Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

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

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

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

  • Oppose. FRINGE is a well known guideline, specific to FRINGE science theories. Normal minority views are significantly different, and that term is more in line with the idea of how to represent minority views on a major topic's page, not how to write for minority views, which are already specifically stated as needing inclusion on the main article's page. FRINGe specifically deals with how to handle the entire page, when the page is about discredited, debunked theories. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE has long been used as a general guideline on all manner of fringe topics, not just fringe science. This is verifiable through the archives of the WP:FTN. It's always been in accord with policies on minority views. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
let me put this another way. Fringe theories aren't the same as minority views. A minority view, as explained on numerous pages, is a view which while not the majority, is worthy of representation. Consider, as a simplistic example, third parties in american politics. The reform, libertarian, and green parties represent minority views, not extreme fringe views. of course, there are a few bizarre political parties who are probably good candidates for being labelled as fringe, but that's still not the same. One could even argue (though I wouldn't buy it) that if you look at any political argument, the group who lost is the 'minority', but are they really 'fringe'? You can't make a blanket equality between fringe and minority views. The Fringe guidelines are specifically intended to deal with that extreme minority viewpoint for cases where that extreme minority has demonstrated notability and verifiable coverage. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Lakinekaki (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's easy, hatless. This is a response to the [above] section about staying a guideline. They don't want to risk it becoming policy, so instead they're seeking to marginalize it right out of existence, allowing some editors to pile as high and deep as they can shovel it. This is an end run around the above section. ThuranX (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I proposed renaming it to "Minority views", and if you read above, I support keeping this as a guideline rather than downgrading it. Further, renaming it to "Minority views" is more likely to get it included as policy. It's not an end run around anything. If it's considered as an extension of current policy, it's more likely to become policy itself. It's fine if you don't agree with that. Obviously there's not much support for this suggestion anyway. But I want to be clear on why I suggested it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I am advocating an expansive view of the scope of this guideline. If the more expansive view were to be accepted as needed and useful by consensus, I would have no objection to making this a "minority viewpoints" guideline. On the other hand, making this a narrowly-defined fringe guideline with a "minority views" title risks making this effectively a WP:STEAMROLL I would oppose that approach because it would risk treating as fringe any group even slightly in the minority, which I feel would be bad for wikipedia. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
A comment to ThuranX... WP:FRINGE relates to more than just science... it also covers Fringe theories in other diciplines... Fringe history is a prime example. Theories such as "The Pyramids were built by space aliens", or "The Knights Templar survived persecution, went into hiding and became the Illuminati" would definitely fall under this guideline. That said, I Oppose changing this to "Minority Views". That title would give undue legitimacy to the theories covered by this guideline. A minority view would mean that the theory is accepted by a significantly sizable group of experts in the appropriate field of study, just not accepted by the majority. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
blueboar's understanding of the false legitimizing is spot-on. In response to the other part, all of those are also Fringe theories which can be disassembled in the usual scientific method way. Archaeologists and Anthropologists employ the scientific method all the time, though what they use are more like predictions and declarations of expectations than the scientific version of a hypothesis (though it's the same principle at work.) As such, the same predication of FRINGE on the ability to re[produce results and other conformities to the scientific method stands just the same. ThuranX (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Er... I don't like "FRINGE", because it's pejorative, to me anyway. I wouldn't want my ideas called "fringe", no matter how little published mainstream support they had. That said, I don't like "Minority opinions" either, because these are not just minority opinions. It's a minority opinion that George W. Bush has been a decent President, but it's hardly a "fringe theory". This guideline specifically refers to academic fields of study and how to handle claims and ideas outside the mainstream of academic thought in those areas. That's quite a bit more specific than "Minority opinions". That said, I don't have a better suggestion at present. MastCell Talk 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Favor, NealParr, I hate to see you give up on "minority view." I use "frontier subject" in an effort to keep it neutral, but then I am not afraid of letting the reader decide if flat earth is viable or not. I am not wise enough nor knowledgeable enough to pass judgment of all that would be called fringe and that is my argument about other editors. There is already a Fringe science category and a Fringe Science article which may be used to brand subjects, and I doubt that many would object to someone saying that such and such is a fringe view of such and such. All that is left is to put double brackets on it and "fringe" takes on the power of policy.
There is also the problem of people using that pejorative as an excuse to go on and say that the people studying the subject are deliberately deceiving people as ThuranX has done to me without any substantiation other than his own science-based superstitions.
Perhaps you might consider the term "alternative" as has been adopted by the medical profession, or "emergent." I really think that one term should not be applied to such a large range of subjects. Trying to characterize therapeutic touch with the same term used for conspiracy theories is a little confusing. Perhaps this entire subject should be reframed as "how do you clarify the level of acceptability?" You can do that without sorting it out as bad guys and good guys. Isn't there already a policy for that? Tom Butler (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of finding a less pejorative title if it can be done. Thomas Kuhn's "revolutionary science" doesn't fit because that only covers new ideas attempting to replace current mainstream views, not old ideas that have been superceded, and it also doesn't cover non-science extreme-minority views (conspiracy theories, et cetera). Is there anything in Karl Popper's philosophy - or elsewhere in philosophy of science - that would be a viable alternative? Or would any philosophical term be sufficiently specialized as to be non-viable? GRBerry 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
We aren't just talking about science. We're talking about the entire marketplace of ideas. An alternative to "fringe" might be "marginal" or "largely ignored or rejected ideas". "Fringe" isn't really pejorative, though. The etymology is actually kinda cutesy. It just becomes pejorative due to the euphemism treadmill. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) How about WP:NOTEVENWRONG? O wait, that's Wolfgang Pauli, not Popper. Perhaps WP:UNFALSIFIABLE? That's Popper. Or Kurt Godel - WP:THISSTATEMENTISUNPROVABLE. Seriously, I don't think you're going to find anything less pejorative in Popper's oeuvre. Perhaps one of his student's books (Imre Lakatos or Paul Feyerabend) would have what you're looking for, but I'd bet it would be too "left-wing" for most participants in this discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

hijacked theories

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

For one, calling a section 'snake oil sales man and...' baits a lot of people into anger, by needlessly insulting new editors and editors seeking to write about FRINGE< not all of whom are scammers. Some few, are true believers, who need patient coaxing out of their delusions. Putting them on the defensive with a condescending policy title isn't the best way to get them to accept how we do things here. ThuranX (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
that's probably true - getting a bit tired here, and my sense of humor is slipping out.  :-) check through the rest and see if any of the writing is useable. I'll come back at it after I've slept. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ithink the problem is the whole section reads that way. It attacks a lot of people by asserting that there's a lot of greedy scammers "There are always less-than-scrupulous individuals ", and, by implicit extension, a whole lot of suckers. That risks insulting any new editors seeking a firm footing in policy from which to edit the FRINGE topics by saying 'You're a sucker'. Let's avoid that. The older version's dry, but neutral in presenting that there are difficulties and why. ThuranX (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
well, I don't know... I think it's important to distinguish the after-the-fact purveyors from the original researchers, otherwise you end up with an unavoidable bias in the article (like blaming Einstein for Hiroshima). --Ludwigs2 06:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I had a few particular issues with the new wording, since it is not "harmless rewording", but appears to completely change the meaning of this section.
  • First, I don't like the use of "snake oil salesmen" in the section title because it makes it less specific. The section is intended as a generalized caution that abuse of scientific terminology of any kind. Shifting the emphasis to a commercial one (emphasizing fraudsters) narrows the scope of the section far below what I originally intended.
  • Secondly, you changed the emphasis from scientific theories of any kind and flavor to only fringe theories. and fringe theories - because of their marginal status - are vulnerable to being used this way This is a significant change to this section, and I disagree with it. Any scientific theory can be hijacked, not just fringe ones. Have you ever seen those silly magnetic bracelets that are supposed to have wondrous health benefits? That is a corruption of Electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is hardly fringe.
  • Thirdly, distinguish between these fringe entrepreneurs changes the section to an entirely commercial one. This narrows the topic of the section significantly and makes it focus entirely on the commercial aspect of misusing the trappings of science.
  • Finally, I don't like weakening the section to include the words scientific research (however flawed). At a certain point, flawed scientific research ceases to be scientific. What we are worried about is not distinguishing the "marginal scientific research" from "fringe entrepeneurs". What the section is intended for is such situations where individuals, entrepreneurs, or groups attach themselves like limpets to a scientific theory and use that theory's terminology and complexity as a vehicle to promote their views. Implying that scientific research merits serious inclusion and treatment no matter how flawed it is is an open door for tendentious editors, POV pushers and edit warriors, and I object to that particular wording most strongly. We should take the view that research either meets minimum standards of being scientific, or it does not. Granted that there is in fact research that meets standards of being scientific in surprisingly many fringe fields, I disagree with your calling that legitimate research "flawed". (well, you're not explicitly calling fringe research flawed, but I read in the words an implication that "legitimate" research conducted in a fringe field is likely flawed). If fringe research is scientific, it is not "flawed" it is simply more or less useful to other scientists and mankind.
I hope that gives you a flavor of why I really didn't like the way you rebuilt the section. HatlessAtless (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Just as an afterthought: I think it's important to distinguish the after-the-fact purveyors from the original researchers Making that mistake falls into post hoc ergo propter hoc and sourcing. Claiming that Einstein somehow advocated the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki especially in the political climate/context at the time, would require careful sourcing, contextualization, and attribution. Making claims like that falls into all 3 core content guidelines, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Things of that nature should be easy to handle. I know they're not always so easy to handle, but citing NOR and post hoc ergo propter hoc in an edit summary should make it easy to elevate pushing that kind of stuff up to WP:ANI. HatlessAtless (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
dude, don't jump on me for making changes. I'm not objecting to your disagreements, I was just asking for clarification. and while it might be easy to find sources saying that Einstein wasn't part of the Hiroshima bombing, it is nowhere near as easy to find similar sourcing separating some fringe theory researcher from people who later use his theories in unscrupulous ways. that because Einstein has the entire scientific community backing him up, saying that he was engaged in research, not politics or economics (e.g. he's protected because he's not fringe). --Ludwigs2 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ludwigs, I didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on you. I just happened to have a number of easy to articulate issues with what you wrote. It is sometimes difficult to express strong disagreement and still come across as "friendly". We have agreed on many topics, and we will continue to work together well in the future. I just happened to think that this particular rewrite of your was not as well thought through as most of yours. Please accept my apologies if my tone came across as personal instead of informative as it was intended. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
no worries - I'm just touchy lately. may need to take a week or two off from wikipedia, before I start unloading on people unnecessarily. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

making a list

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

  • fringe theories should not be presented so that Some Dumb Kid might think they are scientifically valid or scientifically accepted
  • fringe theories should not be presented in such a way that Average Readers see them as attack pieces
  • fringe theories articles should not promote products.
Hell no. This is a distraction. We've explained FRINGE over and over, and every time we do, some pro-fringe topic editor makes us start all over. The meaning of Fringe is not going to start yet another red herring. ThuranX (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It's more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Shot info (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
well, that's just plain silliness. if we as editors don't have any problems we are trying to solve with this guideline, then the guideline is a useless waste of time and should be deleted immediately. what the heck do you think a guideline is for, anyway? --Ludwigs2 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Or, some editors don't see problems that need solving, thinking this is a solidly written guideline that doesn't need adjustments, and so we should raise it to policy. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
the point of a guideline is to solve a problem, Thuran. if there were no problems that needed solving, there would be no need for a guideline. --Ludwigs2 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This list is, I think, very bad. The third should read at least as "fringe theories should not BE promotED". I agree that this is a distraction. Verbal chat 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is. All of this is. Frankly, given the result of the last bit, about where Fringe should go, to essay, stay guideline, or other, there's enough interest in the 'other', namely, bumping to policy, that I'm tempted to start a section about that, jsut to push this page away from all this hand waving mysticism about redrawing the entire map. ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
the EDIT it - I didn't mean it as a distraction; I meant it as a way to clarify what the heck we're doing here (because it seems to me that none of us has a clue on that point). yeesh... if you guys would stop trying to defend turf and start discussing things in good faith we could get through this in couple of weeks. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

problems that need addressing

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

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

Why is it that the same peopel keep steeringus in the same circles? ThuranX (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Because the same other people keep avoiding solving these same problematic circles. Why are they avoiding this? Above are very specific questions. Can't you give specific answers? Lakinekaki (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Now I understand what you may not understand. Previously on this talk page I was talking mostly about general problems of detecting fringe content or proving (non)fingeness. Here I address specific parts of the guideline which are ambiguous and need clarification, rewording, etc. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Lakinekaki's questions:

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

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

You did clarify it for me, but it has to be clarified in the text too. Also, what you are saying is that there is a double standard being applied for referencing mainstream ideas and for referencing fringe ideas. Shouldn't there be one standard for all? I am sure mainstream stuff could pass the test, so why not make this guideline general, and not only 'fringe'. Lakinekaki (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually we do have one standard for all... a non-fringe topic is going to meet all the requirements set out in this guideline (otherwise it would be a Fringe topic). The real issue here is that some topics and ideas are not noteworthy enough to write about, and doing so would give them false legitimacy and more weight than they deserve... Our core policies recognize this (see: WP:Undue Weight). Being told that your pet theory is not noteworthy enough always upsets people, but that is their problem not ours. Some things just should not be included in an encyclopedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that some things should not be included in an encyclopedia, but what always upsets me is double standards applied by some editors, as can be seen on Talk:Solar_cycle page. First they just delete, when I point out it is sourced they say fringe, when I point out there are a few references in scientific journals they say its cited but by unreliable journals, then I point out there are few reliable journals, but they say its not enough find secondary sources, then I find secondary sources and then they say secondary source is problematic as it doesn't reference some 'reliable' paper, then I point out it does reference exactly that paper on the page that i provided and is a meta-analysis which is exactly what I was asked to find by the other editor, but then he sais it is not notable enough. WTF? All awhile, most of the other content on Solar_cycle page is not well referenced but it doesn't bother them as it was not put there by me and as they like that content so they don't bother scrutinizing it. Lakinekaki (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Who dares here to say once and for all WHAT is needed for something to be notable of mention? How many papers in how many journals and by how many authors and in how many secondary sources? Answer this so that I don't waste my time in future arguing with people, but post only things that pass that test. Lakinekaki (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we can't legislate firm numbers... so much depends on the topic, the sources being used, the editors involved in the discussion... and a host of other things. You want firm Law... when Whikipedia's guidelines are meant to be wishy-washy best senario sort of things.
Look, when you edit articles that involve controvercial ideas (and little is more controvercial than a Fringe Theory), be prepared to have to jump through some very frustrating hoops. You are going to have people who are going to scrutinize every word and every citation that others write. Supporters of one side in the controversy are going to go to extraordinary lenths to find ways of omitting anything written by supporters of the other side. Frustrating, yes... but also human nature. So you have to expect challenges and a certain degree of wiki-lawyering. If you don't want do deal with that... find a more mundain topic to write about. Is Wikipedia always fair? No... it isn't about being fair, it's about writing an accurate, quality encyclopedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
As this appears to relate largely to a dispute at solar cycle, it may be best for Lakinekaki to cease finding other parents to ask and address the issue on the article talk page, with recourse to an RfC or other such means if he finds the consensus against his edits intolerable. Trying to modify or downgrade a central notability guideline is not the proper way to resolve a specific content dispute. MastCell Talk 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
solar cycle is just an example. the content dispute IS caused by citing of this guideline, which allows this ambigous standard when interpreting reputability of sources, and the number of sources needed. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction

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

In the interest of not ending up in an edit war, if a 3rd party editor has significant reservations and reverts the intro edit, I will await consensus before continuing work. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
We were in the middle of discussing it and you just dropped it into the guideline. What's the rush? I told you what my reservations are with your wording. On the intro specifically, I said that defining "fringe" as things science doesn't take seriously ignores fringe topics that science does sometimes take seriously, or that some scientists take seriously but not others (minority views), like cold fusion, parapsychology, and many more. They are fringe. Alternative medicine is taken seriously by some, still fringe. Your definition makes them out to not be fringe, just regular ol' science. You said that you want to prevent the fringe guideline from being applicable to minority views in science. I've given you several examples of where it is applicable to these minority views. MC and SA is not "wide support". It's two guys who may have not had the chance to consider my objection. I don't do the edit war thing, btw, I talk it out on the talk page and work towards consensus. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I am taking things back to yesterday's version (which had been fairly stable for several months). My main objection is that such a rapid amount of editing and reverting without any discussion here on the talk page has left me very confused as to what exactly is being proposed and what has been changed. Please... outline what is being proposed, wait to see if there is consensus, and make the edit only when consensus has been built. So far I have not seen any consensus for a change here on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Nealparr, based on the fact that you were the only other party in the discussion, I decided to try the BRD cycle. I will admit however, that I may have jumped the gun. Since we're both articulate and intelligent, our discussions rapidly reach the TL/DR point for uninvolved editors. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX I've expressed my reservations about this guideline at length. I am working on it out of a desire to improve Wikipedia and help improve its processes. The desire to improve wikipedia is the exact same motivation Nealparr has in our discussions as well, and is the source of both our agreements and disagreements on this guideline. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, there has actually been a proposal for the new language up for some time, and the discussion has consumed much of the talk page that is up now. If you need me to copy/paste my rationale and my proposal for you I can. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It took almost a year for particular attribution to get into the guideline and there are STILL people griping. There is a general hesitancy to change things here, even if the changes are good. I made some changes to your proposal myself... but I imagine there will have to be a whole lot more tweaking before we get anything that approaches the quality and finesse that the guideline currently possesses (as maligned as it is). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Proposals of language (yet again)

My previous posts of language, including my reasoning behind why I drafted a revised guideline for discussion, rapidly devolved into WP:TLDR off-topic discussions that hindered somewhat proper consideration of the wording proposed. I appreciate both Ludwigs2 and ScienceApologist's support, both moral and drafting-wise, for my suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatlessAtlas (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Please see User:HatlessAtlas/fringe rework

Non-academic worldviews

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

Minority opinions and theories within a subject field

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

When legitimate ideas are hijacked

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

RFC: Is the label "fringe" inherently pejorative?

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

Does that harm the utility of having a guideline of this name then? HatlessAtless (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
So what? The Euphemism treadmill does not change the fact that when a "neutral" word becomes pejorative, it then becomes pejorative. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Unimpressive argument. The euphemism treadmill means that every neutral word becomes pejorative. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. People need to get over perceived "slights" of wording. A "fringe" is a fabric edging and was used to describe something that is on the edge. We could call them "edge theories", but why invent neologisms? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but not necessarily problematically so. making a distinction between conventional, mainstream science and non-conventional research will always put the non-conventional research in a diminished light, but the distinction itself is useful. --Ludwigs2 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

ThuranX, before running of at the mouth with your personal prejudices, Google "Alternative science" and see how widely it is used for how many subjects. Tom Butler (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Tom, ThuranX thinks this is all a distraction because it goes against his personal prejudices. He is unwilling to treat fringe subjects fairly, and unable to take any discussion to that effect seriously. how else could he see it except as a distraction? it's a completely closed perspective; no sense arguing with it, because arguing will go nowhere. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I also agree that it is probably human nature to downplay the strengths of a competing view. It is important to have a means with which to explain that an idea has not been vetted. But within my field are ideas that have not been given respect because they have not been widely tested. It is our policy to encourage their development, and just recently, one that I have been rather hard on has turned into an important step toward the future for EVP. I consider myself an expert in my field, yet I was clearly did not anticipate the change. Wikipedia should make subjects clear without coloring them--mainstream or not. Tom Butler (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • you two can knock off the personal attacks, or I get to make them too. The simple fact is, Tom has an obvious bias here: He runs a PRO-EVP site and stands to make a lot of money from wider acceptance of EVP. He cant' defend it on the scientific merits, as it has none. Anyone who points out this obvious flaw in the 'science' of EVP gets on Tom's bad side. Big deal.
    I am quite able to treat a fringe article neutrally, outside of my feelings. However, this constant insistence on allowing blogs and 'alternate sources' because good reliable sources aren't available is stupid, and this insistence on eliminating evidence of debunking, explanations, and criticisms because 'scientists don't understand it' is stupid too. There are good articles about FRINGE topics which explain the idea, then explain the criticism. This however, is not enough for Tom Butler, Lakinekaki and others with vested interested in promoting their ideas. Such editors should be treated as irrelevant when working to construct this policy due to obvious COI. ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this RFC as pointless. This is an active talk page, and understanding some community thoughts on other topics is useful to the discussion. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No. If it gets editors back to treating non-significant ideas as non-significant, I don't have a problem with a name change. But strictly speaking, no, "fringe" is not pejorative. It literally means at the outer edges. It's typically used in contrast to "mainstream". Except in terms of pointing out that it's outside the mainstream, presumably where they want to be, there's no negativity to it. Some even consider it a compliment, equating it with "protoscience". There's a great deal of difference between "fringe science" and "pseudoscience", the former just being outside the mainstream and the latter being out of the game altogether, fraudulently trying to be in the game. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This is going to take some digesting, but it will be interesting to observe. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This RFC is my first RFC of any kind, is directly materiel to an active discussion about the nature of this guideline, and establishing user consensus on this topic directly affects the meaning, scope and utility of this guideline. Please reread WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before you accuse me of tendentious editing again. Please tone down your language. I resent the accusation of bad faith. Such an unwarranted accusation is uncivil, particularly in light of using demonstrably false edit summaries as justification to revert good-faith changes to this guideline. (of several editors, beyond just myself) HatlessAtless (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, your comment was unhelpful and provocative. --Fat Cigar (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks, I appreciate your attention to this matter. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. These continuous RFCs aren't improving the situation. Whatever term is used will be claimed to be perjorative by those it is attached to, whether it is supported or not. Verbal chat 06:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No... or rather: "Yes, but that does not matter". It is by far the most common English Language term for such theories. I see no need to invent a new name for a concept that already has a common name. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • what Blueboar said. It's "pejorative", because it refers to theories of dubious quality. Complaing that "fringe" is pejorative is like complaining that "broken" is pejorative. If a theory is held by a clear but respectable scholarly minority, we'll label them as "minority" views. If nobody in academia save perhaps one or two eccentrics hold a theory, it's "fringe". WP:NPOV is often confused with "agnostic relativism" or "refusal to pass judgement". Nothing could be more mistaken. Passing judgement on the status of academic opinions (mainstream, majority, minority, fringe, pseudo-scholarship) is precisely what NPOV requires us to do. "alternative" is just a weasel term ("alternative" to what? common sense?). --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • no Fringe is merely a descriptor. Nor does it refer to ideas which are necessarily of dubious quality. Many scientific ideas that are ultimately successful start out somewhere near the fringe. For example, the symbiosis theory of mitochondria. The fact that some fringe ideas do well does not mean that we should treat fringe ideas as anything but that. NPOV and undue weight give us strict and reasonably rules about how to deal with such subjects and we can only modify an approach to an idea after it has become no longer fringe. When that happens, it means the establishment was wrong but that doesn't mean we did anything wrong by following it. This is a bit rambling but the bottom line is that there is nothing wrong or perjorative about an idea being fringe, but it does mean that this guideline applies. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No... coming from a place where the Fringe is well respected, and isn't that far off the size of the official version. Indeed, Beyond the Fringe still has a following. More relevantly regarding this topic, Blueboar and JoshuaZ both make good points. It's not necessarily pejoritative, but is commonly used for theories or ideas that lack mainstream expert support, and due weight has to be given to majority expert views on such topics. . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No Linguistically speaking, nothing is inherently anything -- a word's purported pejorative nature is a function of perception. Is liberal inherently pejorative? No, but some folks think it is. Ditto for Fundamentalist, atheist, environmentalist et cetera. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Not inherently. However, it sure is abused here, especially when editors push to use it it to demean ideas and concepts which aren't inherently fringe. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A theory is a fringe theory if its proponents cannot get articles in support of the theory published in respected peer-reviewed academic journals. If the theory in question is a scientific theory, one should hope that the reason for consistent rejection is that the research described, or the presentation thereof, does not conform to accepted scientific standards. However, whether this is the case in general, or for that matter in any specific given case, is immaterial for the purpose of applying this guideline.  --Lambiam 18:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected

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

Comparing the two versions here, I must say that I like the old one. I don't really see a need to work on this page. II | (t - c) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hatless has proposed a lot more changes than what we see in in the difs you link to... but I agree with II in any case. I am not convinced that these changes are needed. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well obviously I would prefer the version I propose on my user page, but that is a work (and a discussion) in progress. I think that this version was the last "stable" version before I touched off a flurry of edits when I tried to generate discussion through WP:BRD. Since only one editor was commenting on my wording, I hoped that BRD would get more editors involved and I could get some useful feedback. I think I may have been a little too bold in hindsight, but that is neither here nor there. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

←There are two editors that are pushing for changes. I believe if more people were watching this page, it wouldn't be close. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


OM's statement is not quite true. At least four editors have discussed and expressed support for the first of my changes, and participated in them (Myself, SA, Ludwigs, and Nealparr), and other editors have expressed support for my introducing my proposal (Eldreft and Pcarbonn), one of whom recommended I apply the WP:BRD process. This was the section on Hijacked scientific theories. The introductory section revision was an active area of discussion between myself and Nealparr, and I tried to get outside comment with WP:BRD, but instead of generating comment, it generated what appears to be an edit war, which is unfortunate since I created a section on the talk page specifically for the reason of explaining what was going on. If any of the editors involved in the edit war had read the discussion there, they should have let Blueboar's revision stand and discussed on the talk page. HatlessAtless (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I expressed support for DRAFTING changes and brainstorming whether new ideas should be incorporated. I do not necessarily support implementing them in the policy page right now. User:ScienceApologist Talk 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk)
For now, I prefer the original. More discussion and agreement is needed before changes are made. Verbal chat 06:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the original, but that's not to say that it should not be improved: maybe it's just because I'm used to it. I suggest HatlessAtlas to progress more slowly towards his draft version, and to explain why he sees such changes as important. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me add that, in my view, the major change that I would recommend for this guideline is to give a much bigger weight to the ArbCom rulings. Getting any consensus on anything else could be very difficult. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
SA, Pcarbonn, I stated that you supported me putting together and discussing my proposal. SA, I particularly appreciate your contributions to my draft. I did not state that you supported adding my change, though SA did edit (and therefore at least assented to including) my hijacked theories subsection. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I just wanted clarity. For the record, I do think some of your ideas deserve inclusion here. See below where ThuranX and I are discussing what attributes a subject must have before this guideline becomes relevant. I pointed out that there has to be some connection (posited, real, or tenuous) to academic scholarship otherwise the subject is not a fringe theory no matter how marginal. This point could be elucidated a bit more in the guideline, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of WP:Fringe

I don't agree with your statement in your revert. The statement that the proposed guideline has not been discussed is counterfactual. There is extensive discussion of all of the proposed language on the talk page higher up. I am surprised you didn't note that since you yourself participated in some of that discussion. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a statement I made on OrangeMarlin's talk page. He stated in his edit summary that there had been no discussion of any of the proposed language. This is demonstrably false, as proposed language discussion can be traced back 30+ days and OrangeMarlin himself participated in some of the discussions for the proposed language. Why was this moved here? HatlessAtless (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the key is that a lot MORE discussion is needed. Only a few people have been involved in the discussions so far... to make such sweeping changes to what has been a stable guideline, I really think you need a significantly broader community imput. Just a few theads above your first proposal, we had an RFC that was overwhelmingly in favor of the guideline as it is. That should tell you something about the consensus of the broader community. Now, this does not mean the guideline should never change... but you are going to have to go a LOT slower.
Can you please recap the key reasons why you think changes are needed (in a short statement)?
I agree that there needs to be a lot more discussion. That is why I applied WP:BRD to garner more discussion. My particular post on OM's talk page was that his rationale for a revert was demonstrably false (even though I had no issue with the revert itself) and I wanted to make OM aware of the fact that he had erred in his summary statement. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Copied from elsewhere in this talk page and the discussion section on my user page. Please that this assumes a narrow interpretation of WP:FRINGE as a pejorative or provocative label. Assuming that the word FRINGE is provocative, We need to be exceptionally careful to be evenhanded. The reason that I have the RFC above about whether fringe is pejorative or not is that it directly affects the approach I take to my rewrite proposal. My objections to the current form below:

  • The extant guideline harps on quality measurements of primary sources. This puts editors in the bad position of having to evaluate "peer reviewed journals" for validity, which is beyond the expertise of most wikipedia editors. This doesn't help anyone. I have recast this guideline to be more in line with the core policy WP:NOR, in particular, the part where it explicitly states Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources..
  • The extant guideline approaches different topics at different points with different degrees of emphasis. This opens the guideline up to argument and wikilawyering since the different emphasis can create apparent conflicts of priority within the guideline sections. I have rebuilt the guideline to say much the same thing as it had, but maintain the same tone within the guideline, so as to eliminate any aparrent conflicts.
  • The extant guideline reads as an admonition to editors pointed to this page. While that is exactly what the page should be, this guideline will be more effective and more useful if that is not what this page sounds like. I have corrected this by maintaining an even handed tone throughout the draft guideline. While it is intended to have the same intended effect, maintaining an evenhanded tone should be more successful.
  • The extant guideline does not have a coherent thesis. While NPOV is invoked initially, most of the guideline deals with NOR, RS, and NOTABILITY. I have rebuilt the introduction to provide a clear thesis, as well as provided clear scope and parameters for the guideline.
  • The extant guideline does not give editors a useful heads up as to the what they can expect to encounter. I have made the introduction spell out clearly what editors can expect.
  • The structure of the proposed guideline provides editors a clear and useful way of guiding tendentious editors to this page. It allows an editor or administrator to point to a specific policy, and then explain exactly how and why the TE is violating that policy in terms of the guidance provided here. By being careful with internal consistency, there is less recourse to other sections of the same policy to conflict with such an admonition.
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The Arbcom discussion/findings you have cited are not a difinitive tratment of this subject. I have in fact read it. If there are particular findings of fact or arguments you'd like to direct my attention to, please feel free. However, having read the discussion and ruling, still see plenty of room to have the discussions we're having on here, particularly in the light of the support I've received from other editors. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that the lock has expired I think it would be appropriate to talk about what seemed to be my suggestion that had the most support, which was my subsection on hijacked scientific theories. It seemed to have broad support from the users who were monitoring the page at the time (SA, Ludwigs, Nealparr, and I think there may have been more). Any thoughts? HatlessAtless (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That is the version I was thinking of. Other editors may have added wording tweaks since. HatlessAtless (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe is about disproportionate importance

[I copied this from my talk page, because I think this is the crux of the guideline]

And I love the benefits sleep has on a discussion as well. Do we have a guideline for large-minority views? Take current US politics. Right now the republican party has something like 70% as many registered voters as Democrats, less than 45% support nationally, and are the minority party in both the house and senate. I think your statements on WP:FRINGE that it can apply to "any" minority opinion make it seem that one could apply the label "fringe" to the Republican party at the moment. I guess my concern is mainly with the label "fringe" and that we don't have a good description of the spectrum of minority views (or majority views) for that matter. I'm going to be a little less active on WP:FRINGE for a few days while the hornet storm my introductory post caused dies down. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we have several guidelines and policies regarding large-minority views -- which is one of the reasons I'm retracting my "minority views" title suggestion, it's really extreme minorities that we're talking about. WP:FRINGE applies when there is a severely disproportionate weight of views, ie. when it's a fringe view. If it's relatively proportionate (no extreme disparity), the core of NPOV allows competing views to exist in the same area, with the views presented in proportion to their prominence. On an average page, the difference between 60% coverage and 40% coverage isn't really distracting, and it's not like editors strenuously strive for weight accuracy when the numbers are so close anyway. At any given time, the article may shift out of balance slightly in either direction, but it's almost unnoticeable because the weight difference wasn't great to begin with.
Fringe is significantly in the minority, often the extreme minority.
No matter what the topic, even in science, when 10% of the population holds a particular opinion and 90% hold some other view, that's fringe. Take cold fusion for example. In today's climate of looking for alternative energy sources, cold fusion does get speculative papers written about it, but the vast majority of scientists still feel it requires high temperatures and a lot more than a table top device to create fusion. There's a huge disparity there, eventhough there's nothing inherently unscientific about cold fusion. There's fringe views in politics as well. While Democrat and Republican views are relatively proportionate, with neither view being that much more important than the other, there are still fringe views. Isolationism in foreign policy is a fringe view in US politics. Both mainstream Republican and Democrat politics feel that the US should be involved in foreign affairs and participate in world politics. Isolationism is a significantly non-important view in foreign policy.
When we get right down to it, WP:FRINGE, as well as other policies and guidelines, is about determining the importance of information relative to the article's topic and the goal of providing reliable information at Wikipedia overall. In a 60/40% scenario, such views are both important. In a 90/10% or (more often) 99/1% scenario, the information is of little importance. That's what the guideline is meant to address. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
99:1 is fringe. 90:10 isn't necessarily fringe if you poll only bona fide academics. If 10% of articles on a particular dispute in academia take one position, I'd call it a notable minority opinion. Of course, if you include self-published authors, blog postings and google hits, 90:10 or even 50:50 doesn't tell you anything. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a 10% opinion in academia, but the only examples I can think of are for topics so obscure as to be questionable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Can you give some examples for us? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The 10% example was arbitrary. Take it to mean "really low number". --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, dab, if a small number of reliable sources give a minority opinion on an article, then it should be noted, but it should be discussed per WP:WEIGHT. There are some articles where the 1% POV makes up 99.9% of the article.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
OM is right. This is definitely a cause for concern. See near death experiences for one. Part of the problem is that the majority opinion is often a silent majority and minority opinions are often easier to source. Try to find the majority opinion on UFOs. I looked through 10 introductory science textbooks before coming across three pages by Pasachoff and Filippenko describing their incredulousness about the hysteria. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to prove a negative. I was reading the article on orgone, and not only could I not find any research confirming it, I couldn't find any dismissing it. Why? Because it was so fringe and ludicrous, that not one reliable researcher would spend a nanosecond trying to dismiss it. One would say, "well that just proves how opinionated science is." No, it's because the evidence supporting orgone is pure and simple pseudoscience, junk science and fringe theories. There is no scientific method supporting the theory. So why would someone spend valuable research time disputing it. That's why WP:RS and WP:VERIFY are what make NPOV so critical. If you can't verify with a reliable source, then it is fringe, pure and simple. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
So what do we do? I've always thought that we should have a place to acknowledge the situation that there are going to be more supportive fringe sources than detracting fringe sources, but so far I haven't been able to get anyone but you to acknowledge that it's a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
See, that's why I think this policy is more than adequate. If there are no verifiable and reliable sources for statements, then they don't belong. Back to orgone...just state what it is, and that there's no support for it. We're done. Instead, we have a huge article that makes it sound like it actually works. As for your second point, I think you and I are pushing back here, but nearly every reasonable editor thinks that this policy is just fine. Note the 112th RfC down below. Rejected, per usual. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's something of a continuity here. We can run from factual absolutes to the fringe, through a gamut. 2+2=4 is a factual absolute; those who disagree are 3 years old or crazy. There are vast majority cases, like 'The world is round', where the distaff represent an extreme fringe view (Flat Earthers), there are cases of majority and minority cases (differences in medicine about treating a disease by different methods, both of which have demonstrated efficacies, economic theories), there are reasonably split situations (political parties, or which political systems are best), there are significant minority situations, like pro-democracy movements in Myanmar, and there are extreme minority situations which lack a specific diametrically opposing majority view, like EVP. It is in the second and final examples that fringe theories are found, both in those who can't let go of old, but discredited beliefs, and in the ungrounded wacky ideas. I don't think anyone in the free world finds the Myanmar democracy movement a fringe group, although it may be classified as such by the junta, who have obvious COI. A significant minority view isn't fringe if the idea at the heart relies upon a sound principle, like democracy, even if it's unpopular in the relevantly sized community. The problem comes when we find an article about dis- or uncredited material, which exists in opposition to a supported idea, or in opposition to a number of critics who can pick the entire thing apart, and usually have done so repeatedly. This leads us back to the scientific method, and how most fringe can't even try to compete on that rubric. However, assigning a percentage at all times as a measure is a bad idea, because one, you can't measure the entire population, two, even the part you can measure can and does lie (I recall a study where a lot of people who say in polls that they accept evolution admit they pick that choice so as not to looks stupid, or make their demographic look stupid), and three, such a benchmark will eventually fail us even if it could be accurately measured. ThuranX (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories are by definition about academic scholarship rather than opinions, politics, or social movements. Certain people's opinions, politics, and the social movements in which they are involved can be influenced by fringe theories, but they themselves are not fringe theories. These guidelines apply no more to Suu Kyi's democracy movement than to Zoroastrianism or steampunks. It's both the marginality and what topics the idea address (they must be academic) that determine whether our treatment of subject should be guided by these guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
My point, and I thought this was clear, but clearly not to you, who seem intent on alienating EVERYONE: Benchmarks based on percentiles are bad. I'm well aware of what fringe is about. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoa! Slow your roll. What did I write to offend you so? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
man, you're so busy 'being right', you can't tell who's helping you and who isn't. ThuranX (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Chillax. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about your attitude. Your above comment's sole purpose was to thoroughly disregard and discredit my lengthy post, one whose point you clearly didn't even get. the 'definition' of Fringe keeps coming up, and I've seen NOTHING to suggest that conspiracy theories aren't fringe, so clearly your 'only science' riff isn't the case. You're so busy being 'the only right one' that you can't bother to slow down ad see such things, though. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say "only science"? What has got you so upset? Where did I even say I was "right"? In fact, I wasn't trying to discredit your lengthy post at all. I was simply trying to add another dimension to it. Please, let's just assume some good faith and move on. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will give up ... again

Most of you are missing the point of my concern. "Fringe" is a demeaning term because of the way it is used by editors. The real problem is that editors are able to use any term as demeaning. "Pseudoscience" is predominantly a demeaning term as it is used in mainstream science to discount competing ideas, so its use here is clearly intended in the same common usage. That is not a term that we "advocates" have made demeaning.

I See that "alternative" is term widely used as the editors would use "fringe" here. It is used as a neutral term and I have not seen it used to demean a subject. Having been established as a neutral term, I think it would be more difficult to make it seem demeaning here. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect common, documented usage ... right?

Make no mistake that some editors are here to develop tools to debunk articles. Then you have the editors who apparently do not realize they are misinformed. Assumed knowledge that allows an editor to seriously say unsupportable lies about a subject or person and then actually claim, "I am quite able to treat a fringe article neutrally, outside of my feelings," is a person who will carry his view into the article. Policies like "fringe" are enablers for that kind of prejudice.

I am fortunate in having quite a bit more public access in my subject than does Wikipedia and I have a contact page. I receive many queries about Wikipedia and only recently felt it necessary to turn them into FAQs and articles. I think Wikipedia is a potentially important knowledge base, but right now, I find myself in the unlikely position of needing to debunk Wikipedia. You cannot afford to have very many people like me out there, because funding goes with public interest and Wikipedia needs a lot of funding for servers.

This is not a threat, as I know you are not the ones to hear such a case. It is a last appeal to you to moderate your newfound power to influence the public with policies like this. Tom Butler (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Geez, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This has been discussed, argued, and decided. ArbCom has stated that we can label fringe theories as such. It's not prejudice, it is simply stating what it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, should have articles that are supported by reliable sources and verification. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Alternatives" to science which ignore the scientific method aren't science. And most of the sites that use that term are fringe sites, or fringe friendly. When's the last time you hear Stephen Hawking suggest the Flat Earth is an alternative scientific view of the planet's structure? Wikipedia has nothing to debunk, just because we don't allow you to run rampant on the EVP article here.
There's no need for a blanket insult that anyone who doesn't believe in spirit mediums is "do not realize they are misinformed". And your direct attack on me needs to be redacted.
Further, your threat against the project is a big problem. Please redact that, or I'll take it over to AN/I. 'This ain't a threat, but I could really libel you guys up' is a threat, just like 'I don't want to hurt you, but if you don't got my money, I think you'll hit a lot of bad luck' is a loan shark's threat. Remember, Mr. Butler, right now, you need Wikipedia far more than Wikipedia needs you. If you can't work with us, we don't have to work with you. ThuranX (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I would be surprised if Tom thought he "needed" Wikipedia. His previous comments on this encyclopedia including some included on his AAEVP webhost seem to indicate that he is annoyed with Wikipedia more than he is in need of it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This is beginning to remind me of similar arguments that took place about a year ago... relating to the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" (that the term is pejorative and "loaded" so we should invent a more "neutral" term instead). That was resoundingly rejected by the community then, and this should be resoundingly rejected now. The English language already has a name for the type of theory this guideline covers... that term is "Fringe". There is no need to invent new words. It may not be "Politically Correct", but it is the most commonly used term for what we are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I bet I've said this 100 times around here. As long as Wikipedia is the number one location for medical information (let alone anything else, but I'll stick here), we have a moral and ethical obligation to write an encyclopedia that presents that information in a neutral manner which means it's supported by verifiable and reliable sources. Calling out Fringe theories is going to allow the reader to get accurate information that is up-to-date (an big improvement over Britannica) and useful to them. I don't know how many physicians these days get patients telling them, "but I read it on Wikipedia." I actually avoided medical articles for a long time, until my personal physician relayed a story to me about a patient who had contracted shingles, and what they read on here. I changed the article, removing the fringe theories on what prevented or cured Herpes zoster. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Tom, I believe you're exaggerating, or at least missing the point, when you discuss our "ability to influence the public". I don't condone an excessive "debunking" mentality, but people who are inclined to believe in paranormal phenomena or homeopathy are not going to suddenly change their mind because Wikipedia says the idea is scientifically implausible. On the other hand, I am personally aware of actual cases where people have made bad medical/financial decisions based on scientific-sounding misinformation they obtained from Wikipedia (in some cases inserted by marketers of dietary supplements and the like). To the extent that I've seen the end result of Wikipedia's ability to influence the public, it's driven home that irresponsible or disproportionate promotion of otherwise neglected or unsupported fringe concepts has been the greater of two evils.

Let's look at reality: few or no serious, respectable reference works cover topics like Aqua Detox, Royal Rife, mucoid plaque, AIDS denialism, or electronic voice phenomena at all - they are beneath notice. Wikipedia is fairly unique in devoting space to these subjects. To then complain that these subjects are treated as implausible fringe theories misses the point - Wikipedia has already given them way more credibility than nearly any other serious, respected reference work. MastCell Talk 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with MC here. Articles that cannot provide real justification as to their credibility should exist in isolation. They may link to other articles, but very few if any articles will link to them or reflect their views, even if the article quality becomes such that it becomes an FA. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, User:ScienceApologist#One-way linking. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Here [1] is another egregious example of that. That page is a HORRIFIC scam in which people are duped into buying contraptions that claim to increase the gas milage of your car by up to 60% by injecting hydrogen gas produced by hydrolysis of water into the cylinders. Not only do these machines not work - but they also cause your engine to ingest water and corrode out in short order. You pay up your $200 and you get back (I kid you not) an actual mason jar, some rubber hose and a couple of nuts and bolts - about $5 worth of stuff and COMPLETELY useless. There is no way this thing will produce enough gas to have an effect - and even if it DID work, it would screw up your oxygen sensor and WORSEN your gas milage - not improve it. There should be a law about that!

Anyway - the point is that about halfway down that web page, they quote the intro to our article: Oxyhydrogen. They seem to be doing it more or less fairly (albeit with a screen shot rather then a text cut/paste) - they give us credit and it's a very small snippet - so I doubt we could claim a GFDL violation.

Our Oxyhydrogen article started out life as a short, non-fringe article about a very small but quite real topic - a gas that's a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen that is used in a few extremely specialised cases for welding and such. The scammers are generating the very same mixture of oxygen and hydrogen - but to disguise the fact that there is nothing magical about their stuff, they've taken to calling it "HHO gas". Well, we once had an article full of fringe bullshit about HHO gas - that (under full consensus) was merged into Oxyhydrogen and replaced with a redirect in order to get some commonsense back into things. HHO is actually more notable - but it's just Oxyhydrogen - and the latter is the correct scientific term for it.

Well - wouldn't you believe it. The scammers have highlighted the word "HHO" from the little Wikipedia "Redirected from..." notice in their screen-shot and are using THAT to make it sound like their claims are real and backed up by Wikipedia. Argh! But all is not lost. Hopefully, a good number of their potential customers will come to us to read the entire article. So in the interests of truth - and helping our readership (neither of which - shockingly - is a core Wikipedia policy!) - what we really need here is to be able to come right out and say that there is absolutely no conceivable way that these claims they are making could be true...but how? To be completely honest and encyclopeadic, we need to mention that hydrogen injection into very large engines such as are used on ships and in massive diesel generators is used successfully, and because there are a couple of million ghits for "HHO" and only a few thousand to "Oxyhydrogen" - in all honesty, we've gotta keep the redirect there. But we also need to somehow convey that: "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU BE TAKEN IN BY THESE EVIL SCAMMING BASTARDS! DO NOT SPEND $200 ON A MASON JAR AND A LENGTH OF RUBBER HOSE!"...but it's tough because (as usual) no mainstream scientists have tested one of these machines because it's totally obvious that they won't work - and certainly no mainstream scientist will ever write about them in a respectable journal. It's very frustrating to imagine people coming to Wikipedia for confirmation that this is $200 that's well-spent - only to (seemingly) have us confirm that it's all OK. And all because we don't have good references that say it's NOT OK and we can't break the problem into bite-sized parts that we CAN reference without falling foul of good-old WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS.

This is not a comfortable situation!

SteveBaker (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to realize that it's not our job, here, to "protect" the consumer. Identifying and highlighting frauds and scams isn't really a role that Wikipedia can play comfortably. On the other hand, we can ensure that scams are not actively or implicitly promoted on this website, and if a notable, reliable source has identified something as a scam, then we need to inform the reader of that.By the way, here is my gift to you, for the oxyhydrogen page. Behold: reliable sources describing the scam in question!
These might be worth mentioning in the oxyhydrogen article. MastCell Talk 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! That's really useful.
What's of concern here at WP:FRINGE (of course) is the general principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs)
On the other hand is is the job of WP not support scams in any way. Allowing an article to even appear to support a scam is wrong and should be rigorously prevented.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Example of what not to include

So, I added an example of what kind of theory should not NOT be included, to complement the two examples of fringe theories that should be included (in different ways). Admittedly, my example was a little flippant, and it probably deserved to be rolled back. But I think we need to put something in there. As it sits right now, the examples seem to suggest that all fringe theories at least deserve to be mentioned, and that clearly isn't true. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fringe or not fringe, that is is the question

If scientists in one discipline consider a theory to be fringe and scientists in another discipline do not consider the theory to be fringe, how should the theory be covered in Wikipedia? --Fat Cigar 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Such as? Please give us an example, as I find it highly unlikely that two credible scientists would disagree in such a way. However, should there be suck a conflict, generally I'd say report it as such a controversy in opinion. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I should have said: If a theory is fringe within one scientific discipline and not fringe within another discipline, how should the theory be covered in Wikipedia? I'm trying to think of a good example but it is conceivable for instance that this happens during the transition of a theory from fringe to the mainstream or from mainstream to fringe. Alternatively, a fringe theory may start gaining acceptance within a scientific discipline but later be rejected. --Fat Cigar 21:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be covered by accurately and proportionately representing what reliable sources have to say about it, just like any subject on Wikipedia. Abstract answer for an abstract question. MastCell Talk 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Word for that last response. I want to add a common example. Within economics, the "mainstream" of post-Keynesian capitalist thought is about equal in size and publications to Marxist and socialist work. So, for instance, some capitalist economists consider apparently mainstream reference works like the Palgrave Encyclopedia of Economics to have a pro-Marxist bias, and vice versa. Any particular new aspect of economics can easily be considered a fringe theory by one or the other camp. (At this point, of course, there will be choruses of people explaining that capitalist/socialist economics are not really scholarly...but that just proves the point.) Ethan Mitchell (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are more likely to get choruses of people explaining that economics is a scholarly subject. Within economics there are "Mainstream" theories and there are "Fringe" theories. Same as any other accademic field. This really has nothing to do with capitalist or socialist. There are capitalist "mainstream" theories, and there are socialist "mainstream" theories... there are capitalist Fringe theories, and there are socialist Fringe theories. Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reopen discussion of name sharing within fringe theories

Looks like it was my mistake that this had been discussed sufficiently for inclusion once the other discussions had quieted down.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories&diff=234435862&oldid=234402222

The current wording of the section contains significant edits from multiple users. Comments? HatlessAtless (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For those that don't want to dig through the logs, some articles have had issues where a fringe theory or junk science happens to share the name with a legitimate line of research. cold fusion has been cited as an example. About a month ago, with support from several users, the above wording was assembled. ThuranX appears to disagree with the assessment that this has been adequately discussed, so I'd like to reopen it for discussion. I will not revert ThuranX's change without current support, however, to avoid the appearance of violating 1RR.

HatlessAtless (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back to april, and cannot find this discussion. You've been asked twice to link directly. Clearly, you can't or won't. As such, I see no reason to let you soapbox. ThuranX (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion begins in archive 8, section "draft version of complete reconstruction up and running". I can't figure out how to get the link to behave right (another editor, feel free to replace this with the link), and covered several additional following sections. However, because of the tendency of editors to stray off topic, and since the discussion is rather.... loquaious (hence lots of TL/DR) I'll reopen it here.
For simplicity sake, I'll add the wording here as well:
  • Hijacking of scientific theories by fringe groups
  • At any given time, one can search the internet and buy from fraudsters vacuum energy or magnetic healing devices. Less than scrupulous individuals will use poorly-analyzed or misquoted legitimate research and ostensibly scientific-sounding wording to cloak their ideas and crackpot inventions in the garb of science. When they attract believers, the ideas may take on a life of their own. The fact that groups of misled individuals may have "theories" that share the same name as scientific research does not destroy the legitimacy of the scientific research (see, for example, quantum quackery). Great care must be taken in Wikipedia to separate verifiable fact from verifiable fraud and keep the reader aware of what is being described. If both are notable, it may be appropriate to mention the ideas in separate articles taking care not to unduly weight the mention of fraudulent fringe theories in articles on legitimate topics. Disambiguation can help in these matters.
HatlessAtless (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
More importantly, since there is a diff posted, would you care to provide your thoughts on the change itself, or will this be an exercise in refining my ability to use the technical components of wikipedia?HatlessAtless (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
looks good to me. --Ludwigs2 23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal re Notability that could impact WP:FRINGE

There are some proposals at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise that the people who regularly work here should be aware of. The proposals seems to be an attempt to allow greater leeway to wikiprojects in developing special notability guidelines for themselves. This worries me, as I could easily see someone starting a "Fringe Theory" Wikiproject that would then set its own pro-fringe notability criteria that would allow any whacky Fringe theory to be considered notable. Of course, I suppose you could argue that WP:FRINGE is in essence already a special notability guideline for this topic area. In any case, please take a gander at the proposals. Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass edits sans discussion

I reverted these mass edits which were made without the benefit of any discussion here, to the best of my knowledge. While I think there is some sound ideas in some of the phrasing, I don't think we should enact such large changes to a policy so capriciously. I think these edits would greatly benefit from some preliminary discussion. For instance, I am not a fan of "prominence". I think that is a very subjective and flawed system, especially since Wikipedia relies so heavily on materials which have been published on the Web and often times neglects undigitized materials. (That said, I recoginize that this questionable edit didn't add this "prominence" information, but rather only made it more prominent.) Anyhow, that is just one specific grievence I have, and I suspect - given the other reversions of this mass edit - there are other specific grievences from other editors. I would like to open this to civil discussion to see if we can't arrive at some sort of consensus before anymore such bold edits are made. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to guidelines should indeed be discussed at the talkpage first. I have cautioned a couple of the editors who were involved in edit-warring, and I strongly encourage everyone to follow discussion and dispute resolution in order to implement any further controversial changes. Thanks, --Elonka 17:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Levine2112, which changes do you support? NJGW (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that I support the clarification made in several places that this policy is about "fringe" theories (not necessarily theories in general). I also agree the socking during an AfD is more than "strongly discouraged"; it is outright disallowed. I disagree with removing the section about NPOV from the beginning because I feel that this policy is mostly an offshoot of that pillar of Wikipedia and that this policy benefits from describing NPOV's relationship in the introduction. In any case, all edits of this magnitude should be discussed and vetted thoroughly before implementation. This edit-warring and discussion by edit summary is poor behavior. NJGW, I would ask that you please self-revert to the last consensus version and let's discussed the proposed edits one at a time. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Theories -> Fringe theories; "strongly discouraged" -> "not allowed"

Are there any objections to the changes Levine2112 supports above (Theories -> Fringe theories; socking in AfD's is "strongly discouraged" -> "not allowed")? NJGW (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think this entire sentence should be removed, for the following reasons:
  • Socking is against the rules, period. this has nothing to do with Fringe theories, it's true everywhere.
  • this is a content guideline. spilling it over into internal wiki-stuff draws attention away from the real point of this guideline, which should be telling us how to write about fringe topics. policy covers bad behavior; this guideline doesn't need to get into it.
--Ludwigs2 06:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Socking for that reason is against the rules. In this section you have another instance, also, of the silly failure to distinguish between contexts: "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable," well, that's true except when the article is on said fringe idea, and you want to reference the inventor's views. Also, it conflates the inventor and other editors who may want to use the inventor's publications. There should be a special section on promotion of fringe ideas by their inventors. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV question

SA (or others) why should the NPOV section be removed? NJGW (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Other objections

I think we need to discuss the wording change of the second paragraph which begins: Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a... I don't take issue with the "theory" => ""fringe theory" change. However, this section "with representation in proportion to their prominence" is now duplicative and I am not sure that "prominence" is something which can be readily assessed by any reliable method given the unavoidable bias Wikipedia gives to sources which are published on the web as opposed to those which only exist offline. I also think there was a problematic change in the last paragraph of "Parity of sources" which changed the meaning of the example discussion of creation science and effectively removed any justification for the inclusion of the proponents' views. As such, I think "Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review, " should be restored until consensus for such changes have been reached. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying here. in fact, I've been reading through the current version of the guideline, and I think there is a serious problem in the way that it fails to distinguish contexts. clearly, we have to approach a topic like 'Creation Science' differently in an article on Evolution than in an article about Creation Science itself. I'd suggest we reword the second paragraph something like as follows:

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Wikipedia describes significant opinions with representation in proportion to their importance to a given subject; Wikipedia itself should not become the primary or validating source for any theory. For one, it may not be possible to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner without independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality; and reliable, verifiable sources that make a connection between a fringe theory and an article subject are required to include that theory in that article.

there are also a couple of other points I'd like to raise.
  • the first line of the second paragraph of the "Identifying fringe theories" is a bit unclear. I'd suggest something like this: Fringe theories may be proffered by small groups of adherents - such as cult beliefs or quasi- or pseudoscientific claims - or may be broad, popular speculations - like UFOs or el Chupacabre - but in either case they should only be considered notable if referenced extensively and earnestly in at least one major publication, or by a notable source independent of the theory's adherents."
  • in the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section, he third paragraph (beginning 'Ideas that are of...') is rambling. I think it could be focused like so:

    Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be included in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight; they may even be excluded from articles about scientific topics where the scientific community has ignored or rejected them. On the other hand, ideas should not be excluded or belittled simply because they are widely held to be wrong; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it does not aim to censor or debunk ideas, even those which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

  • I think the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section would also benefit from the addition of a paragraph to this end (which is an expansion of a passage I removed from the above):

    Fringe theory editors often point out that the lack of attention the theory has received from academic or scientific sources makes it difficult to properly assess the worth of the theory. On occasion, this point borders on conspiracy theory, where editors will note systematic interference with the investigation or promotion of a particular theory by academic, scientific or governmental figures or groups. none of these arguments are acceptable on Wikipedia unless they can be supported by reference to reliable secondary sources. It does not matter if these arguments are true or false. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.

  • the Parity of sources section, last paragraph (I agree with Levine's comment above, incidentally, and I'll restore that lost line myself). however, I think the whole paragraph could be simplified to read:

    Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reported on or criticized in venues that are not typically considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. It may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain the fringe topic itself, and these sources should not be excluded purely on those grounds. However, this should not be taken to mean that reliable, properly referenced scientific critique can be marginalized or excluded. For example, in an article on Creation Science the views of adherents can be used to explain the theory, despite the fact that such views are never presented in reliable scientific journals, and the critiques of Creation Science that do appear in reliable journals can be included to balance and contextualize the adherent views.

This parity part says that scientific journals may not publish negative reviews of a fringe theory if it's so fringey that there's nobody wasting time on it... so the best (and still acceptable source) may not be in a scientific journal. Do we need a minimum standard here? I'll have a look at the section. NJGW (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote it using your suggested text, though I tried to maintain some of the original language and kept the examples (the specifics are very helpful I think). See what you think. NJGW (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • the 'Particular attribution' section is a confused mess (except for the last line, which I rather like). basically, it seems to say that anyone who says anything critical of a fringe topic should be treated as though their opinion is broadly universal. that can't be what's intended, can it? I don't quite know what to do with it though...
sorry for the long post. please do what you will with these suggestions. --Ludwigs2 08:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_9&oldid=1142665315"