is popular, but at the same time, it means that it attracts people who want to push some particular viewpoint.

Wikipedia is, by construction and conception, a somewhat cold place for fringe theories. This is not a place for them to gain publicity or attention, nor will mainstream criticism be downplayed. In Wikipedia, fringe theories are judged only on their impact as can be justified in independent, secondary sources and the prestige and validity of their primary sources. No attempt to manufacture any kind of credibility beyond what the best sources show is tolerated. By the same token, credibility established by reliable secondary sources will not be improperly suppressed.

I think that this has several benefits over the existing intro. First and foremost, it serves to clearly explain what this guideline will be doing, and second, provides a clear statement to editors as to the editing nature of the environment in which those articles appear. It provides a coherent thesis for this policy, as opposed to the more stream-of-consciousness and less coherent version that exists now.HatlessAtless (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks SA for cleaning up and improving the language of my wording. I like how you generalized it to fringe topics outside of science. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening line, "not been taken seriously by mainstream academic thought and publication", is a relative way of putting it. Many fringe theories were taken seriously before being discounted or debunked, just as seriously. So, then, if we drop the "seriously" we have "not been taken ??? by mainstream academics". Not been taken, what? Not been evaluated? Many of them have. Not been discussed? Many of them have. Not been...? What we're left with is reporting on their levels of acceptance, because that is something we can objectively measure and is applicable to all theories, fringe or not. Not surprisingly, this reflects core policy, WP:UNDUE. That's what the current guideline was written to reflect, the applicable policy that directs us to report on levels of acceptance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Many fringe theories were taken seriously before being discounted or debunked, just as seriously Wikipedia changed to reflect changes in scientific consensus. Read WP:NTEMP. Wikipedia represents the current state of human knowledge. If you disagree with the past tense of the statement, then don't ridicule it, suggest that it be changed to present tense. (I would be ok with a present tense formulation) At least that would have been a constructive response. We're getting to the same point in our mutual thought process (proper application of WP:UNDUE), but I'll refer you to the (imperfect but significant) consensus I built around this type of definition in the discussion in the subsection several topics above this one. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ridiculing it, at all. What I'm saying is that no matter how we switch it around or reframe the issue, we always come back to reporting on level of acceptance. WP:NTEMP means that something is notable if it has been notable. Flat Earth, for example, is notable because it was everyone's world view at some point in the past. Notability is entirely different than how we frame the topic. Today it is an extreme minority view, a fringe view. It's notable, we include it, but we frame it as a fringe view. We report both the level of acceptance in the past, while saying that it is an extreme minority view today. I'm not ridiculing your suggestions. I'm pointing out significant problems with them. Just rewording it to present tense doesn't fix those problems. The problem is, and always was, how do you legitimately write articles on fringe theories. That's a level of acceptance issue, not notability. Paranormal topics, wildly popular, extremely notable, not accepted by any scientific or academic bodies to anything more than a minor degree. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridicule was a poor choice of wording. This is a good discussion and I don't want to escalate. I disagree with you strongly, but I did not mean to imply incivility. Apologies.

Its easy to write articles on fringe theories. We explain the theory, and explain why the mainstream hasn't adopted it. We source our statements, inform the reader, and that is that. There's not really that much special to do on the topical articles for fringe theories. The sticky part is how much visibility fringe theories get outside of their little box. But remember, we're not just dealing with fringe theories here, we're dealing with all kinds of minority opinions, since there is a spectrum including fringe, tiny minority, small minority, significant minority, large minority, small majority, large majority, and overwhelming majority. A theory or worldview may be any of those. Remember, we don't make a-priori judgments on a theory, we simply let the sources cited by the editors making claims speak for themselves. By definition, if we simply follow that process faithfully we end up in perfect compliance with WP:UNDUE. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the points that you wrote in the above comment (except the part that says it's easy). I just don't agree with the wording of your actual proposed wording for the guideline. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What fringe theories aren't

In the case of scientific theories, there are several types of minority opinions that should not be labeled "fringe". This is not an exhaustive list, and there are no firm requirements. These categories are instead intended to provide guidance as to some alternative types of minority opinions. By replacing the word "scientific" with another classification, such as "historical" or "medical", these viewpoints can be extended beyond the scope of simple science.

Nothing should be labeled "fringe" in an article without a reliable source. If a source exists, most certainly it should be labeled "fringe". If no such source exists it's not even an issue. Where this wording may confuse readers, however, is that the label of fringe actually occurs on talk pages, in discussions of what approach to take with an article. If there's a consensus to apply WP:FRINGE, the guideline, to a topic, that doesn't mean that the label belongs in the article, it just means that it's a minority opinion and we're going to apply the guideline written for dealing with minority opinions. It's not a matter of applying pejorative labels. It's a matter of applying appropriate guidelines. Where this may further confuse readers is when it says "should not be labeled 'fringe'", they may take that as it should not be treated as a minority opinion. That would violate WP:UNDUE. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear here that we are taking slightly different conceptions of the scope of this guideline. I am taking a slightly more expansive (and consequently more useful) conception of this guideline. I see this guideline as being useful as part of the debate as to whether a theory is or is not fringe. To use your verb, we could "apply" WP:FRINGE to any theory or topic, from Physics to time cube. In the case of the former, the guidance from my formulation would be that physics is mainstream science and may be treated as such. The time cube on the other hand would be a fringe theory and WP:FRINGE would provide additional suggestions on how to handle it. For my conception, another plausible name for this guideline could be WP:MINORITY. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As to your comment that if something is labeled as "fringe" in a reliable source, that topic should automatically be labeled fringe, I also disagree. At some point, some expert has likely used the word "fringe" regarding a lot of various topics. We have wide consensus that just because something appears once in a reliable source does not necessarily make it true. If something is labeled fringe again and again, then yes, but single mentions less so. Fringe is also a pejorative word on wikipedia, and so we must be more careful about its use than other words. Finally, to somehow go from the idea that something not classified as "fringe" is somehow "mainstream" goes against what I explicitly state in the section below. An editor going that far would be going beyond violating WP:UNDUE and would be grinding an ax. Tendentious editing of that level is such blatant POV pushing that it would be essentially vandalism, and could be handled as such. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we're not looking at it the same way. Some physics is fringe. I thought I made that clear. There's actually tons of physics that is fringe. Just because it's physics, that doesn't make it mainstream not-fringe. Robert Jahn's experiments at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab were physics. It's been published in science journals. It is not mainstream. Many of David Bohm's theoretical physics is fringe. There's dozens of examples. Cold fusion is fringe. Just because it isn't pseudoscience, it's not all the sudden mainstream not-fringe. It's not all time cube stuff.

I didn't say that if something is labeled fringe in a source we should automatically call it that. I said "reliable source", implying notability and relevance, ie. reliable. Basically, we follow the sources. If sources say a topic is fringe, even if it is in science, it's at the outer edges of science. WP:FRINGE would apply. Plus, again, there's a difference between calling it fringe on a talk page and calling it fringe in an article. In an article, there needs to be sources that reflect that statement, it needs to be a notable view, relevant, and a number of other criteria. On the talk page it's a matter of judgement on whether this guideline applies to the topic. That's done by consensus on an article by article basis and it's a judgement made by editors rather than outside sources. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority scientific theories

Some extreme-minority theories are developed entirely within the realm of scientific publication. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are a perfect examples; in fact, most scientific breakthroughs started as a single publication, and had only a small amount of traction before adoption by the wider scientific or engineering community. Turbo codes and the Kalman filter began life as obscure publications in journals outside of their respective fields, and were not taken seriously for years after publication. Now they are a critical driver of many high-tech systems that could not work without them. Extreme-minority scientific theories that are published in respected, scientifically peer-reviewed journals and which conduct their work within the mainstream of science are fundamentally different from "fringe" theories. (Similar logic applies to fields outside of science, such as history.) While fringe theories may have notability but lack scientific traction, minority scientific theories have scientific traction but may or may not have established sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. This ties in closely with WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:NOTE and WP:V.

When applying this test, be aware that in recent years, fringe groups have set up fringe journals, specifically to support their theories, and other journals attempt to publish "controversial" work, in order to stir up debate. Such work is usually held to far lower standards than in mainstream scientific or academic journals.

Likewise, some widespread, long-standing fringe theories may have a few scientific publications, while being widely agreed to be unscientific or highly implausible. A few scattered publications related to a widely-held fringe theory that mainly works outside of science is insufficient to make it a minority scientific theory.

See my points above about minority theories that have been developed within the realm of scientific publication but are nonetheless fringe. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That statement is dependent on how we define fringe. I am advocating we take a narrow definition of fringe (since the label of fringe is pejorative) and define a minority scientific viewpoint as neither fringe/extreme minority, not large/significant minority, and not mainstream/majority. If we restrict ourselves to "mainstream" and "fringe" we are doing ourselves a disservice, as without middle ground, we don't have any happy mediums to end up in and the consquent pressure will lead to worsening of edit wars, rather than quelling them. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that "fringe" is an abstract term used on talk pages to determine whether or not this guideline applies. It's not a label used in actual articles without sourcing (I rarely see any article actually say "this is a fringe topic"). I posted below that "minority views" would be a better title, but that doesn't seem to get any support. We're stuck with "fringe". But again, that's not actual article content so it's not pejorative to the topic. "Fringe" is entirely about levels of acceptance and guidelines for articles where the topic has a low level of acceptance in academia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonscientific worldviews

There are plenty of world views, belief systems, and sets of beliefs that are nonscientific. Fringe theories are only those that are presented as scienceliteral fact. Claims that are made without relationship to scienceliteral fact should be treated as cultural movements. It is unnecessary to handle in a scientific manner nonscientific world views or beliefs simply because they are nonscientific. This applies, for example, to the many creation myths that populate various religions, or as to the nature of many superstitions. Since they are not presented as science, and are treated as literary, religious, or mythological, there is no need for a scientific criticisms section in such articles, for example, or to demand peer-reviewed research into the scientific nature of such articles.

However, applications of worldviews, such as alternative medical systemsfaith healing, creationism, and the like, where the primary purpose of the application is to replace a scientific concept or medical treatments, should be discussed in terms of mainstream science. With medicine specifically, care should be taken not to present claims disputed by science as true.

Fringe theories are not only those presented as science. JFK conspiracies are fringe theories. That Jesus was an alien is a fringe theory. There's tons of pseudo-historical theories. Sometimes there is a need for scientific criticism in religious articles. The Shroud of Turin, as well as many other paranormal religious topics (faith healing, for example), all have truth-claims that such phenomena is real, material, and many of these phenomena have been put to scientific evaluation. In fact, the thing about "paranormal" is that it's the place where religious claims of actual physical reality bump heads with science. It's the friction point. There's been a lot of evaluation of paranormal claims by science, and a lot of debunkery. It'd be really weird to exclude such scientific evaluation just because the topic is religious. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

However, most of what you've listed have tried to use scientific means to support their contentions, or have had scientific debunkings. Most actual religion subjects don't really cross over, and shouldn't be held to such standards, as they are sociological topics, not scientific. ThuranX (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, Changing "science" to "literal fact" eliminates this concern. I disagree with your reading of the phrasing however. Faith healing makes a scientific claim; the claim is that "action X can cure disease Y". That is a testable, falsifiable scientific claim. The same is true of the shroud of turin. Those specific facts are testable, and if they have been tested then that is appropriate to include. Arguing somehow that a testable claim about the literal nature of reality should be given some kind of exemption requires a fundamental, willful misreading of this section. Most importantly, faith healing is described explicitly in this section as something that does not fall into the "nonscientific world view" section. Using that as an example makes me wonder if you even read it before you made your post. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A: You can tone down the rhetoric like "fundamental, willful misreading". B: Your change to "literal fact" much improves it. C: If you meant that I was supposed to take "alternative medical systems" as "faith healing", and that makes me willful, I'm sorry but they are separate things to me. By alternative medical, I assumed you meant holistic health, not faith healing. Herbs and whatnot are different from paranormal healing. Paranormal healing is widely regarded as not falsifiable, not testable, not scientific. Patient gets better. Is that some psychokinetic healing or a placebo effect? Dunno, can't test it. Changing it from "science" to "literal fact" fixes the problem because although these things are not falsifiable scientific claims, they are fact-claims. Thank you. Now please tone down the rhetoric. I'm not your enemy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood my statement about willful misreading of my statement. I'm going to deescalate that since you took it personally. It was meant to point out that I explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you claimed, not intending to point a finger at you. As I said before, a testable, falsifiable claim that is to be taken as literal fact on reality is the purview of science. My frustration came because I was using an expansive description of faith healing in my statement, and your response was exactly the opposite of what the wording was intended to imply. We are also in agreement it seems, as to what this is supposed to be saying. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an afterthought, I consider a "fact claim" to be a falsifiable claim. X cures Y is a testable and falsifiable claim. For the shroud of Turin to bear an impression of Jesus's face, it would have to be at least 1900-2100 years old. Again, that is a testable claim. What would you describe as a fact claim that cannot be examined in a falsifiable manner, and thus be a fact-claim that is not a falsifiable claim? HatlessAtless (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact-claims and truth-claims come from a wide variety of interests, not all of them falsifiable, not all of them science. Many fact-claims don't have anything to do with empirical observation. A lot of it is experiential or some other basis, even anecdotal ("I swear I saw a UFO last night!"). Not everthing is testable. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked scientific theories

At any given time, one can search the internet and buy from fraudsters Vacuum energy or Cold fusion devices. Less than scrupulous individuals will use scientific research to cloak all sorts of things to sell in the garb of science. When they attract believers, the groups may take a life of their own. The fact that groups of misled individuals may have "theories" that share the same name as scientific research, this does not destroy the legitimacy of the scientific research. Great care must be taken in an article to separate the two and keep the reader aware of what is being described. If necessary, they can be treated in separate articles.

I'd like to add these sections as a primary section into the body of the guideline as a way of helping to properly classify almost-fringe schools of thought. This will serve two purposes. First, while it doesn't really change the tiny-minority restrictions, it allows editors to avoid the use of the label "fringe" which has become perjorative. Just as importantly, it steps the debate away from "fringe vs mainstream" and allows for middle ground. Non-mainstream views still don't get the weight of mainstream views, but at the same time, it also allows a space for theories that have minimal scientific traction, but not mainstream traction.HatlessAtless (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This one's good and I totally support its inclusion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, it appears that the changes you instituted to this section appeared to eliminate the utility of the section by making it less explicit. Please walk through why you chose that wording? HatlessAtless (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

HatlessAtlas, you put your edits in while we're still discussing it, claiming "new introduction based on comments by multiple talk page threads, including widely supported improved definition of threads and more coherent guideline thesis."

What gives? What "wide support"? Is there some conversation other than this talk page that I'm missing? I haven't see wide support for your redefining of "Fringe" and what's more we're still talking about it. Did I miss a conversation or something? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New relevant ArbCom ruling

The ArbCom just passed "Discretionary Sanctions" on pseudoscience topics. This guideline should probably be updated to reflect that.

4) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

It was passed as an addendum to the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case[23], but I believe it applies to all editors who participate in pseudoscience articles, as that is what the discussion (including complaints) centered around. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support its inclusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion.ThuranX (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The request in which it was filed was a request to amend two cases (that one and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). Coren, who is clerking it, is contacting the committee to sort out which case it really should be under, as there is a subtle difference in which admins can enforce it between the two cases. It does indeed apply to all editors on all sides of all fences that edit in these topic areas. Reference probably merits inclusion here, but with what wording? GRBerry 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't support because of this is what happens. [24] When most editors are shown the door for much less, one protected editor can continue to abuse the system at will. Making such a guideline really worthless, as the bleed of editors will continue to be one sided. FResearcher (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't impose because ScienceApologist gets blocked for incivility a lot? That's a lot like this, isn't it?ThuranX (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the nucleus of the dispute is over the "purpose of Wikipedia", I'm not sure it will be easy to consistently enforce. Still, it's relevant to the topic and as long as we're listing ArbCom remedies, it should probably go in. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't support it when it was proposed and don't think it will solve anything now. It'll probably create more (my admin is bigger than your admin) problems. Still, if it's meant to apply to everyone it should be included as fair warning (whatever text that may be, the above is just copy and pasted from the decision). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please place it here rather than on the main guideline page. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Without any reference to any particular person, it seems unproductive--the ordinary sanctions which require consensus of administrators have failed, because we dont really had consensus about when to impose them. ArbCom has similarly failed to agree on definite sanctions that do any good. So now they propose letting individual administrators who may be unaware of the problem impose them individually. A recipe for wheel-warring if followed literally, or at the best for continued non-consensus. The one thing which is positive,is to endorse the current feeling at AN/I about the usefulness of topic bans, rather than total blocks--except that the people most involved regard them as identical if broad, and they arent all that useful if narrow. DGG (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what is "implausible"?

The major issue I have with this notion of have an official means of branding a subject as fringe is that the brand is arbitrary. I see terms such as "highly implausible" and wonder who is going to decide this?

Then I see: "Wikipedia is, by construction and conception, a somewhat cold place for fringe theories. This is not a place for them to gain publicity or attention, nor will mainstream criticism be downplayed. In Wikipedia, fringe theories are judged only on their impact as can be justified in independent, secondary sources and the prestige and validity of their primary sources. No attempt to manufacture any kind of credibility beyond what the best sources show is tolerated. By the same token, credibility established by reliable secondary sources will not be improperly suppressed." and the phrase, "in order to stir up debate." The assumption is that people are foisting illegal and immoral ideas on the unsuspecting public via Wikipedia and you all are coming to the rescue.

I know this is an unfair characterization, but the terminology strongly argues that you hold people who want to study frontier subjects in great contempt. It is this attitude that leads to name calling being accepted by other editors.

If you must characterize subjects beyond a simple explanation of what they are held to be, then be vary careful about the arbitrariness of how you decide the viability of a subject and the use of terms for expressing your opinion.

By the way, I would gladly pay you to delete the EVP article if I thought it would stay deleted. Do you really think we are so desperate as to need Wikipedia to advertise our subject? Why do you assume that other subjects are seeking publicity? Yes, some do, but I doubt they survive the prerequisite measure of notability. Tom Butler (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your obvious bias shows you can't see this rationally, Tom. We've made clear what makes a theory implausible, Tom. When only the proponents can make it work, and only when not subject to serious examination from outsiders, it's not real. When failures are blamed on ghosts, or lack of faith, it's bunk. When not one claim can be reliably reproduced in scientific method, it's not real. Those are conditions long established as helping define fringe, both on and off Wikipedia. When EVP supporters can demonstrate consistently reproducible results, maybe someone will believe the dead are talking through our home electronics. But EVP supporters can't do it, so EVP stays as what it is, Bunk politely called FRINGE. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, can you please stop endorsing wp:censorship? Paying for the removal of information is very much not what wikipedia, or any good encyclopaedia, is about. Their are many difference between fringe science and cutting edge research, so don't try to conflate them. Also, people can do good research on fringe topics - and produce new and interesting results, but these often confirm the subject as false/pseudo-scientific/fringe/etc. These can then be cited in the articles. EVP is definitely fringe science right now. Verbal chat 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, your dear Electronic voice phenomenon is a victim of this:

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently. In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies, Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. - Source: WP:LUC

The question of deletion is out of your hands. Please get used to it. The inclusion of EVP here is just one more proof that Wikipedia's policies do allow the inclusion - if they fulfill certain conditions - the worst forms of nonsense and delusion, and NPOV requires that those facts get pointed out in the article. If the article's creator opposes that fulfillment of NPOV, they can get blocked or banned from the article and even from Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Once the concept of fringe becomes institutionalized, it will quickly find its way to article pages because it is an excellent way to discount an idea. I will ask again, who is qualified to make the determination of fringe, and once made, the degree to which it is to be considered fringe? ThuranX made my point with his sarcastic reply. He clearly does not know much about EVP. No ThuranX, you have not made it clear and your examples about EVP are uninformed.

Of course I have a bias because I am deeply involved in a subject that is certainly not mainstream. With the exception of a few (you all just eliminated one competing voice) you have the perspective of mainstream, so I would think you would attempt to hear representatives of the minority view to help you shape the article so as not to simply bulldoze that view.

To say that "Its easy to write articles on fringe theories. We explain the theory, and explain why the mainstream hasn't adopted it. We source our statements, inform the reader, and that is that." exhibits a myopic perspective. Other comments here have argued that there are shades of fringe. I will add that it depends on the one doing the telling. If conceptual terms like "implausible" remain in the article, then it will remain a skeptics club even as it is a useful identifier for minority held views. (I like Nealparr's "minority view" as an alternative to fringe.)

As to my comment about paying to have the EVP article deleted. Are you all so determined that I am a POV pusher that you are unable to recognize a rhetorical comment? Many of you are saying that fringe subjects are pushed by people wanting to use Wikipedia. That is a pretty wikicentric viewpoint. What I was trying to illustrate is that most of the article I have seen branded as fringe have been initiated and edited by uninvolved people. Saying that we are trying to use Wikipedia is an extreme assumption of bad faith. In fact, the EVP article has just caused me extra work--one concrete consequence that I doubt enters your mind.

Another extreme assumption of bad faith is the quick threat from Fyslee to ban me. Once again, it is the willingness to eliminate competing views that is giving Wikipedia to the skeptics and I see Fyslee's name in the middle of much of that. Tom Butler (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I know enough to know that no one has substantiated the pro-EVP claims with reproducible, predictable results according to the scientific method. Until such time, I'm perfectly fine with taking it for what it is: a scientific veneer on the old saw of Spirit Mediums which deceives the desperate and lonely. I'm not sure if you're a true believer or a profiteer, and I don't really care. You maintain that 'the teller' changes how the topic is perceived, as if we're not aware of it, when it's perfectly obviosu to the rest of us that preventing, say... YOU, from telling the 'true' story of EVP is why we have a FRINGE guideline, and why so many above are interested in seeing it become policy. ThuranX (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I support changing this guideline to "Minority views", who's with me?

There's a lot of confusion over fringe theories. There's confusion on whether it means "fringe science" or just "fringe theories" in general. There's confusion over whether it's talking about pseudoscience, or just minority views. There's a lot of unnecessary confusion here. If we were to take every instance of "fringe theory" in this guideline and replace it with "minority view", we're not only removing any sort of claim that it's pejorative, we're also better reflecting the WP:UNDUE policy this guideline expands upon. Every recommendation given by this guideline is still applicable, in many ways more applicable.

I say we change it to "minority views" and save ourselves some headaches. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. FRINGE is a well known guideline, specific to FRINGE science theories. Normal minority views are significantly different, and that term is more in line with the idea of how to represent minority views on a major topic's page, not how to write for minority views, which are already specifically stated as needing inclusion on the main article's page. FRINGe specifically deals with how to handle the entire page, when the page is about discredited, debunked theories. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has long been used as a general guideline on all manner of fringe topics, not just fringe science. This is verifiable through the archives of the WP:FTN. It's always been in accord with policies on minority views. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

let me put this another way. Fringe theories aren't the same as minority views. A minority view, as explained on numerous pages, is a view which while not the majority, is worthy of representation. Consider, as a simplistic example, third parties in american politics. The reform, libertarian, and green parties represent minority views, not extreme fringe views. of course, there are a few bizarre political parties who are probably good candidates for being labelled as fringe, but that's still not the same. One could even argue (though I wouldn't buy it) that if you look at any political argument, the group who lost is the 'minority', but are they really 'fringe'? You can't make a blanket equality between fringe and minority views. The Fringe guidelines are specifically intended to deal with that extreme minority viewpoint for cases where that extreme minority has demonstrated notability and verifiable coverage. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Lakinekaki (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Until we understand fully the scope of this topic. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's easy, hatless. This is a response to the [above] section about staying a guideline. They don't want to risk it becoming policy, so instead they're seeking to marginalize it right out of existence, allowing some editors to pile as high and deep as they can shovel it. This is an end run around the above section. ThuranX (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I proposed renaming it to "Minority views", and if you read above, I support keeping this as a guideline rather than downgrading it. Further, renaming it to "Minority views" is more likely to get it included as policy. It's not an end run around anything. If it's considered as an extension of current policy, it's more likely to become policy itself. It's fine if you don't agree with that. Obviously there's not much support for this suggestion anyway. But I want to be clear on why I suggested it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am advocating an expansive view of the scope of this guideline. If the more expansive view were to be accepted as needed and useful by consensus, I would have no objection to making this a "minority viewpoints" guideline. On the other hand, making this a narrowly-defined fringe guideline with a "minority views" title risks making this effectively a WP:STEAMROLL I would oppose that approach because it would risk treating as fringe any group even slightly in the minority, which I feel would be bad for wikipedia. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A comment to ThuranX... WP:FRINGE relates to more than just science... it also covers Fringe theories in other diciplines... Fringe history is a prime example. Theories such as "The Pyramids were built by space aliens", or "The Knights Templar survived persecution, went into hiding and became the Illuminati" would definitely fall under this guideline. That said, I Oppose changing this to "Minority Views". That title would give undue legitimacy to the theories covered by this guideline. A minority view would mean that the theory is accepted by a significantly sizable group of experts in the appropriate field of study, just not accepted by the majority. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

blueboar's understanding of the false legitimizing is spot-on. In response to the other part, all of those are also Fringe theories which can be disassembled in the usual scientific method way. Archaeologists and Anthropologists employ the scientific method all the time, though what they use are more like predictions and declarations of expectations than the scientific version of a hypothesis (though it's the same principle at work.) As such, the same predication of FRINGE on the ability to re[produce results and other conformities to the scientific method stands just the same. ThuranX (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Er... I don't like "FRINGE", because it's pejorative, to me anyway. I wouldn't want my ideas called "fringe", no matter how little published mainstream support they had. That said, I don't like "Minority opinions" either, because these are not just minority opinions. It's a minority opinion that George W. Bush has been a decent President, but it's hardly a "fringe theory". This guideline specifically refers to academic fields of study and how to handle claims and ideas outside the mainstream of academic thought in those areas. That's quite a bit more specific than "Minority opinions". That said, I don't have a better suggestion at present. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Scratch this, I'm withdrawing it. Too much confusion and it was proposed to make things simpler. If it doesn't make things simpler, it's a deprecated discussion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Favor, NealParr, I hate to see you give up on "minority view." I use "frontier subject" in an effort to keep it neutral, but then I am not afraid of letting the reader decide if flat earth is viable or not. I am not wise enough nor knowledgeable enough to pass judgment of all that would be called fringe and that is my argument about other editors. There is already a Fringe science category and a Fringe Science article which may be used to brand subjects, and I doubt that many would object to someone saying that such and such is a fringe view of such and such. All that is left is to put double brackets on it and "fringe" takes on the power of policy.

There is also the problem of people using that pejorative as an excuse to go on and say that the people studying the subject are deliberately deceiving people as ThuranX has done to me without any substantiation other than his own science-based superstitions.

Perhaps you might consider the term "alternative" as has been adopted by the medical profession, or "emergent." I really think that one term should not be applied to such a large range of subjects. Trying to characterize therapeutic touch with the same term used for conspiracy theories is a little confusing. Perhaps this entire subject should be reframed as "how do you clarify the level of acceptability?" You can do that without sorting it out as bad guys and good guys. Isn't there already a policy for that? Tom Butler (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of finding a less pejorative title if it can be done. Thomas Kuhn's "revolutionary science" doesn't fit because that only covers new ideas attempting to replace current mainstream views, not old ideas that have been superceded, and it also doesn't cover non-science extreme-minority views (conspiracy theories, et cetera). Is there anything in Karl Popper's philosophy - or elsewhere in philosophy of science - that would be a viable alternative? Or would any philosophical term be sufficiently specialized as to be non-viable? GRBerry 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We aren't just talking about science. We're talking about the entire marketplace of ideas. An alternative to "fringe" might be "marginal" or "largely ignored or rejected ideas". "Fringe" isn't really pejorative, though. The etymology is actually kinda cutesy. It just becomes pejorative due to the euphemism treadmill. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about WP:NOTEVENWRONG? O wait, that's Wolfgang Pauli, not Popper. Perhaps WP:UNFALSIFIABLE? That's Popper. Or Kurt Godel - WP:THISSTATEMENTISUNPROVABLE. Seriously, I don't think you're going to find anything less pejorative in Popper's oeuvre. Perhaps one of his student's books (Imre Lakatos or Paul Feyerabend) would have what you're looking for, but I'd bet it would be too "left-wing" for most participants in this discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

hijacked theories

hatless - I'd just meant this as a rewrite, not a content change. no biggie either way, but what seems to be the issue? --Ludwigs2 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, calling a section 'snake oil sales man and...' baits a lot of people into anger, by needlessly insulting new editors and editors seeking to write about FRINGE< not all of whom are scammers. Some few, are true believers, who need patient coaxing out of their delusions. Putting them on the defensive with a condescending policy title isn't the best way to get them to accept how we do things here. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

that's probably true - getting a bit tired here, and my sense of humor is slipping out.  :-) check through the rest and see if any of the writing is useable. I'll come back at it after I've slept. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ithink the problem is the whole section reads that way. It attacks a lot of people by asserting that there's a lot of greedy scammers "There are always less-than-scrupulous individuals ", and, by implicit extension, a whole lot of suckers. That risks insulting any new editors seeking a firm footing in policy from which to edit the FRINGE topics by saying 'You're a sucker'. Let's avoid that. The older version's dry, but neutral in presenting that there are difficulties and why. ThuranX (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I don't know... I think it's important to distinguish the after-the-fact purveyors from the original researchers, otherwise you end up with an unavoidable bias in the article (like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima). --Ludwigs2 06:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a few particular issues with the new wording, since it is not "harmless rewording", but appears to completely change the meaning of this section.

• First, I don't like the use of "snake oil salesmen" in the section title because it makes it less specific. The section is intended as a generalized caution that abuse of scientific terminology of any kind. Shifting the emphasis to a commercial one (emphasizing fraudsters) narrows the scope of the section far below what I originally intended.

• Secondly, you changed the emphasis from scientific theories of any kind and flavor to only fringe theories. and fringe theories - because of their marginal status - are vulnerable to being used this way This is a significant change to this section, and I disagree with it. Any scientific theory can be hijacked, not just fringe ones. Have you ever seen those silly magnetic bracelets that are supposed to have wondrous health benefits? That is a corruption of Electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is hardly fringe.

• Thirdly, distinguish between these fringe entrepreneurs changes the section to an entirely commercial one. This narrows the topic of the section significantly and makes it focus entirely on the commercial aspect of misusing the trappings of science.

• Finally, I don't like weakening the section to include the words scientific research (however flawed). At a certain point, flawed scientific research ceases to be scientific. What we are worried about is not distinguishing the "marginal scientific research" from "fringe entrepeneurs". What the section is intended for is such situations where individuals, entrepreneurs, or groups attach themselves like limpets to a scientific theory and use that theory's terminology and complexity as a vehicle to promote their views. Implying that scientific research merits serious inclusion and treatment no matter how flawed it is is an open door for tendentious editors, POV pushers and edit warriors, and I object to that particular wording most strongly. We should take the view that research either meets minimum standards of being scientific, or it does not. Granted that there is in fact research that meets standards of being scientific in surprisingly many fringe fields, I disagree with your calling that legitimate research "flawed". (well, you're not explicitly calling fringe research flawed, but I read in the words an implication that "legitimate" research conducted in a fringe field is likely flawed). If fringe research is scientific, it is not "flawed" it is simply more or less useful to other scientists and mankind.

I hope that gives you a flavor of why I really didn't like the way you rebuilt the section. HatlessAtless (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an afterthought: I think it's important to distinguish the after-the-fact purveyors from the original researchers Making that mistake falls into post hoc ergo propter hoc and sourcing. Claiming that Einstein somehow advocated the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki especially in the political climate/context at the time, would require careful sourcing, contextualization, and attribution. Making claims like that falls into all 3 core content guidelines, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Things of that nature should be easy to handle. I know they're not always so easy to handle, but citing NOR and post hoc ergo propter hoc in an edit summary should make it easy to elevate pushing that kind of stuff up to WP:ANI. HatlessAtless (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

dude, don't jump on me for making changes. I'm not objecting to your disagreements, I was just asking for clarification. and while it might be easy to find sources saying that Einstein wasn't part of the Hiroshima bombing, it is nowhere near as easy to find similar sourcing separating some fringe theory researcher from people who later use his theories in unscrupulous ways. that because Einstein has the entire scientific community backing him up, saying that he was engaged in research, not politics or economics (e.g. he's protected because he's not fringe). --Ludwigs2 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on you. I just happened to have a number of easy to articulate issues with what you wrote. It is sometimes difficult to express strong disagreement and still come across as "friendly". We have agreed on many topics, and we will continue to work together well in the future. I just happened to think that this particular rewrite of your was not as well thought through as most of yours. Please accept my apologies if my tone came across as personal instead of informative as it was intended. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

no worries - I'm just touchy lately. may need to take a week or two off from wikipedia, before I start unloading on people unnecessarily. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

making a list

you know, I think part most of the problem on this page is that we talk past each other. just for a moment, let's set aside trying to figure out what fringe theories are, and instead make a short list of the problems that we (as editors) are trying to solve with this guideline. I'll put a quotation block just below this (to keep suggestions from getting separated in the discussion) and seed it with a couple of starting points based on what I think and what I've heard here. let's edit it until we have a nice coherent list of our concerns as editors - that will help us structure any later discussions. --Ludwigs2 05:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• fringe theories should not be presented so that Some Dumb Kid might think they are scientifically valid or scientifically accepted
• fringe theories should not be presented in such a way that Average Readers see them as attack pieces
• fringe theories articles should not promote products.

Hell no. This is a distraction. We've explained FRINGE over and over, and every time we do, some pro-fringe topic editor makes us start all over. The meaning of Fringe is not going to start yet another red herring. ThuranX (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Shot info (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

well, that's just plain silliness. if we as editors don't have any problems we are trying to solve with this guideline, then the guideline is a useless waste of time and should be deleted immediately. what the heck do you think a guideline is for, anyway? --Ludwigs2 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, some editors don't see problems that need solving, thinking this is a solidly written guideline that doesn't need adjustments, and so we should raise it to policy. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

the point of a guideline is to solve a problem, Thuran. if there were no problems that needed solving, there would be no need for a guideline. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This list is, I think, very bad. The third should read at least as "fringe theories should not BE promotED". I agree that this is a distraction. Verbal chat 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. All of this is. Frankly, given the result of the last bit, about where Fringe should go, to essay, stay guideline, or other, there's enough interest in the 'other', namely, bumping to policy, that I'm tempted to start a section about that, jsut to push this page away from all this hand waving mysticism about redrawing the entire map. ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

the EDIT it - I didn't mean it as a distraction; I meant it as a way to clarify what the heck we're doing here (because it seems to me that none of us has a clue on that point). yeesh... if you guys would stop trying to defend turf and start discussing things in good faith we could get through this in couple of weeks. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

problems that need addressing

1. Nutshell talks about idea, but article later talks about theory. Which one is it?
2. Fringe theory article linked to from the introduction redirects to fringe science? Is this guideline about fringe science or fringe theory in general? Or about fringe ideas in general?
3. Second paragraph starts with Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is. and references WP:Notability. Notability refers to topics of articles. Does this guideline refer to topics, or to statements within articles?
4. Identifying fringe theories: ... depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. What if the field of study is fringe and cannot be compared with mainstream?
5. Same section: A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Does this refer to articles, as then it creates stricter conditions for fringe theory inclusion than is required for mainstream theories by WP:N. Or does it refer to statements within articles -- which makes it than even more strict than is required by WP:N and WP:RS for all (including mainstream) stuff? Double standard?

So these are problems I found in introduction and first section. After those are discussed, I will comment on other problems. Lakinekaki (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that the same peopel keep steeringus in the same circles? ThuranX (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the same other people keep avoiding solving these same problematic circles. Why are they avoiding this? Above are very specific questions. Can't you give specific answers? Lakinekaki (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand what you may not understand. Previously on this talk page I was talking mostly about general problems of detecting fringe content or proving (non)fingeness. Here I address specific parts of the guideline which are ambiguous and need clarification, rewording, etc. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Lakinekaki's questions:

1. As the guideline states: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, fantastic but unsupported claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.... so it covers ideas as well as theories.
2. It is about fringe theories in general, and not just about science... however, the guideline was originally created due to problems with Fringe science (and later expanded to cover other topics), and the majority of debated articles still fall into this category. Thus, Fringe science continues to recieve the most attention.
3. Both... It primarily means articles, but can be applied to article sections and even short statements. In the latter case, it really is more of a WP:Undue Weight question (and we should probably link to that as well) ... is the Fringe theory notable enough to even mention in a given article? Does mentioning it at all give the theory more weight than it deserves.
4. Most things will fall under a mainsteam field of study at some level ... but I suppose there could be exceptions. I could also see the argument for saying that the field of study itself is Fringe, and so all Theories that relate to that Fringe field would be Fringe.
5. Yes, this is stricter than the standards set out by WP:N for other topics. That is why there is a seperate guideline.

Hope this clarifies things for you. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You did clarify it for me, but it has to be clarified in the text too. Also, what you are saying is that there is a double standard being applied for referencing mainstream ideas and for referencing fringe ideas. Shouldn't there be one standard for all? I am sure mainstream stuff could pass the test, so why not make this guideline general, and not only 'fringe'. Lakinekaki (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually we do have one standard for all... a non-fringe topic is going to meet all the requirements set out in this guideline (otherwise it would be a Fringe topic). The real issue here is that some topics and ideas are not noteworthy enough to write about, and doing so would give them false legitimacy and more weight than they deserve... Our core policies recognize this (see: WP:Undue Weight). Being told that your pet theory is not noteworthy enough always upsets people, but that is their problem not ours. Some things just should not be included in an encyclopedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that some things should not be included in an encyclopedia, but what always upsets me is double standards applied by some editors, as can be seen on Talk:Solar_cycle page. First they just delete, when I point out it is sourced they say fringe, when I point out there are a few references in scientific journals they say its cited but by unreliable journals, then I point out there are few reliable journals, but they say its not enough find secondary sources, then I find secondary sources and then they say secondary source is problematic as it doesn't reference some 'reliable' paper, then I point out it does reference exactly that paper on the page that i provided and is a meta-analysis which is exactly what I was asked to find by the other editor, but then he sais it is not notable enough. WTF? All awhile, most of the other content on Solar_cycle page is not well referenced but it doesn't bother them as it was not put there by me and as they like that content so they don't bother scrutinizing it. Lakinekaki (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who dares here to say once and for all WHAT is needed for something to be notable of mention? How many papers in how many journals and by how many authors and in how many secondary sources? Answer this so that I don't waste my time in future arguing with people, but post only things that pass that test. Lakinekaki (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't legislate firm numbers... so much depends on the topic, the sources being used, the editors involved in the discussion... and a host of other things. You want firm Law... when Whikipedia's guidelines are meant to be wishy-washy best senario sort of things.

Look, when you edit articles that involve controvercial ideas (and little is more controvercial than a Fringe Theory), be prepared to have to jump through some very frustrating hoops. You are going to have people who are going to scrutinize every word and every citation that others write. Supporters of one side in the controversy are going to go to extraordinary lenths to find ways of omitting anything written by supporters of the other side. Frustrating, yes... but also human nature. So you have to expect challenges and a certain degree of wiki-lawyering. If you don't want do deal with that... find a more mundain topic to write about. Is Wikipedia always fair? No... it isn't about being fair, it's about writing an accurate, quality encyclopedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As this appears to relate largely to a dispute at solar cycle, it may be best for Lakinekaki to cease finding other parents to ask and address the issue on the article talk page, with recourse to an RfC or other such means if he finds the consensus against his edits intolerable. Trying to modify or downgrade a central notability guideline is not the proper way to resolve a specific content dispute. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

solar cycle is just an example. the content dispute IS caused by citing of this guideline, which allows this ambigous standard when interpreting reputability of sources, and the number of sources needed. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Is the label "fringe" inherently pejorative?

Much of the talk page discussion seems to have an explicit assumption that describing a topic or research area as "fringe" is inherently pejorative. Other editors assert the opposite; that any minority theory may be labeled as "fringe" without any implied impact on the credibility of the theory. This is critical to the scope, vision, and application of the guideline WP:FRINGE

• Yes, as usually intended in Wikipedia. I see the Open Directory Projectuses "alternative." Many other forums also us this term. Tom Butler (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that harm the utility of having a guideline of this name then? HatlessAtless (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. Nothing is "inherently" pejorative. As far as I know there is no linguistic universal that associates the sound "fringe" or the writing with pejoratives. In fact, the etymology is actually kinda cutesy. It just becomes pejorative due to the euphemism treadmill. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • reaching for linguistic universals? yikes...

• Yes, but not necessarily problematically so. making a distinction between conventional, mainstream science and non-conventional research will always put the non-conventional research in a diminished light, but the distinction itself is useful. --Ludwigs2 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is another distraction. We need to focus on the push towards a strong guideline. Frankly, I'm tired of these disruptions, especially ones which play into the fringe editors' hands like this. Are we really at the point where WP:FRINGE should be gutted because you think it hurts their feelings? Alternative is choosing pain management over chemotherapy. Those are your choices, whichever your doctor recommends, the other is the 'alternative'. Two medically recognized choices. "Alternative" Music still used the basic rock band ideas, just presenting them in a way counter to the pop culture du jour. Using 'alternative science' to discuss things which aren't science, like alchemy (which is magic), or EVP (which is channeling spirits), is deceitful and disingenuous. Simply, it's a lie. Most of FRINGE can't conform to the scientific method and succeed, and that which can, can say so only because the SM disproved them. Any name which risks confusing our readers about what is and is not science is a bad choice. can we now get back on topic? ThuranX (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, before running of at the mouth with your personal prejudices, Google "Alternative science" and see how widely it is used for how many subjects. Tom Butler (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, ThuranX thinks this is all a distraction because it goes against his personal prejudices. He is unwilling to treat fringe subjects fairly, and unable to take any discussion to that effect seriously. how else could he see it except as a distraction? it's a completely closed perspective; no sense arguing with it, because arguing will go nowhere. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom, ThuranX thinks this is all a distraction because it goes against his personal prejudices. He is unwilling to treat fringe subjects fairly, and unable to take any discussion to that effect seriously. how else could he see it except as a distraction? it's a completely closed perspective; no sense arguing with it, because arguing will go nowhere. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I also agree that it is probably human nature to downplay the strengths of a competing view. It is important to have a means with which to explain that an idea has not been vetted. But within my field are ideas that have not been given respect because they have not been widely tested. It is our policy to encourage their development, and just recently, one that I have been rather hard on has turned into an important step toward the future for EVP. I consider myself an expert in my field, yet I was clearly did not anticipate the change. Wikipedia should make subjects clear without coloring them--mainstream or not. Tom Butler (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Mu. Please knock off the pointless RFCs, especially on topics that have been talked into the ground several sections above. Focus on the policy, not semantics. Skinwalker (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction

I have posted a new introduction based on support from MC and editing assistance from SA. User Nealparr has expressed significant reservations and objected to change, and reverted deeply. Request 3rd party editors evaluate the change and comment to establish consensus/disposition. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of not ending up in an edit war, if a 3rd party editor has significant reservations and reverts the intro edit, I will await consensus before continuing work. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We were in the middle of discussing it and you just dropped it into the guideline. What's the rush? I told you what my reservations are with your wording. On the intro specifically, I said that defining "fringe" as things science doesn't take seriously ignores fringe topics that science does sometimes take seriously, or that some scientists take seriously but not others (minority views), like cold fusion, parapsychology, and many more. They are fringe. Alternative medicine is taken seriously by some, still fringe. Your definition makes them out to not be fringe, just regular ol' science. You said that you want to prevent the fringe guideline from being applicable to minority views in science. I've given you several examples of where it is applicable to these minority views. MC and SA is not "wide support". It's two guys who may have not had the chance to consider my objection. I don't do the edit war thing, btw, I talk it out on the talk page and work towards consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What is with the recent spate of 'let's rewrite this'. We just had a section with overwhelming support for maintaining FRINGE as a guideline. That's eroded by the recent set of rewrite efforts. ThuranX (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am taking things back to yesterday's version (which had been fairly stable for several months). My main objection is that such a rapid amount of editing and reverting without any discussion here on the talk page has left me very confused as to what exactly is being proposed and what has been changed. Please... outline what is being proposed, wait to see if there is consensus, and make the edit only when consensus has been built. So far I have not seen any consensus for a change here on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, based on the fact that you were the only other party in the discussion, I decided to try the BRD cycle. I will admit however, that I may have jumped the gun. Since we're both articulate and intelligent, our discussions rapidly reach the TL/DR point for uninvolved editors. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX I've expressed my reservations about this guideline at length. I am working on it out of a desire to improve Wikipedia and help improve its processes. The desire to improve wikipedia is the exact same motivation Nealparr has in our discussions as well, and is the source of both our agreements and disagreements on this guideline. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, there has actually been a proposal for the new language up for some time, and the discussion has consumed much of the talk page that is up now. If you need me to copy/paste my rationale and my proposal for you I can. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It took almost a year for particular attribution to get into the guideline and there are STILL people griping. There is a general hesitancy to change things here, even if the changes are good. I made some changes to your proposal myself... but I imagine there will have to be a whole lot more tweaking before we get anything that approaches the quality and finesse that the guideline currently possesses (as maligned as it is). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep my complaint really simple and to the point. The changes, however unintentional, regulate this guideline to only being applicable to pure pseudoscience. It lets all the other minority views in science off the hook, ideas that literally sit at the outer edges of science (fringe) without spilling out past those boundaries. The burden presented by the rewrite only requires that an editor demonstrate that their favorite weird idea was published at some point in a scientific journal, has marginal acceptance, and then it's exempt from the guideline, regardless of how its actually seen by the greater scientific community. The rewrite has more potential to create greater confusion and problems that it does in solving them. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals of language (yet again)

Introduction

Please see User:HatlessAtlas/fringe rework

Non-academic worldviews

Please see: User:HatlessAtlas/fringe rework#Non-academic worldviews

Minority opinions and theories within a subject field

Please see: User:HatlessAtlas/fringe rework#Minority opinions and theories within a subject field

When legitimate ideas are hijacked

Please see User:HatlessAtlas/fringe rework#When legitimate ideas are hijacked

Protected

I've protected the main page for 12 hours due to serious edit warring. This is going to give some time for discussion. Could everyone please state which version they prefer? Once we reach a clear consensus here, any further reverts againts that consensus are going to lead to blocks. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the two versions here, I must say that I like the old one. I don't really see a need to work on this page. II | (t - c) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)