Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on 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 5

The end

Let me summarize:

Particular attribution as a section has been on the table for a year.
The current version was written mostly by myself and Nealparr. That's about as broad as we can get in authorship.
There are those who think that particular attribution prohibition will encourage WP:SYNTH. Generally, these people tend to be editors who have edited articles in fringe subjects that do not take WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOT, etc. seriously. Alternatively, there are some who seem to be confused by the idea that WP:NPOV is not the same thing as WP:BALANCE.
At some point we need to end the discussion. I do not see any new arguments being made. I think the WP:SYNTH issue is one that is addressed head-on in the particular attribution section through discussing how to avoid particular attribution in a responsible way. If you see a contradiction it is because you are reading between the lines in a way that is unwarranted.

I suggest archiving the entire discussion. It's moribund.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the issues:

1. I found that this has been discussed since October, and there were similar objections to it then as there are now.

2. These two editors do often have differing views. However, their two similar views are not a broad consensus in terms of a policy issue.

3. SA stated,"There are those who think that particular attribution prohibition will encourage WP:SYNTH." Response: Absolutely.

SA stated, "Generally, these people tend to be editors who have edited articles in fringe subjects that do not take WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOT, etc. seriously." Response: This is a classic example of stating an opinion in the guise of a fact in order to disparage a viewpoint. This is precisely what should not happen in articles and why this discussion is important.

SA stated, "Alternatively, there are some who seem to be confused by the idea that WP:NPOV is not the same thing as WP:BALANCE." Response: I believe this misrepresents the arguments. As I follow them, most of the disagreement has to do with, WP:NPOV. "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", and WP:OR, not turning expert opinion into fact by editorial fiat.

4. Dispute resolution does not suggest that if a solution to the dispute is stalled then one side declares victory. Outside opinion has been sought at noticeboards, There was an RFC according to Elonka? I was not aware of it. If the RFC was inconclusive, then I believe the next step in the Dispute resolution process is mediation and I think that is where the dispute should go next. Ward20 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC was conclusive. Read about it in the archives. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Refreshed my memory, not conclusive [1]. IMO the next step should be mediation. Ward20 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that those who commented from the outside were pretty clear in their endorsement of the particular attribution section. I'm not sure that mediation without some indication of a prolonged controversy (beyond those who are perennially stuck to this subject} makes any sense. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is over 400K. I have temporarily protected it to allow for archiving. Please standby, it should be editable again within the hour. --El on ka 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. I also tweaked the header a bit. The RfC was borderline, as technically it's still active at WP:RFC/POL, but today's the last day, and it hadn't gotten any responses in awhile, so I went ahead and archived that too. This leaves the page at still over 80K (and some browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K), but at least things are more manageable now, especially when dealing with edit conflicts! I'm still looking at some of the user conduct issues that brought my attention to this page in the first place. I strongly encourage all editors to be very civil from this point forward, as well as to consider refactoring any previous comments which might be considered uncivil or personal attacks. Thanks, --El on ka 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove all the Anon-IP messages since it is a Davkal sock? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding facts and opinions

Regarding facts and opinions, this change [2] doesn't clearly explain that there's a difference and give you the "if" disclaimer proscribed by WP:ASF. That's why I said the "if" is critical to being NPOV compliant. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are wrong. Everything that happens in nature is ... natural and normal. Even paranormal psychic activity[3]. We just don't know the explanation... Lakinekaki (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Get ready for an influx

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

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

Possible elegant approach to handling and defining fringe theory articles

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

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

Fringe theories versus non-mainstream scientific theories

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

According to the RfC on this topic[4], most consider cold fusion fringe. It doesn't matter how rigorous the science is or where the debate takes place. It's fringe because it departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories. Such is the case with cold fusion. There's no theoretical framework in orthodox science that supports it. Granted, it may not be as bad off as some of the really bizarre fringe theories out there, but it really is fringe. The researchers involved acknowledge that it departs significantly from mainstream science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References please! Give some references for this statement.

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

Published where? Mainstream corporate media?

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

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

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

Uh... What?

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

Reference?

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

Interesting thoughts. Let me respond point by point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how can a random anonymous user know

how can a random anonymous user know if the idea he/she heard about today in the supermarket is fringe? after googling it and finding some webpages on the topic, editor added a sentence to relevant wikipedia article. how can that editor know if that idea is fringe? to know whether idea is fringe, one actually needs to have quite good knowledge on the subject. and not only how it is thought in the country, but also what may be thought in some other countries. he/she also needs to have access to scientific journals. and access to many of them, as there are thousands, so editor should read at least a few major ones. or maybe coverage in the news is the answer. but than, did the news reporter satisfy all of the above? and finally, if all above is fulfilled, than that editor certainly has to be an expert on the subject. so is this becoming an elitist encyclopedia? do users like ScienceApologist have this extensive knowledge on the subject on which they claim some idea is fringe? furthermore, are users like ScienceApologist experts in all these diverse articles [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] they are placing WP:Fringe label on other editor's edits?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

silly reverts

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

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

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

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

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

Concise definition needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolute bullshit.[17] Lakinekaki (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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