Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

RfC on Particular attribution section

(RFCpol) | section=RfC: Should the section discussed in the section above be in the article? !! reason=It seems to me that the section in question was inserted and is being kept against the general consensus, and that consensus should exist before major changes are made to this guideline !! time=23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Should the section discussed in the section above be in the article? It seems to me that it was inserted and is being kept against the general consensus, and that consensus should exist before major changes are made to this guideline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that ScienceApologist is the author of the section and edit warrs it in. The section did not have consensus and was rejected by the majority of editors present, including jossi, Martinphi, DGG, SteveBaker, and Ward20 Levine2112. There is room for debate on how much they rejected the current version, but there was no consensus on the current version.

General consensus above was to have a section in the guideline about the issue. Compromise wording was worked out. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the version that ScienceApologist and I agreed upon way back when (I think it's the one currently in the guideline), insofar as I support the wording and the basis for including it. I don't support how ScienceApologist has used it since it's been installed, however. Specifically, he was involved in a content dispute at a fringe article, came over here and added this clause, then went back to the content dispute and appealed to this clause. I think that's bad form. I also don't think the clause was relevant in that content dispute, but that's besides the point. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with the clause itself, just how SA used it, IMHO. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the uses I recall right now [1][2] I agree that part the section is common sense in a way (but not needed).

There is also one part of it which, I believe, is very wrong: for instance, stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". If Dr. X is the only person who is known to hold this view, how would you suggest stating it? Surely not "It has been called untenable." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The above section does not introduce this very well. I, as well as others, would no doubt appreciate it if you could post a concise summary of the issue. Even better, offer us an example of what you propose to add/change. ImpIn | (t - c) 10:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was afraid of that. What seems to be happening is that the section is only being used to avoid attrubution. I've never seen a case where particular attribution was used to make out that the opinion was held only by the author. I'd like Nealparr's answer to the above. I just don't see how we can override WP:ATT here. ATT basically says that we should not say or imply what we can't source. This section essentially makes it difficult, or impossible, to say where the information is coming from. When we say where the info is coming from, this section makes out that we're acting as if the author is the only one holding that opinion. I think that this worry is unfounded. However, I think that the alternatives are worrisome, because they lead to bald statements of fact, or weaseling. Look at this section. It describes exactly, I think, the alternatives to particular attribution. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... ATT can certainly be "overturned", because is not an official policy or guideline... it should be used to better understand WP:V and WP:NOR (the two policies it summarizes), not to argue points of policy. That said, while I think the section could be better phrased, I think the intent is good. If only one published source states a theory, then we should make it clear that this is the only source that states it. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, dude, you have it opposite. The intent of the section is to have us not say that that is the only source which says it. In other words, don't tell the reader that "X is the only source that says Y" because to say such a thing gives the impression that the opinion of the source, X, might not represent a lot of people. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Stating that, "Dr. X says an idea is untenable" does not imply that, "only Dr. X holds this view". If the Particular attribution section can be used to amplify Dr. X's view to a more generalized view, it is not WP:NPOV. From the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", and "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better."

Propose different wording for second paragraph:

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". Other phrasings about Dr. X's views should not mislead the reader as to their reliability, or how many other people share them. Ward20 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the gist here. I think it's confusing though because the word "mislead" will cause endless battles- it invites editorial truithiness. Something more like "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". Other phrasings about Dr. X's views should not mislead the reader as to their reliability, or imply the extent of their acceptance when such acceptance is not reliably documented." I believe that the reader is not dumb, and will know the extent of acceptance relative to the general context, where it can in fact be inferred. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The current wording already does what Ward20 proposes. No need to change it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, agree about mislead, how about:

"A statement such as Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". Other phrasings about Dr. X's views should imply extent of reliability or acceptance reliably documented." Ward20 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The current statement already makes this point and so there is no reason to change it to that wording. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth." Ward20 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this non sequitor supposed to mean? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are too intelligent to not know. Ward20 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. I interpret it to mean that you don't see a need to change the wording of the section. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that one you got wrong. ;-) Ward20 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can't tell me what you mean, then there is no way we can come to a consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. If the Particular attribution section is used to amplify Dr. X's view to a more generalized view (for example here), it is not WP:NPOV. It violates the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth". Ward20 (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is when the view is a generalized view, attributing it to Dr. X is inappropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) How about "If the extent to which a view is accepted cannot be determined by reliable sources, care should be taken not to imply the extent of acceptance or rejection. This is in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on original research."

The whole point is, we shouldn't be saying "this view is generally accepted or rejected" even if we think it is, unless we have something to back it up. That's the reason for what they say in WP:WEASEL,

"Weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc..... The case is similar with things that are apparently true "according to some studies" or "contrary to popular opinion"."

In fringe areas we need to be more careful about attribution, not less. We need to give the specific information, and let the chips fall where they may. This section encourages us to not attribute, and that is the opposite of what we should do.

For an example of how this might be used, see this. What's happening here is that, for some reason, the section is being used to eliminate attribution altogether. I rather think that the impetus for attribution needs to be strengthened, not weakened. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Nowhere does the section encourage us "not to attribute". It encourages us simply to avoid the pitfalls of particular attribution which is a recognized problem that you don't believe is an actual problem. You are acting as a POV-pusher in the instance you cite, trying to impose a particular attribution that is a summary statement that can be referenced to many different groups. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi that's good but someone beat you to it. [3] Ward20 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I put in that quote. It's another reason the section is not needed, see below. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then don't use it that way, as you did here and here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, I haven't "used it that way" at all. I've simply been using it to combat your disruptive editing, which, I'll remind you, is under probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been using it that way? Those aren't your edits? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been using it "that way", meaning I haven't been using it to encourage user "not to attribute". What I am encouraging users to do is not be disruptive. However, I'm not sure you have understood this point, so I'll be crystal: your attempts to marginalize the criticism of Sheldrake by using particular attribution is in direct violation of our guideline we wrote and is, moreover, disruptive in its continual reinsertion. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really feel that I'm a disruptive editor to that extent, it looks like you must have a case. If I were you, I'd take it right back to ArbCom, and see if you can get me perm banned this time. A nice new case, where everything can come out. In my opinion, I have not been disruptive. I try to follow and build consensus. You are continually disruptive, as pretty much every editor who knows you has told you. So by all means, take it back to ArbCom. If it's really like you say, then I'll get banned and you'll get your wish. But I think that my edits are in accordance with Wikipedia rules and the spirit -excuse me, the brain- of Wikipedia. If I'm wrong in a general way, I'm quite happy to be banned. I think I've just been doing the best I can in a tough situation, part of which is your continual disruption and POV pushing against the consensus of other editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think you may be doing "the best that you can", I am also of the opinion that your "best" is the perpetration of continued disruption at Wikipedia. I categorically refuse to "take it right back to ArbCom" as I don't see it to be necessary: I can accomplish all that I see to be necessary in other ways. I will continue to point out the fact that you continually flout your restrictions until you change your behavior either through your actions or the actions of another. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The section makes great play of the fact that phrasings such as "X is the only one who says A" or even "X says A" may imply that X is the only person saying such-and-such. This is clearly true in the first case (although it doesn't merely imply X is the only one saying A, it states it plainly), and it may also be true in the second case. However, this ambiguity can be resolved completely by the phrasing "some scientists, such as X, have said A" or more strongly "Scientists, for example X, have said A".

SA's approach is just to state A as a bald fact, assuming that A is such a widely acknowledged and undisputed truth that it would be pointless to even mention the fact that somebody said it. In the cases under discussion it is very far from clear that this take on things is accurate.

SA has offered a simple false dichotomy here. There are a huge variety of phrasings in between "X is the only scientist to say A" and just stating "A" as fact, so there is no need to choose between the two. I've recently used some of those variations, which were promptly reverted by SA, such as "Critics such as X say A." Also on no occasion have I, or anyone else for that matter, tried to write "X is the ONLY...". That part of the guideline is a straw man. We shouldn't have such things in a guideline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that you state that neither you nor anyone else has written "X is the ONLY...", that part of the guideline is apparently not impeding your writing of the encyclopedia, so should not be of particular concern to you. Regarding your debate with ScienceApologist, it does seem that this will ultimately be subject specific. If you were talking about a fringe subject such as Reiki, it would probably be appropriate to accept the word of the single mainstream scientist who has finally decided to comment on the subject as being, more or less, indicative the mainstream view on the subject. On the other hand, if you were talking about a subject that was not mainstream but at least rigorously studied, you'd be left with different standards. Without delving into the particular subject at hand, I can't really comment more regarding specifics. Antelan ^talk 05:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how it can be a "particular" attribution when every diff I've seen it used has an "s" at the end of "critics", as in plural, as in not "particular" at all. Is there one demonstration of a proper use? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is again subject specific. Compare "mainstream scientists reject X because of Y" with "critics like John Smith argue Y". "Critic" de-emphasizes the credentials of the person being termed as such; it is a word often used to create the illusion of parity of authority where none exists. Antelan ^talk 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. If "critics" isn't clear enough, it could be replaced with "physicists" or whatever the appropriate term is to convey their credentials. What I'm talking about is that the only one who has appealed to Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Particular attribution in its short history is ScienceApologist, and in every case he uses it to remove attributions altogether. This clause doesn't say to remove attributions. If it did it would be conflicting with other guidelines and the core NPOV policy. The reason I support it is because it doesn't say that, and instead directs us to strive to augment attributions with other examples in addition to the single attribution, or to reword the statement in a fashion that doesn't make it seem like a singular opinion. That can almost always be done, easily. Like in the example Ward20 pointed out [4]. In no way does this clause justify removing the attribution to Robert Todd Carroll (the author of the quote that follows). What the clause suggests doing is adding other examples in addition to it. Carroll isn't the only one who holds that opinion. James Randi, for example, is a perennial skeptic that can always be added to those sort of topics. If the only reason why the "Particular attribution" clause is here is to skirt attributing statements, by all means dump it, because it conflicts with other guidelines and policies. If not, stop appealing to it to remove attributions, because that's not its purpose. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he is using the section as if it says what he originally intended it to say " we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertantly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable"." [5]. What he did is write it in such a way that the only alternative to saying "Dr. X says" is just to state the fact, so long as other sources aren't there.

But oops, that's still what it says. So Nealparr, in the case where there is only one source, what do we do, just state it as a fact? I think SA is using it properly, when there is only one source. And we should not be writing a guideline which causes us to attribute things when there are multiple sources, but not do so when there is only one source.!! What if there were only one source? Sorry for the bold, but I just realized with your help that's what it does. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am allowed to appeal to whatever reasoning I want. You can dispute it on the talk page of the relevant article, but it is a bald fact as far as I'm concerned that Martinphi is disrupting that particular page by insisting on particular attribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, in the example you gave, it appears that ScienceApologist's edit was "sending a message". That is, SA's edit was making a disprovable claim of fact, not opinion. Fact need not be attributed to any particular person, so long as it is referenced. If there is indeed no other evidence for astral projeciton besides anecdotal evidence, then this fact can be stated plainly and referenced. If this is a contentious point or simply the opinion of one person, then other issues come into play. Antelan ^talk 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The source says "the main evidence is in the form of testimonials"[6], and SA changed it to "the only evidence" (my emphasis) and said the reason for that change is this particular attribution clause. If it's a disprovable fact claim, appealing to particular attribution isn't going to help justify the change because not even the source says that. All it's going to do is make people question why the particular attribution clause was added in the first place. Again, if it's just so one can go around making fact claims under the guise of some quasi-policy, then dump it. Like always, the contributor adding material to the project is responsible for justifying keeping it there, and that applies to guidelines as well as articles. By misusing it (making unverifiable fact claims and claiming this clause supports doing so) SA's not doing a good job of justifying keeping the clause he himself added. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well as I said above, I think it's basically against other WP policy. I also think there is no practical reason for keeping it in. If there is, could SA point to a place where it was actually needed? Otherwise, since it's not needed, and we agree it is being abused, could we please take it out? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And of course, there has been research on it, and though very inconclusive, still makes the issue disputed. As SA well knows, having edited on that article. See this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the edit of interest, another reason why Particular attribution should not be used like that. "According to critics such as Robert Todd Carroll, the only evidence for astral projection is personal testimonial." This sentence should be a demonstrable fact as the source should verify Carroll said it, (he didn't, but leave that for the Astral projection talk page). It was changed to, "The only evidence for astral projection is personal testimonial." This sentence purports to be a fact without the support of Carroll's attribution.[7]. The first sentence is more NPOV.Ward20 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Before SA's edit warring and disruption, here is the bit I originally had in (which was there for many months):

"Astral projection is controversial. Skeptics say that there is only the evidence of personal testimonials that anything actually leaves the body.[2]"

And later:

Skeptics such as Robert Todd Carroll say that the only evidence for astral projection is personal testimonial.[2]

Both are in accord with the source, though the first one is not totally supported as only one skeptic is cited- but it isn't a controversial claim. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to drop the word "only" from all of those examples. Carrol said "mainly" testimonials, not "only". Synonyms for "mainly" could include "primarily", "mostly", or something other than "only". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted. If anyone sees fit to help out. I try not to edit war, though that's hard sometimes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But hey look! I think this is the version I originally put in, not the other ones [8] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining this discussion late, but I'm still navigating my way around here. :-)

I'd like to offer this as a replacement for the current content of the 'Particular Attribution' clause. I think this will get at ScienceAplogist's intent, without raising any of the problematical issues noted above. basically I've removed that torturous second paragraph and a few of the more problematic clauses, and refocussed in on the fact that the speaker is an expert, even if he is speaking in isolation.

Proper sourcing is vital when adding critical viewpoints. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics, it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly address them. Care should be taken in such cases to make sure the criticism is seen as a product of the author's scientific qualifications and notability, to avoid the unmerited impression that he is speaking as an isolated individual.

comments?

as a side question, I see a number of other revisions and clarifications that I'd like to make to this guideline. is convention on pages like this to jump in and start editing like with normal articles, or is there a habit/rule/? of making talk page discussions first? --Ludwigs2 09:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely oppose SA's move here. He's presuming that he can tell what the scientific community thinks because he knows what is fringe and what is not. There's no reason to give editors that power -- it's a step into OR. Ludwigs proposed change gives him that room, and I don't think it is necessary. If something is truly fringe, it's going to be fairly obvious. Scientists should be quoted as individuals, as that is what they are -- and you can quote them on their opinion that the community is behind them, or that something is quackery, too. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see this point too. I certainly don't like the section as it's currently phrased. --Ludwigs2 10:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest changing "product of the" to something less amorphous, and that the last clause be more even handed, stating neither diminishing nor amplifying the authors viewpoint. I believe the proposed change is being approached with the right amount of caution. This is a very sensitive guideline. More incremental changes of phrases are often used without discussion as they are more easily considered and reverted if objectionable. Ward20 (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather like Ludwig's suggestion. With respect to many of the difficulties above, there is almost always an exact wording. It is possible to say: "The only report indexed under the heading [ ] in PubMed" when it is critical. The only [positive/negative] result reported in the standard reviews article " " is ..." or something to fit the circumstances. Instead of "the only evidence is in the form of testimonials" or "the main evidence..." one could say" the evidence ..." DGG (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

perhaps if we change the last line to read "Care should be taken in such cases to show that the author's scientific qualifications and notability are the basis for the criticism, and to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources neither diminishes the author's viewpoint as an isolated opinion, nor amplifies the author's viewpoint through the implication that it is broadly representative." --Ludwigs2 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Torturous wording and unnecessary. Also it's just plain wrong. When an expert says that something is forbidden by the known laws of physics, then we can write "This idea is forbidden by the known laws of physics" without particular attribution. The person is an expert, trying to appeal to the expert particularly misses the point of the text. The current version explains the problem with particular attribution well enough. Your version does not. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to suggest for consideration something similar, "Care should be taken in such cases to make sure there is proper attribution to an author's scientific qualifications and notability, or an article's reliably sourced authority, in order to avoid unmerited reduction or enhancement of their viewpoint." Ward20 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the section is needed at all, the point needs to be that we use good attribution with implying anything about what we don't know. Don't have time to formulate a passage, but putting questions in bold below:

Care should be taken in such cases to show that the author's scientific qualifications and notability are the basis for the criticism, but what if they aren't? what if the author is speaking outside his field? and to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources what if there are good sources? neither diminishes the author's viewpoint as an isolated opinion, nor amplifies the author's viewpoint through the implication that it is broadly representative."

The last part there does get to the crux of things. On the "notability" part, you could say "or notability," instead of "and notability." For example, James Randi is a fine source, but for many years at least had no credentials. But however phrased, the goal is merely to make sure we do say what we know, and we don't say or imply whay we don't know. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to address concerns. "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute an author's scientific qualifications and notability, or article's reliably sourced authority to describe the weight of the criticism, in order to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources neither diminishes nor amplifies the viewpoint as an isolated or overly broad opinion." Ward20 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better, especially the first part where you say Care should be taken in such cases to attribute an author's scientific qualifications and notability". I'm not sure what this means "or article's reliably sourced authority".

I might put it "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute an author's qualifications and notability, or to state the publisher of an article used as a source, in order to allow the reader to judge it's reliability and how much weight to give it's criticism. This will ensure that the relative merits of other sources neither diminish nor amplify the viewpoint as either an isolated or overly broad opinion." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Or article's reliably sourced authority" tried to address for example a position statement by the National Science Foundation, or DGG's example, "The only report indexed under the heading [ ] in PubMed". Maybe it did not address it well if there is confusion. I am going to stop here for a while and let others comment. Ward20 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting the author and publisher in the text is a very poor stylistic practice. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, how about this: "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute the weight of the criticism to the author's scientific qualifications or notability, or to the reliably sourced authority of the journal or book that publishes the author's view, in order to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources neither diminishes nor amplifies the author's viewpoint as isolated or broadly accepted."

I think we are close enough to a consensus here that I am going to try editing this version in on the main page. let's see what happens...

It looks fine to me. I was mainly concerned about the second part, and that's been fixed now also. I'm going to do just a small change but not change the meaning to any extent. See what you think. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution as a list

(undent) while I'm at it I'm going to toss in a suggestion about the second paragraph. it seems to me it might work better as a list of examples, as follows (reworking the current version, minus whatever tweaks you just made).:

Examples
"Dr. X is the only scientist who believes this idea is untenable"

This is impossible to verify, and an obvious case of "particular attribution".

"Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable"

This is also an obvious case of "particular attribution". If Dr. X is actually the only source for the information being presented, this may be is unavoidable, but it should not be used when other sources are available.

"Dr. X says this idea is untenable"

This inadvertently implies that only Dr. X holds this view, when it is possible, and even likely given the fringe nature of the topic, that other qualified people share Dr. X's criticism without having addressed the subject in writing.

"Dr. X, in an editorial for <some credible journal>, says this idea is untenable"

This ties the credibility of the opinion to the credibility of the journal it is offered in, lending it strength despite the lack of other sources.

"Dr. X, renowned <specialist>, says this idea is untenable"

This ties the credibility of the opinion to Dr X's status in his field, also lending it strength despite the lack of other sources.;"

"Dr. X, as a <specialist>, says this idea is untenable"

This inadvertently implies that all specialists of Dr. X's type share Dr. X's view, artificially magnifying that view without proper sourcing.

Editors must be careful not to imply there is a consensus or a lack of consensus without a source to support it. Claims that all, most, few, or no researchers hold a particular view require a reliable source: see Reliable sources#Claims of consensus.

I don't know if that's actually an improvement - lol - but... let me know what you think. :-) --Ludwigs2 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I like it as it is, but don't have special objections here. Let's see what other people think of having it this way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed - I could go either way. --Ludwigs2 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Current wording fine

The current wording is fine. I'm calling the bluff of those editors here who do not think this is the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SA...

I never bluff; I'm just not good at that dishonesty thing. makes me a lousy poker player, but we're not playing poker here.
that whole 'throw-down-the-gauntlet' thing starts to get really old when you use it every time you make a post. I would take it as a personal favor if you would stop demanding, insisting, asserting, and etc., and start discussing. life would be so much more pleasant for all of us. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The current wording seems to further the parity section by exploring its implications in terms of undue weight. Sources making statements in accord with observable reality are the only ones that may be used to cite statements of fact rather than opinion. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

to my mind, the current wording actually subverts WP:PARITY. the 'parity of sources' section is intended to loosen wikipedia policy about reliability of sources so that fringe topics (which understandably get little play in 'proper' venues) can still cite sources under a different level of scrutiny (including critical sources, which are likewise not to be penalized for their lack of peer-review). the value added by the 'Particular attribution' section is the clarification that an actual reliable source should not be dismissed as an isolated opinion (which strikes me as a reasonable assertion), but the current phrasing seems to be shaded to assert the primacy of peer-reviewed opinions, in contrast to the intent of PARITY. this phrase in particular - "Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim." - is torturously worded to indirectly suggest that a single 'proper' source implies a uniform agreement with the source in the scientific community.

am I the only person on Wikipedia who is bothered by the improper use of negations? the quoted phrase above reduces to 'the fact that there are not many sources does not imply the there are not many believers'. try to parse that triple negative, and what do you end up with? as far as I can tell, you get an absurd statement like 'the fact that there are not many sources does imply the there are many believers'. my version, if nothing else, is written in a clear and unambiguous affirmative style. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of the current version? As far as I can see it is now in line with policy, and doesn't use tripple negatives, does it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

errr... it seems that the current version merely added statements to the second paragraph, and didn't touch the first paragraph at all - or am I missing a draft that got redone? they qualifications you and SlimVirgin added are definite improvements, though. let me try an edit on the first paragraph (in line with the formulation that we all were discussing above) and see how it turns out.

Break and summary

The section was not needed for anything that I know of. But here is the reasoning for rejecting it:

The following quote is a straw man, it hasn't happened, ever, that I know of, and I doubt it ever did. At any rate, including it in the section is made completely unnecessary by the fact that such a statement can't be sourced and therefore can be removed on those grounds:

"A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". "

This following is false-- the implication is not there:

"However, other phrasings can inadvertantly imply that only Dr. X holds this view, for instance, stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable"."

The section actually doesn't cover cases such as "skeptics such as Dr. X say"

The real problem comes up in this case: you have only one source, which is Dr. X saying Y

You can't say "Dr. X is the only source which says Y." You never could say that, since it can't be sourced.

And you can't say "Dr. X says Y," the section prohibits it.

You can't say "skeptics such as Dr. X say Y" because Dr. X is probably the only person who ever bothered to say Y.

You can only say "X." You make a bald statement of fact based on what Dr. X says. (If there is an alternative I missed, one could put that into FRINGE.)

In the case of there being only one source, which can happen, you just have to state X. Yet the section of FRINGE does sort of justify the edit in that it states that giving particular attribution implies that only the person holds the view, which of course is incorrect.

If we really want to do something of use in this section, it would be to make sure that the reader always knows exactly where information is coming from. That is indeed especially important in FRINGE articles. So, giving particular and general attribution is more, not less, important. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed above. Please remand future discussion to those previous points. The fact is that when an authority makes a statement of fact, we do not need to particularly attribute the statement of fact to the authority by writing in the text the name of the person. That technique is one employed exclusively by people wishing to mitigate factual criticism of pseudoscience and fringe beliefs. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent change

The recent changes, started by SlimVirgin [9], and added to by myself [10] [11] addressed all the problems I saw in the passage. I hope that their essense can be maintained. The main points the passage should make clear:

1. If Dr. X is not the only source known to hold a viewpoint, we should not imply he is the only person who holds it.

2. In the case Dr. X is the only source with his viewpoint, we should still attribute (since attribution is a very good practice), but not imply that Dr. X is somehow isolated or out on a limb.

3. We should not imply anything, especially consensus, without a source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually reading the changes over the last few hours made me realize where your misconception was coming from. My point is that facts should never be attributed and opinions are not as useful as facts for writing material about reality. So I tried to emphasize this. We aren't in the business of saying how one should attribute or not, just in the business of explaining how one should offer mainstream critique of fringe theories without seeming to bog down ourselves in he said/she saids that are not illuminating in the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

facts and opinions

I removed the paragraph:

"If Dr. X is an reliable expert in the field in which he is writing, consider writing about the facts mentioned by Dr. X rather than the opinions of Dr. X. Facts do not require in-text attribution since they are not solely Dr. X's opinions. So statements like "The principles of this fringe idea contradict basic scientific facts and are not corroborated by observation." can be included. Do not mistake a fact for opinion. Saying "Dr. X says that the principles of this fringe idea are neither corroborated by observation and contradict basic scientific facts" while true attributes a fact to the opinion of an expert: a practice which is misleading."

These are not facts, but Dr X's judgement about the implications of the facts, his opinions about what the facts show--however absolutely well founded. I understand the difficulties of the section involved, and I do not have any immediate solution, but this isn't a good one. DGG (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, DGG. Those are facts. If Carezani says that 1+1=1.4 it's a fact that it contradicts 1+1=2. We have observations that 1+1=2. That's not just a judgment. That's a fact. We source it to Dr. X, but he is giving us a fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about facts either, but also about synthesizing material. Fringe idea A may be unrelated to scientific principle B; it's Dr. X's synthesis that the two are related and that A contradicts B. Dr. X deserves credit for making the relation, and criticism for drawing incorrect synthesis. Eg. a few years back some physicists wrote a paper debunking popular Hollywood horror movie premises, for example that ghosts can both walk through walls and stand on a floor without falling through. They said that if a ghost were material enough to stand on a floor, it would be too substantial to walk through the wall. Seems like a basic fact that doesn't need elaboration. However, it was simply a synthesis on the part of the physicists that the ghost concept relates to physics in that way. Another popular theory for ghosts, for example, is that they are some sort of 3D image or projection, ie. substantially immaterial and merely "holographic". A hologram, by comparison, would be able to appear to both stand on a floor and pass through walls equally. In such a way, their synthesis that ghosts would have to be substantially material to stand on a floor (B) would be contradictory to the actual fringe theory (A), rather than the other way around. Call me HollywoodApologist : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See the example above. Sure people can suggest alternatives, but then we can source their alternatives if they are notable. Trying to attribute a fact to a scientist is neither good writing nor does it give the full important of the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we toss out some examples of what is meant here by "fact" and what is meant by "opinion"? From my understanding, facts in science are things like "the record temperature measured at the equator is *** in 1965", or "the half-life of ¹⁴C is 5,730±40 years", whereas claims like "this record temperature was caused by sun flare activity" would be opinion. A theory is in many ways "opinion", albeit one in the form of a model which is testable and predictive. And so we find all kinds of opinion offered by scientists, some of it widely accepted while some of it is widely rejected. Hence it can be very important to whom or what to attribute such opinion. So I think more realistic examples need be given. I doubt many wikipedians find themselves in disputes that are really over claims like 1+1=1.4. There's usually more to it than that. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, even if a scientist points to a scientific fact, it is still his opinion that the fact in some way applies to the fringe idea. Dr. X may be the most qualified expert in his field, but by definition the fringe topic isn't his field. So what sort of qualification would he have to comment (as in SA's example) "The principles of this fringe idea contradict basic scientific facts and are not corroborated by observation"? He's not an expert on the principles of the fringe idea. He may be strawmaning the concept, or simply not familiar with it. It's just his opinion that the facts have something to do with the fringe idea. In debunking, one always says something like "The idea is really just this, and it's contradicted by this." The first part of that sentence is very much an opinion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dr. X section just adds to the confusion, and I don't think it's worth salvaging. It's almost always necessary, yes, to attribute such opinion in those cases. I guess the real question is, is this issue over confusion in attributing facts and opinions? Or is it about creating a loophole to avoid giving attribution to a source by employing supposed "facts" derived from the source as an objective yardstick? If it's the latter, it violates a handful of core policies to tackle a non-problem. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dr. X section is dreadful. "Experts in the field" may well disagree over "facts" as well as "opinions". And they frequently disagree over whether something else altogether is consistent with a particular set of facts. Ask any trial lawyer. The Dr X example as worded is naively simplistic and invites bad editing. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget the wording and principles discussion, Dr. X must die. At this point in the conversation, Dr. X examples should be banned entirely, or at least replaced with Dr. Bob. : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject as HollywoodApologist - Dr. Henry Jones was killed by the dread fourth film in the series. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Jones, Jr., and it was a brilliant fourth film. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Critic X disagrees with you, but based on a huge box office, that may be a Fringe Opinion. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

totally useless criticism, but "Dr. Alice Jones"? can we at least get something interesting, like "Dr. Sanpar Alengopala" or "Dr. Xin Choi Ling" or even something like "Dr. Rory Lembert"? "Alice jones" is so... "Alice Jones." --Ludwigs2 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

removed 'right great wrongs'

I am not necessarily averse to the concept that 'Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs,' but the way that phrase was included struck me as polemical and lacking in context. if that's part of wikipedia policy somewhere, I would be fine reinstating it with an explanatory link. --Ludwigs2 01:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll stay out of this, as I think it's too entrenched to be buried. heh. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

uh-oh. did I step in something? again? damn, Wikipedia needs a newbie guide to content land-mines... :-\ --Ludwigs2 03:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Antelan - while I don't doubt you have a reason for undoing the change I made, your edit summary left me totally in the dark. I asked for a wikipedia policy or guideline reference to the phrase righting great wrongs so that it could be added as a link to the phrase in text. without that kind of a link, the phrase really is is obscure and polemical. now I'm assuming that your "This is well established" means that you can provide such a link, or at least point to someplace so I can see that it's well established. can you assist? --Ludwigs2 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's well established here. Been here forever. And also WP:TE#Righting Great Wrongs. It's also the spirit of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - well 'established here' is circular (well, wikipedia policy is inherently circular, but never mind that..). that first link you gave is what I was looking for, though. I'm going to add a link there from the phrase, if no one has any objections (because really, it did just jump out at me as out-of-the-blue oddness). --Ludwigs2 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

edit: whoops, someone beat me to it. excellent. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a natural follow to the preceeding sentence which says "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere." Summed up, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, I see it, now that I see it. :-) --Ludwigs2 17:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you all have resolved this; Neal, thanks for adding the link. Antelan ^talk 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yr welcome. I think there were more places that wording was used in the past as well, but I can't remember. It should be put into the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

proposed new section - guideline for fringe article structure

I'm proposing a new section that I think will clear up a lot of the interpretive confusions that plague fringe topic articles - basically I want to put in a guideline for the proper structure of such an article. here's a first draft; please comment.

In order to produce a neutral article on a fringe topic, the subject of the article should be treated first and foremost as a belief system in any of the accepted meanings of that term. It may couch itself in scientific or pseudoscientific reasoning, or present itself as valid competitor to mainstream science, but these should not be considered its primary characteristic. If science does not accept these theories as scientific, then Wikipedia cannot present them that way.

The following is a guideline for structuring a properly formed article on a fringe topic. the article should contain:
a clear, neutral description of what the belief system is, including (as appropriate):
its worldview

its basic assumptions, and the conclusions it draws from those assumptions

an explanation of the place of this belief system in popular culture, including (as appropriate):
its social or political effects, in terms of its direct impact and the impact of the actions of its opponents

the extent of its spread through the culture

major historical turning points in the belief.

a clear, concise critique of the belief system's claims on scientific or academic grounds, including (as appropriate):
notable problems in assumptions made

violations of established scientific principles or academic research

contradictions of mainstream belief and practice
The key element in dealing with fringe topics in an encyclopedic way is to defuse any unjustifiable claims they make to truth, efficacy, superiority, or etc., without implicitly or explicitly attacking the underlying belief structure. Thus, if Christian Scientism were treated as a fringe theory, it would be necessary to indicate that no significant findings in medicine support the assertion that prayer can cure disease. However, the article should stop well short of any implication that prayer doesn't work, since that is no longer a scientific critique but rather an attack on Christian Scientist beliefs. Wikipedia is not the place to overturn the deeply held beliefs of others any more than it is the place to promote those ideas.

--Ludwigs2 17:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The very first phrase is wrong. Not every subject is a "belief system" and we definitely should not treat all article like that. As one who removed the "right great wrongs" issue, I think that you need to really look more carefully at to the points being made by editors who are saying that protection of "underlying belief structures" in our policies is right out: we aren't here to protect the beliefs of anyone. We're here to present research. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but no. Fringe theories are belief systems by definition - i.e. they are systematic and collective sets of beliefs about the world (which happen to be foundationless, of course, but that's irrelevant). I mean really... give me an example of a fringe theory that isn't a belief system? what would that even mean? I expected you to argue with a lot of points in this - 'cause that's just how you show you love me ;-) - but that first line is (as far as I can tell) completely unarguable. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. A "belief system" in an academic sense is formalized. It is social. It is not idiopathic nor is it necessarily the basis for all proposals. Most fringe theories are not systematic. Most are incomplete. They cannot be a "belief system" in a reliable sense. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

again, no. there is nothing in the concept of a belief system that implies it needs to be complete or correct or entirely systematized. a definition like you're suggesting would mean that no religion on the face of the earth could be a belief system.

besides, this is easily solved if you can give me one example of a fringe theory that is not a belief system. stop trying to refute this on weird abstract grounds - show me an example. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough. AIDS denialism. This is not a "belief system"; it's a group of people who (ab)use scientific literature to draw a conclusion at variance with that of experts and authorities in the field. For the most part, these are people who ostensibly share the beliefs, assumptions, and value system of scientific culture, but simply differ in that they believe HIV and AIDS to be correlated rather than causatively related. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

so what you're telling me is that this loose group of people believes that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but rather by other causes (such as recreational drugs, malnutrition and antiretroviral drugs), and that they have tried to demonstrate the accuracy of this belief by marshaling various scientific facts into an argument. and they obviously don't share the share all the beliefs, values, and assumptions of the modern scientific community, otherwise they wouldn't be AIDS deniers, would they? how is this not a belief system? granted, it's not a particularly sophisticated or involved belief system, but the fact that they continue to advocate for it even after it's been debunked is a clear sign that it's not just normal scientific investigation. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's your definition of "belief system", then I think it's so vague as to be essentially meaningless, or at least not particularly useful in the context of this guideline. MastCell ^Talk 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. In fact, if you think about it, this approach solves the Fringe Topic problem very nicely. by approaching them as belief systems, we can discuss fringe topics seriously and completely, without demeaning or attacking them, yet without any worry that we will be presenting them as serious competitors to the scientific understanding of the world. honestly, I'm not really seeing what your objection on this point is. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if by "structure" you are referring to the order of the material presented, but your wording would suggest that to many readers. Thus #3 would be seen as saying the criticisms should be concentrated in one area of the article, and that wouldn't be good. Criticisms should be placed wherever they are most relevant, otherwise you risk giving undue weight to the Fringe theory, and making the article disjointed. We had and fixed this problem at Bates method, which, while you can still question some of its content, is now at least a well-organized treatment of a fringe theory, imho. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I meant it more as a list of things that needed to be covered than an actual ordering. and I'll add that I am still perplexed when people apply the undo_weight clause this way. undo weight literally reads: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all but this has got to be taken relative to the article. otherwise you start trying to claim that the holders of a fringe belief are a tiny minority within their own fringe beliefs, which is clearly silly (bordering on stupid) pov-pushing. there is nothing about giving a clear, unbiased description of even the wackiest fringe theory that triggers undo weight.

look - I understand that there are any number of people here who are jonesing to stamp fringe theories to death. there's a lot of history behind that, I'm sure, so I don't want to criticize the feeling. but it's not NPOV; it's just not. an encyclopedia needs to describe even stupid and offensive ideas with neutrality and openness, or it's not an encyclopedia. your model here should be scientific texts - scientists never come out and vindictively pound their opponents into dust. what they always do is is give a nice, neutral statement about what their opponent's research actually said, and then they calmly and cooly take it apart into little pieces and show where it doesn't work. read any reputable journal, on almost any topic; you'll see what I mean. If we can't have that kind of scientific attachment when we are talking about fringe theories, then we might as well just give up trying and begin all the fringe topic pages with "these stupid little sh@tf%#kers don't know what the hell they're talking about..." --Ludwigs2 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I like a lot of what you're doing here, Ludwigs. The problem I see with it is sourcing: to say all the things you say would be very difficult sometimes. Also, fringe ideas are not always belief systems. See Parapsychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

true about the sourcing... but I think it's better to have some sort of guideline that might create some headaches than to have no guideline at all (and the obvious headaches that creates).

but let me be clear on this belief system thing - it's not meant to be a difficult concept, but I can see how it can get taken weird ways. beliefs come before facts in the human mind. we hold beliefs whether we want to (or know it) or not. if we are reasonable people, our beliefs grow and change over time, and if we're careful thinkers our beliefs become more in tune with reality as we think about them. for instance, we all believe in science in some very simple, practical ways. I believe as a matter of course that if I turn on the television I'll get to watch a TV show, even though I have a limited understanding of the principles of electromagnetism or the workings of the human eye. the fact of the matter is, my belief in science is well-justified, because all these things around me work in pretty much the way advertised.

with fringe theories (like cults) people somehow get caught up in a set of beliefs that are not borne out by conventional reality, but for some reason or other they start looking for ways to reconstruct reality to fit their conceptions, rather than the other way around. sometimes it even works (think Galileo, or Darwin, or the 'meteor killed the dinosaurs' guy that SA mentioned). if you've read Kuhn, this is inherent in the nature of paradigm shifts: scientific consensus (i.e., scientific beliefs) shift from one mode to another, and all of a sudden standard understandings of the world become passé fringe beliefs, while some heretofore fringe belief becomes the standard understanding of the world. you just can't get away from the belief thing on some level or another, because it's jst the way we think. --Ludwigs2 23:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is good...

"If Dr. Jones is an reliable expert in the field in which she is writing, consider writing about the facts mentioned by Dr. Jones rather than the opinions of Dr. Jones. Facts may not require in-text attribution if they are facts and not solely Dr. Jones's opinions. Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by substantiating it rather than attributing it."

It covers both angles. It guides us to (instead of attributing to a particular person, regardless of how many sources can be found) to substantiate it with facts. Plus we have a core policy to back it up. The "may not" and "if they are facts and not solely" that SA had a problem with are there to cover contingencies such as fact-claims that are really just opinions posing as facts. Like the core policy says, we can avoid that (and the cases of particular attribution) by substantiation. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Neal, what do you mean exactly by "substantiation"? Do you mean checking other reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean no less and no more than the alternate approach proscribed by Wikipedia:Npov#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. It kind of makes sense. If we're having problems with attribution, use the alternate approach. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm not a fan of the last statement because it implies that facts are somehow "biased". Maybe in another part of the article this would be good. There are often people who claim that a fact is an opinion posing as fact: but such arguments can easily be decided by considering sources. If the reliable sources say its a fact then Wikipedia must treat it as such no matter how much the people who don't think it is a fact think otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SA, the previous examples you gave of facts were actually biased statements. Your version said "So statements like 'The principles of this fringe idea contradict basic scientific facts and are not corroborated by observation' can be included." The substantiation approach would be to list the scientific facts that supposedly contradict the theory without the biased sythesis of "contradiction" and unverifiability of "not corroborated by observation". An even better approach would be both. List the facts and also the attributed statement that the facts contradict the fringe theory. The "contingencies" I spoke of were examples like the one you gave. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should add what I feel is an eg. Give me a sec... --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Suppose only one scientist bothered to criticize the Hollow Earth Theory (dubious that it'd only be one, but it's just an example) although almost no one supports it. We only have one source as a direct criticism of the idea. We've exhausted all searches for other critics and aren't simply being lazy in our research. What do we do? What can we do?

Particular attribution approach:

"Proponents of the Hollow Earth Theory say that the Earth is hollow and that whole societies dwell along the interior circumference of the Earth. Scientists such as Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. disagrees saying the Earth is actually quite solid."

Substantiation approach:

"The Earth is composed of layers that consist of an outer crust, an upper and lower mantle, an outer core, and an inner core. The mantle is relatively solid, below that is a liquid outer core that generates a magnetic field, and beneath that is a solid iron inner core. Some writers, particularly in science fiction and mythology, have speculated that the Earth is instead hollow, with whole societies living along it's interior."

Both in conjunction:

"The Earth is composed of layers that consist of an outer crust, an upper and lower mantle, an outer core, and an inner core. The mantle is relatively solid, below that is a liquid outer core that generates a magnetic field, and beneath that is a solid iron inner core. Some writers, particularly in science fiction and mythology, have speculated that the Earth is instead hollow, with whole societies living along it's interior. Dr. Henry Jones Jr., a geologist, says decades of scientific understanding of the interior of the planet effectively renders hollow earth theories as a relic of the past."

Sounds pretty good to me. Eh? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, except you need to substantiate it fully, and keep perspective - this is an article about Hollow Earth, right? e.g.:

Hollow Earth theory holds that the Earth is hollow, with whole societies and ecologies living along its interior. This theory was originally a speculative assertion by various writers, particularly in science fiction and mythological essays. Modern geological theory has given evidence that the Earth is, instead, composed of multiple layers of solid and molten rock, leading geologist Dr. Henry Jones Jr. to suggest that "decades of scientific understanding of the interior of the planet effectively renders hollow earth theories as a relic of the past."

--Ludwigs2 20:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an example of particular attribution. Where it fails to "be careful" is when it says "originally a speculative assertion" and "given evidence" (as if it's in doubt). This is where SA is coming from: There's no reason to doubt the sincerity of mainstream claims, such as the Earth is millions of years old or that it is solid, simply because a fringe claim disagrees. Young Earth does not cast doubt on a million year old Earth. Hollow Earth does not cast doubt on a solid Earth. Stating facts clearly should not be an issue. The sole issue is what's facts and what's opinions. Fact: the Earth is not hollow, should not be in dispute. Opinion: hollow earth theory has become a relic of the past, is a scientist's opinion that may not sit well with, perhaps, science fiction writers who think it's the latest trend in fiction. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see your point, but to be honest Ludwig's proposed text looks fine to me. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we're at value judgements. Which is better and what should we be guiding people to do in a guideline. The ultimate problem is if we can't state any facts clearly, the article ends up reading like a lawyer wrote it and that's not very encyclopedic. Fortunately, we don't have to, because there are better approaches wrapped up in all the various policies and guidelines. Avoiding particular attributions clearly directs us to substantiate instead, using facts. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

More support for the "substantiation approach" is found in other guidelines, like WP:WEASEL. Again, the supposed intent behind the "particular attribution" clause is to be clearer about the size of the group that holds the view, not to be vague on who says what. WP:WEASEL says "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts." We clearly have two options here that are echoed from the core NPOV policy I quoted above. If the first is problematic, go with the second.

The Substantiation Approach

When there it is potentially misleading to name a source for the opinion, change opinionated language to concrete facts.

See WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements and WP:WEASEL#Improving weasel-worded statements.

No need to reinvent the wheel, argue about it, fight over wording, edit war, and so on. It's already there in policy and popular guidelines. Build on the backs of giants. This proposal comes with the built-in consensus of NPOV and WEASEL, and we really need to resolve this dispute. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I think this is reasonable approach to the problem. I would suggest a possible wording change, "If Dr. Jones is an reliable expert in the field in which she is writing, consider writing about facts that support the opinions of Dr. Jones, being careful not connect the facts and opinions by original research." Ward20 (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally the italicized wording above would replace the entire third paragraph (leaving off the Dr. Jones business). Part of the disputes here revolves around examplefying (<- is that a word?) and overdefining. Better that examples stay within the realm of actual articles where there's a real example to work with instead of hypotheticals. This wording has the support of policy already and the idea is to move on and resolve this dispute. Wording that has to be dissected and overanalyzed isn't going to help that. Adding something about original research and synthesis is fine by me, perhaps even encouraged, but I'd dump anything not exactly worded in the guidelines already. Too much disputing going on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the The Substantiation Approach paragraph replaces the third paragraph. Yes, I would suggest a warning about OR at the end. Ward20 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stuff that is essentially off topic

well, maybe that's just my overly-careful approach to scientific statements. scientists work on a 'preponderance of evidence' concept - a careful statement about any established theory would be something like (instrumentalist) "we have used this theory productively many times, and so feel justified in continuing to use it" or (Popperian) "we have not yet seen a case in which this theory has failed to produce its expected results." statements like "we have shown" or "we have proved" are always colloquial shorthand, not intended literally. just for me, when I hear that a scientific field has 'given evidence,' that's a powerful statement, meaning that that field is onto something. you're probably right, though, that that might not play the same way to a general audience. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - hit the save button too early. :-) to finish, saying that there's no reason to doubt mainstream claims is a bit off-base. there's always reason to doubt in science; if you're not willing or able to doubt a claim then you've stepped into the realm of faith. what should really be said is that there is nothing in the evidence a fringe theory can produce that would lead one to question a mainstream theory. in other words, it's not a fact that the earth is not hollow, it's just that there's (pardon the pun) a world of evidence suggesting that it's not hollow, and no claim made by a hollow earth theorist (to date) has tipped the balance one iota in its favor.

really, this is why I like the belief system approach. the difference between mainstream and fringe science is really that mainstream science is a belief system with a hell of a lot of teeth... --Ludwigs2 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just an underhanded method to push fringe theories. How do I know that Dr. Henry Jones is a renowned geologist? What if he thinks the earth isn't hollow, but continents float on honey and was created 6000 years ago? Moreover, what if I am not a geologist, how do know that Dr. Henry Jones is anything more than a movie character? Dr. Henry Alvarez (geez, his name probably isn't Henry, but it goes with this discussion) once was a nutjob saying that an asteroid hit the earth killing all of the dinosaurs. Then they found out his theories were essentially right (give or take a few years and a few other processes). But 25 years ago, if the internet existed, and Wikipedia existed, and we actually had laptops (I believe I had an Apple IIc), and someone was writing about the extinction of dinosaurs, Alvarez would mean nothing to the article. I think Ludwig's proposal is not going to work. And ludwig, I'd suggest you learn a little bit about science before utilizing a sentence like "preponderance of evidence." Science doesn't work like a commercial law court. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Science works on a "belief system?????" WTF????? Ludwigs, where are you getting this stuff? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OM: I'm getting it from books about scientific methodology. where are you getting your stuff?

SA: the presumption here was that Dr. Jones meets the reliable source guidelines, otherwise why would we be quoting him at all? therefore your fears that he believes that the continents float on giant streams of honey (delicious as that sounds) probably isn't justified. remember, the purpose here is to make sure that a reliable source is not dismissed because he is one of only a few sources available. I don't know how you turned that around into a pov-pushing thing. wasn't the original purpose of all this to preserve valid scientific references? --Ludwigs2 21:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I get my stuff from a substantial education in science, medicine, and more science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

excellent. then we ought to be able to discuss this reasonably. --Ludwigs2 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You probably read Karl Popper. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Thomas Kuhn who argued that scientists work under a belief system or paradigm, blame him : ) Really, it's not the concept of a paradigm that fuels fringe theorists, it's the optimism that their theory will cause a paradigm shift (another of Kuhn's ideas). Definitely Kuhn. Nothing wrong with Popper. It's partly Popper's falsifiability that kept creationism out of Arkansas Public Schools. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read a lot of postings around here where fringe theory pushers will misquote Popper. I've actually not read Kuhn, so I'm going to have to do that, especially if it's the "bible" for stating that science is a belief system. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Neal, that is a total misreading of Kuhn and if you were to take my philosophy of science course you'd be hurting right now. The "paradigmatic" system that Kuhn is talking about is not a "belief system" any more than one might call English a "belief system". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Right guys, 'cause pseudoscientists always interpret scientific ideas as they were meant to be received and never draw their own self-serving conclusions *rolls eyes* : ) This quote and link doesn't do service to the extent that "new paradigm" has been adopted by fringe theorists:

"One of the more common applications of the terms paradigm and paradigm shift is to mean 'traditional way of thinking' vs. 'new way of thinking.' Some New Age thinkers seem to think that paradigms can be created by individuals or groups who consciously set out to create them. They seem to mean by 'paradigm' nothing more than "a set of personal beliefs," e.g., Essays on Creating Sacred Relationships: The Next Step to a New Paradigm by Sondra Ray and Handbook for the New Paradigm from Benevelent Energies. Many of the New Age self-help promoters base their approaches on the notion that one's current paradigm is holding them back and what they need to do is create a new paradigm (set of beliefs, priorities, assumptions, values, goals, etc.) for themselves that will allow them to break through, etc., e.g., The Paradigm Conspiracy: How Our Systems of Government, Church, School, and Culture Violate Our Human Potential by Denise Breton and Christopher Largent."[12]

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - I've read Popper, yes. can't say that I agree with him particularly, though he is a notable source in the philosophy of science. I've read Kuhn as well, though I really wouldn't call him the poster boy for science as a belief system. you'll find much better discussions of it in John Dewey, William James, and the other american pragmatists, or in some of the more post-modern critiques of the scientific method. heck, if you squint your eyes a bit you can see it in Plato and Aristotle.

SA - I've read people who claim that language is inherently a belief system. I'll give you references if you want (though I recommend stocking up on beer and aspirin before beginning). not my cup of tea, personally, but I respect their arguments. --Ludwigs2 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should tell whatever third-rate teachers who are feeding you nonsense that the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis is not about "belief systems". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

SA: glad to see you're not blocked any more. :-) --Ludwigs2 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

everything humans do is based on their emotional values--what we consider intellectually justified is based on what we believe to be justified, which has a tendency to be what we want to believe, based of course of our psychological and social and linguistic setting. Science is built upon a particular system of this, whose justification is ultimately that it satisfies material needs, and that those who follow it do better in what appears to be the real material world than those who do not. If one does not think that important, then neither logic nor science have any validity. If one seriously believes that what is given in a particular religious doctrine cannot be false, and that anything contrary to it is perversity or misunderstanding or irrelevant, such a position is fully consistent and cannot be falsified. Goes the other way to, as my father once explained to me when I asked him as a teen-ager if anything, even direct revelation, would possibly convince him of the existence of God, he replied that if he experienced such a revelation, he would conclude he was insane and seek treatment for it. DGG (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

per discussion above, adding a 'vague' tag

I'm making a synopsis of my point in an above discussion, here, to explain why I'm adding a {{vague}} tag in the lead.

I put the {{vague}} tag there because the use of the word 'notable' in this sentence has nothing to do with the wp:notability guideline, despite the link. wp:Notability is specifically limited to determining whether an article topic may or may not be included in Wikipedia. The sentence in question, however, is actually aiming at something closer to wp:Weight#Undue_weight. But it is not precisely WEIGHT, either: where WEIGHT is simply a question of the prominence of a particular viewpoint, this sentence - particularly combined with the points about 'significance' in the following line - seems to be asking for an evaluative judgement in the 'common-sense' definition of notable (as 'special', or 'worthy of attention'). this is confusing:

wp:notability is a yes/no, include/exclude question
wp:Weight#Undue_weight is contextual, in that the same topic might have different prominences, and thus different weights, in different articles
'notable' in the common-sense meaning is not an evaluation that's part of any wikipedia policy or guideline, and shouldn't be used except implicitly where it overlaps WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY.

my original suggested solution to this problem was to add a phrase so that the first line of the second paragraph read (addition in italics): "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is within the context of a particular article." this is maybe not the best solution to this issue, but it forces the sentence to be treated contextually (more in line with WEIGHT) and breaks up the tendency to use FRINGE to impose absolutist evaluations of fringe topics in terms of their universal worthiness. that was reverted, so I'm placing the {{vague}} tag while we discuss the matter and think over some better alternatives for resolving the issue. I'm open to suggestions, as always... --Ludwigs2 01:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it vague at all. Most commonly used words in English have multiple connotations, yet we don't use {{vague}} left and right. "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is." This is a remarkably straightfoward statement, and it's true regardless of which particular connotation of "notability" one chooses to consider. This is a fairly stable guideline, the sentence has been there for quite awhile without any difficulty in parsing as far as I'm aware, and I don't see why the guideline needs to tagged up when there hasn't really been an effort to address this on the talk page, propose alternate wording, etc. Do other editors find this sentence problematic? MastCell ^Talk 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, your concern about "absolutist evaluations of fringe topics" appears to me to miss the essential WP:WEIGHT requirement that minority view topic articles should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. If the majority view evaluation is that a fringe view is not very notable, or not notable at all, that should be shown wherever relevant, as well as fairly presenting the views of the minority as minority views. The sentence does not appear problematic to me. dave souza, talk 08:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is problematic for pretty much the reason Ludwigs suggests - as evinced by the two differing responses just above. Notability on Wikipedia is an absolute yes/no criterion and the fact that the word “notable” is Wikilinked to NOTABILITY makes it clear that this is what the word means here. If one follows the link one will see the first part of Wikipedia Notability says "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article" (my emphasis). By talking about Weight (Dave Souza) and "regardless of[...] connotation" (MastCell) the confusion the sentence can cause is clear shown.

The problem is caused in this way: The phrase "coverage on wikipedia..." can also mean (at least) two things and these two things relate in different, but internally consistent, ways to the two senses of "notabie" that are being used – NOTABILITY and WEIGHT. That is, the sentence can be read as follows:

1. A subject should not be made to appear more notable than it actually is in virtue of having a Wikipedia article about it.

Here "coverage in Wikipedia" refers to there being an article about the particular topic, and "notable" means NOTABILITY. It is what the sentence is supposed to mean given its context. One can see this is so by the Wikilink and by the rest of the paragraph and all the stuff there about how external sources are needed so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for such claims.

2. When a subject is covered in Wikipedia it should not be given more credence than it has in the world at large.

Here "coverage in Wikipedia" refers in-article content, and "notable" means WEIGHT. It is not what the sentence is supposed to mean given its context. If it was then the remainder of the paragraph would take a very different tack from the one it currrently does - i.e., there would be no sense in talking about Wikipedia becoming a primary source etc. We would also need to Wikilink to WEIGHT rather than NOTABILITY.

Now, while MastCell may be right that both interpretations are true; one (NOTABILITY) is an absolute criterion of article-worthiness, while the other (WEIGHT) is a policy relating to in-article content. (In slogan form: WEIGHT only comes into play once NOTABILITY has been established). So, and this is nub of the issue, if one wants to take issue with some of the more radical interpretations of WEIGHT that are doing the rounds, and which are justified by reference to this guideline, one should not also have to lock horns with the absolute criterion of NOTABILITY as if they were one and the same thing. Yet this is exactly what is happening. Without clarification, then, the type of argument above, where no two people seem to be talking about the same thing, and arguments about one thing are countered by reference to another, will continue.

My suggestion: change the sentence to say "A subject should not be made to appear more notable than it actually is in virtue of having a Wikipedia article about it". This is the essence of NOTABILITY and it is what the paragraph in question is actually about. If another paragraph then needs to be written spelling out clearly the implications of WEIGHT for fringe theory articles then so be it.210.194.40.149 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading right when you said notability is an absolute yes/no. If it were absolute, then we'd never argue anything on here. You probably also think that Wikipedia speaks the truth.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin: if you are going to stop reading the minute you see anything you don't already agree with, then (frankly) your opinion stops being worth listening to. This is a discussion that is trying to resolve an issue, and discussions require that views on all sides be heard and responded to. or are you going to go the fanatic route and tell me that the mere fact someone disagrees with you implies they must be wrong?

MastCell, Dave: the fact that this phrase hasn't been questioned for a long time is irrelevant (except that it reflects on the lack of care with which people have read the phrase). it's being questioned now, on decent, good faith grounds, and the extent to which it is or is not a problem needs to be decided on that basis. so let me be even more specific about the problem...

The sentence as written is factually wrong.: The wikipedia guideline, here, states that "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." However, the phrase should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is is clearly an article content issue, not a question of inclusion or exclusion of an article topic. Further, WP:FRINGE is not intended to deal with the inclusion and exclusion of articles in the encyclopedia. Therefore (at the very least) the current link from the word 'notable' to wp:notability is incorrect and misleading.
Ambiguity in the language of official guidelines is dangerous: You're correct that there is a certain extent to which linguistic ambiguity has to be tolerated as unavoidable, but it should never be tolerated where it allows for a broad range of divergent and contradictory interpretations. many of the bitterest disputes I've seen on article talk pages (and here, for that matter) have to do with how this particular phrase should be interpreted, and what that means for article content. in fact, Dave used one of the more common interpretive moves in his comments above, where he said: "If the majority view evaluation is that a fringe view is not very notable, or not notable at all, that should be shown wherever relevant." Now he has kindly added a disclaimer that the minority view should be treated fairly as well, but other editors have interpreted this phrase expansively to mean that fringe views should never be treated fairly within any wikipedia article (because fringe views are universally and absolutely rejected), and still others (such as myself) argue that the phrase should be interpreted to mean that the presentation of a fringe view in an article should be evaluated according to the context of the article and the place of the fringe view within that context. whichever of these views you happen to believe, you ought to recognize that the ambiguity of this passage is causing one hell of a lot of trouble on wikipedia. It needs to be fixed, if for no other reason than that.

210.194.40.149: I don't think that wording actually resolves the problem. it seems to say that 'just because a topic has an article about it doesn't mean that it's worth discussing.' The fact that an article is wp:Notable means that it's worth discussing in the encyclopedia - that's part of the definition on the Notability page. the questions being addressed in FRINGE are where and to what extent should a fringe topic be included in articles, and how do we present its relationship to the greater scientific community. --Ludwigs2 19:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be preferable for 210.xx.xx.xx to use his/her main account to comment here, as that might allay the strong suspicion that this is a particular banned user editing through an open proxy. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If the fringe guideline is used to determine how content is to be presented in the article, then I agree the second paragraph links to the wrong guideline, and is vague or inaccurate about the use of notable. If the primary function of the guideline is to determine which fringe articles may be presented in WP then WP:N is relevant. It would seem the article may indeed be in transition (see about 1 1/2 years ago) and thus Ludwigs2's arguments are certainly pertinent. Ward20 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to claim that I speak for 210.194..., but I do feel a sort of telepathic connection so here goes.

Re Ludwigs' point: nobody was claiming that 210's new wording resolved all the issues with the guidline - only that it resolved the vagueness in the sentence/paragraph under discussion. 210 did note that maybe another paragraph would be needed to spell out the import of WEIGHT once the initial paragraph had been clarified such that it referred solely to NOTABILITY.

Re Ward 20's point: spot on. The guideline has been transformed from one that was solely about NOTABILITY to one that covers both NOTABILITY and WEIGHT. This change is largely the reason the introductory paragraphs seem ambiguous. That is, they are now connected to an guideline that goes well beyond what they were originally the introduction for.

Re MastCell's point: God works in mysterious ways.Clarityschmarity (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Generalities

This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcut

WP:FRINGE

"When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

This never seems to have been observed and it may be the case that the guideline should be rolled back to a less contentious version. This is further supported by the content of the second box which begins

“In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia...”

And then never goes further than clarifying the inclusion criteria for wiki. The point being that the new stuff on attribution and sourcing veers into massively different territory and it is not clear that that is what this page was intended for at all. Looking at the edit history it is clear that this guideline has been “worked on” for some considerable time. Maybe it is time to call for some much much wider input. We need a bunch of outside policy wonks to work on it, and if we all signed a petition and put it on the RS and NPOV noticeboards, that might do the trick. If only one editor does it, it might be ignored. Want to try this? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good point in that the original intent of the guideline seemed be what fringe topics could be included in WP. Now the guideline is getting more into stating how to include content in fringe articles. WP policies already state how content in articles should be edited. I am not sure why fringe theories need content guidelines separate from policy. I certainly don't know the proper venue to bring this up at. Comments? Ward20 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I think fringe theories do need a separate guideline. the fact that they are inevitably poorly sourced (in any definition of the term sourcing) opens the door to abuse - either by fanatic supporters who want to use wikipedia as a staging ground for the resurgence of their cause, or by people who have a particular grudge against a/some fringe theory(ies) and want to use wikipedia as a convenient place to publicly kick them in the teeth. they need to be handled specially, or they will inevitably fall into one POV or another. that being said, the air does smell a little stuffy here, and I think throwing the doors open to the wider world would be a tremendous help. unfortunately I'm too much of a newb to know what to do. I'll cosign any reasonable petition on this topic, in whatever forum you choose to put it in; just point me in the right direction. maybe we should post a request at the village pump, as well? --Ludwigs2 19:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As Martin suggests, I would certainly like to see wider input here, preferably from editors not directly involved in editing specific fringe-theory articles. I'd support general notices on the noticeboards requesting outside input. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, the general understanding of 'wider input' precludes restricting people you disagree with, and since this issue is about fringe topics it's a bit bizarre to suggest that fringe topic editors shouldn't be involved. besides, you do realize that this restriction would also exclude ScienceApologist, OrangeMarlin, and any number anti-fringe theory editors as well, right? since they are all directly involved in any number of these pages?

I'll be honest: as far as I'm concerned this argument is only going to be resolved when a consensus is reached through discussion, based in proper and effective reasoning about relevant material. Wider input is a good idea, IMO, because there is such a tremendous resistance on the part of some editors here to engage in reasoned discussion. I'm tired of being insulted, and I'm tired of running into obstructionist tactics, and I think I've been being very reasonable trying to talk about these matters, and I haven't gotten much back for it except spite. maybe with a large chunk of wikipedia watching the debate, people will feel a little more self-conscious about behaving badly. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fresh opinions are always a good idea. Would an RfC suffice or do we need something broader? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah. RfC's don't get answered here, for some unknowable reason. We need to really drag people in. SV might help out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps post simultaneously a neutral enquiry to WP:Village pump (policy) Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for editors to weigh in here. All these topics are involved and if requested at the same time it would not be forum shopping. Ward20 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Pump. And Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but not the Fringe noticeboard, as the fringe crowd already monitors FRING, and we'd draw the same old same old. To Ludwig- yes, we probably do need it, but letting it be handled by those who have an ax to grind is a really bad idea, and that's what's happening here. You're unusual as a new face. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday already posted to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, so I also posted to WP:Village pump (policy) and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Ward20 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Put it at RS also, I'd do it but people in general are tired of my pretty face )= ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution of "dispute"

There are editors here who should be banned from editing and commenting on this page. Thoughts? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless they are evading an existing ban, contributing in bad faith or seriously violating our talkpage guidelines, I don't see how that would be appropriate. Can you elaborate on your proposal? Skomorokh 01:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring of talk page comments

Please do not refactor talk page comments. If anyone has a concern about postings, please contact an uninvolved admin to check this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Second warning: Please do not refactor talk page comments until a determination is made by uninvolved admins. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Last warning. Once more and you will be blocked for disruption. A SP case has been opened but not closed yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:3RR#Other exceptions. Unless you have evidence that this is not User:Davkal, then you are the one in violation for shilling for a banned user in defiance of WP:BAN. More actions on the behalf of User:Davkal will result in the sanctioning of whomever chooses to act on his behalf. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

excuse me - Unless you have evidence that this is not User:Davkal???? ScienceAplogist, it's your responsibility to demonstrate that he is a sockpuppet before taking these actions, not someone else's responsibility to demonstrate that he is not one after the fact.

unless we've all entered bizarro-world, anyway... --Ludwigs2 01:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

my apologies, incidentally - I got confused with buttons and had to go the long way around to restore both the excised text and SA's comments. the page history may appear odd on that point --Ludwigs2 01:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK discussions not about the article in question can be removed without further discussion. Please don't be an enabler for Davkal, he has enough already. Shot info (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Davkal is, or what he means to you, and I'm not generally an enabler for anyone. plus, the section I restored was an argument about the current debate over the lead, not some random silliness. all of which is to say that I really don't understand what you're saying at all.

look: it is beginning to seem to me that 90% of the conversations on wikipedia are about who likes whom and who's been doing what to whom behind the bleachers... that brings up all sorts of nice high-school memories, but doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient or sensible way to run a railroad. So I am simply going to continue editing in blind good faith, and assume that everyone around me is doing so as well (except where they make it obvious that they aren't). if there is something specific that you would like me to do (or not do, as the case may be) then please let me know and I'll be happy to comply to the extent that I can. otherwise I'd rather not be drawn into wikipolitics of any sort, thank you. it strikes me as irremediably silly and pointless. --Ludwigs2 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good faith is not a sucide pact. With a bit of experience you to will learn the disruptive pleasures of Davkal and his Tor IPs (and his many socks). And per WP:TALK and WP:BAN he will be reverted. If you revert his comments - then you are enabling a banned user (see here for what this is called). Shot info (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I dunno. I've pretty much decided that the only way I can handle the Wikipedia thing is by assuming radical good faith on all sides and ignoring anything that doesn't conform (with a good dose of common sense applied, of course). if that good faith leads me to do something wrong, then I can only hope it will be treated as the good faith error that it is. I just don't see any value in sitting here trying to second guess everyone's motives, or worrying about things I can't really control.

eh, enough. I take your point. --Ludwigs2 01:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't expect much from socks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this, either. --Ludwigs2 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly as he was responding to me and I understood it. Shot info (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOCKS. For the uninitiated in the Days of Our Wiki-Lives drama, User:Davkal is a banned editor who likes to use open Internet connections and IP addresses to follow ScienceApologist around and make his life hectic. That in itself wouldn't be bad for anyone besides SA, except that Davkal always side-tracks the conversation into meaningless wastes of time for his own prankster-like fun. So not only is he banned, he's a troll. Taking anything he says seriously even by accident lands you in the trap of a granfalloon. It's a waste to even engage in conversation with him, even if you think you've found a supporter. Part of not-wasting-your-time on fringe articles involves training yourself to recognize when you're talking to someone constructive, or just talking to Davkal. OK, so I'm exaggerating, but I'm not really. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to Shot Info, and it's bad form to interrupt a conversation thread with a non sequitur. Second to Neal, great review, and it doesn't sound like so much exaggerating. It's interesting how certain editors work their butt's off to post annoying comments to SA, just to get him blocked. I'd think that they'd get bored. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok, I understand now. and this also explains why SA has such a thing about him, because that's gotta be annoying as hell. People, I swear... sorry to interrupt, OM, I just really didn't understand; and Neal, thank you for the explanation. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, oh I understand. Completely. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

then please share with the rest of us. --Ludwigs2 20:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)