User:Cpiral/Pilot light a flame war/notes

These sections are just notes to be integrated into the above essay:

Bricks to be added to construction
COmpare my viewpoint of editor responses now to the one I had with Eubelides a Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive_19

See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light.

Then there's "subjective-objectivity" and the "Objective-subjectivity"

These are the relevant discussions that initiated my viewpoint that there was a need for this essay.

Title and purpose of the first section "Identifying Fringe Theories"
Rather than have such a heading title and a first paragraph which only speak of identification of fringe theories: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 little or no scientific support, esoteric 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. We can do two things at once: both identify qualifying articles and teach fringe theory.

" The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter."

Here are the first two paragraphs of my section re-write (there are two more for another discussion): An article is qualified by it's author and it's later editors, but also may be deleted if qualified improperly. A fringe theory article has for it's subject an idea that differs so significantly from today's mainstream view that it may not even qualify as a subject in Wikipedia. Mainstream of course changes, and "the fringe" are continuously scrutinized during the work of qualification, described in this section.

To determine a fringe theory's position in world affairs, and thus it's need to be in Wikipedia, the idea in a fringe theory might first be categorized and then compared to its closest field of study. For example an idea in fringe science may or may not qualify as an article, depending on how it compares to a similar idea in mainstream science. Where a field of study is not established, noteworthiness is used. For example a conspiracy theory could qualify as an article if an adherent is comparatively noteworthy. An esoteric claim about medicine might qualify if a recently published survey comparing doctors opinions can be cited. A novel re-interpretation of history might be suddenly be supported by a significant number of historians, and if, say a newspaper report of this can be cited, it might qualify for an article. A fringe subject does not qualify if it does not compare. Fringe subjects include theory, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations  Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that the most important purpose of the guideline is to demarcate between fringe topics and non-fringe topics. Indeed, that seems to be an utterly secondary issue.  74.98.43.217 (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We are in agreement then. The most important purpose is not to demarcate fringe and non-fringe.  It is to demarcate between Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia.  By "identify articles and fringe theory" I meant "qualify articles".  I have re-written my proposal more clearly because of your comment. Thanks. Cp i r  al  Cpiral  04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be proposing a new test for inclusion of articles on fringe subjects in Wikipedia: "A fringe subject does not qualify if it does not compare". I do not understand what you mean by "compare" - can you define that term, please ? Maybe with some examples - do Moon landing conspiracy theories "compare" ? Does the Loch Ness Monster "compare" ? Do Hollow Earth theories "compare" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole enterprise seems to be about demarcation between fringe and non-fringe topics, which as I have already indicated is a totally secondary issue. I also see no compelling case, indeed no case at all, that a major revision is urgently needed.  74.98.43.217 (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To be blunt, I find the proposed language confusing as hell. "An article is qualified by it's author..." Huh? "...a fringe theory's position in world affairs..."  what the heck does world affairs have to do with anything?... The current language may have problems (although I would need more convincing to say that it does), but at least it is clear and concise. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To be even more blunt, Cpiral's proposed changes are bizarre and completely unhelpful. They sound like they were written by an individual who doesn't understand the point of the entire page going off on a rant. I oppose them in any form, and it's clear that the consensus of other editors here is the same. DreamGuy (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. This is a page for discussing article improvement.  Each improvement is an act.  Each act requires a specific.
 * No one owns the opinions of the other editors. If this article is your "turf", then we can only discuss in terms of persons: their motives, their powers of observation, their knowledge, etc. Cp i r al  Cpiral  15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically, I don't get what you think you are trying to do in the first place because you aren't describing things well at all, and before you can make changes to a page like this you must communicate your suggestions in a way we can all understand and then get a broad base of support. I see no support and no indication that what you want to change makes any sense. The onus is on you to convince everyone else. The turf is the turf of consensus. Until you have that you shouldn't be making changes. DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really do want to concentration here on the orientation this section takes in it's title and first paragraph. Please see your user talk page.
 * Primarily, it's about whether or not the section "How to identify Fringe Theories" should in it's first paragraph, only teach what fringe theory is, and not say anything about Wikipedia article qualification. As it is, the improvement I propose below attempts to make it both teach and say something about Wikipedia inclusion.  I do not wish to discuss my poor improvement at this time, unless we have first agreed that the original tone needs some improvement over the span of the first paragraph. Shall we? Cp i r  al  Cpiral  20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, an idea for an article is qualified by it's intended author.
 * "World affairs" has to do with an encyclopedia.
 * Please be more specific in your assertions (while at the same time avoiding explication.)
 * I thought this was a page for discussing article improvement.  Cp i r al  Cpiral  15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Compare" arises from "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" (first sentence). One notable person, or many scientist opinions serve to qualify an article.  How many is grey.  One is not.  How notable the one is, is grey.  So "significant" is always grey.
 * The two cases (the one and the many) in which to "compare" how "departed" it is, both use "significance" as a yes/no qualifier. If we want a systematic first step to qualify an article, then both cases have in common to compare significance.
 * "Chi" compares to many doctors, conspiracy compares to one adherents' noteworthiness, and  Lock Ness Monster compares to either.  Cp i r  al  Cpiral  15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, not sure I understand all of that (your strange use of English makes comprehension difficult), but I don't like the bits I do understand. We already have a test for inclusion in Wikipedia which is our notability guideline and its various sub-guidelines. Applying the existing source-based test in borderline cases can sometimes be difficult, but I see no merit in replacing it with an even more subjective test based on giving different weights to different adherents depending on their "noteworthiness". Gandalf61 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which bits in particular do you not understand? Which particular bits do you not like?
 * The point I debate primarily is whether or not the first section should have a significant and notable span of words whose only purpose, apparently, is to teach how to identify fringe theory. To wit, the heading title, and the first paragraph. May we please discuss only that? Please see the top of this discussion. Thank you.  Cp i r  al  Cpiral  20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't follow the new version very well. It seems to be suggesting a comparison with mainstream fields, but doesn't explain how that establishes fringe theoriness, nor what this comparison is meant to show. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shoemaker. The proposed version is much worse than the existing version.  It tries to do too much in a few sentences, and becomes obtuse. Angryapathy (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting the "teach-i-ness" out of the first paragraph will involve the entire structure of the section. But to bring the entire section to the next level of improvement (It does exist.) will involve hiding an ideological complexity in a simplicity I have yet to obtain. It will take time, but I hope a near future effort to better express my suggestion. Thanks!  Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cpiral asks "Which bits in particular do you not understand?" I do not clearly understand any of it. Cpiral seems to be totally unaware of their use of an idiosyncratic version of English. For example, what does "A fringe subject does not qualify if it does not compare" mean? compare what? A person may compare a subject with another, but what does it mean to say taht a subject "compares"? Then we have "An article is qualified by it's author and it's later editors, but also may be deleted if qualified improperly". What is this qualification which is being referred to? How is an article qualified by its author? What does it mean to be "qualified improperly"? Then we have "Please be more specific in your assertions (while at the same time avoiding explication.)" What on earth does that mean? How is it possible to be specific without explication? I can only guess that Cpirl does not know what "explication" means. And what on earth does "conspiracy compares to one adherents' noteworthiness" mean? And so it goes on. In short, the answer to Cpiral's question is that almost all of what Cpiral says is either partly or completely incomprehensible.
 * Insofar as it is possible to understand what Cpiral is trying to convey, it is clear that an attempt is being made to propose a radical change in Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. For example, we have "an idea that differs so significantly from today's mainstream view that it may not even qualify as a subject in Wikipedia". Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how much an idea differs from mainstream views: an opinion which is very remote from the mainstream may be notable if it has been extensively covered. Exactly the same applies to several other statements by Cpiral, such as "an idea in fringe science may or may not qualify as an article, depending on how it compares to a similar idea in mainstream science": notability has nothing to do with how a subject compares to any other ideas.
 * Cpiral appears, as I have already said, to be unaware of the weird nature of the English that Cpiral uses. Cpiral also appears not to realise that what is being proposed is totally against established Wikipedia guidelines. Cpiral also appears not to have noticed that there is solid consensus against the proposal: seven other editors have commented in this section, and not one has given any support at all to the proposal. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * By explication I misspoke. I meant the use of expletives.


 * I personally am withdrawing my participation from the ideas I proposed because I have been shown here that they lack clarity (Thank you all.) and accuracy, and because I have found that the systematic approach I sought (in ascertaining merit of an article) has not quite yet covered all of the grey areas in which it hopes to operate. Reconstruction is underway.


 * Each improvements to Wikipedia must start from the mind of some individual. Let's encourage new ideas and discuss them, drawing them out, passed any initial idiosyncrasies and weirdness they may seem contain at first. Let consensus reality be what it is, the very thing that could use the improvement. Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cpiral-Ling (again)
I started learning Wikipedia three months ago. Recently I reworded an entire section of WP:fringe, changing it's three paragraphs to four, and adding some new ideas. Well, it was reverted, but I was determined to discuss my ideas. It took only one day for me to get six different editors' consistent remarks showing general distaste of the style and wording. The next day I took my lumps and conceded the debate, and bowed out as honorably as I could. It was clearly a messy and sorry experience for me there. For four days, I thought it was over.

Then you came along yesterday and said 2500 words on an article discussion page in which were phrases like saying my user name over ten times. In the first paragraph alone you fire ten questions. Later you find a mistakes I made in my word choice ("explicate"), and you hammer away at nothing I meant.
 * Cpiral seems to be totally unaware...
 * What on earth does that mean?
 * I can only guess that Cpiral does not know...
 * And what on earth does ... mean?
 * almost all of what Cpiral says is ... incomprehensible
 * ...which has nothing whatsoever to do with...
 * ...has nothing to do with...

You obviously were thorough in your review of the discussion before you made your entry. I am at a loss, then, for your reasoning: why that tone (on an article discussion page)? I respectfully request a simple confirmation that I appeared to need to hear all that. Finally, did you have a real expectation at any kind of answer or discussion? If so, I would be honored for a gentler dialog.

I would sincerely appreciate and be honored to receive on my user page, any remarks about Cpiral in general, and my general style. If you would like to share your personal opinion about me or my style, or an opinion about other editors opinions of a particular issue, I think these kinds of things are best kept to our user pages. I have a subpage with my work on fringe theory. I'll finish it up tomorrow, and then your opinion would be valued. I'm sorry to have to waste your valued time on the old piece.

 Cp i r al  Cpiral  02:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry that I seem to have upset you, or annoyed you, or whatever is the right word. I suppose, thinking back, that I could have been gentler. However, since you ask, what I said was largely an expression of a sense of frustration, as various people had tried to communicate with you, and seemed to have failed. I genuinely found it bewildering that you could write so much in a way that is impossible for anyone else to understand., and apparently be unaware of the fact that you are not writing normal English. I also suggest that you wait until you have more experience of the way that Wikipedia works before undertaking such a major task as substantially rewriting a guideline. When you have been here longer perhaps you will understand just how central to Wikipedia is the concept of notability via reliable sources, which your editing seems to indicate you have not yet fully grasped. Yes, you are aware of the concept, but you seem not to have grasped that it is the fundamental basis for inclusion or exclusion; no matter whether a concept is totally mainstream or totally at odds with the mainstream, it deserves space in Wikipedia if it has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, and not otherwise. It may be that you know that, and deliberately intended to change Wikipedia policy, but your writing seemed to indicate that you did not realise it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My Dear Mr. Watson, I aim at bringing section one of WP:fringe to it's next level, analogous to the way Descartes evolved the concept of dimension from Euclid's more qualitative and common-sense approach to a more quantitative approach based on coordinates. The notability guidelines banner says common-sense is the best approach, but for those of us who want to try an algorithm I think Fringe lacks an explicit, systematic, quantitative approach to "significance".


 * Without talking too far past my original posting, yes, my attempt to copyedit the original version's section one included language that was idiosyncratic. (i.e. It was concentrated but not lucid.) But the side-effect of our discussion taught me more about politics (the topic here) than about my work.  In order to copyedit at the level of a major policy section, careful ideation is not enough, I must go through discussion.


 * Please understand that as an unintended side-effect of working on WP:fringe, I had several social networking spats. I tire of this aspect (it has taken several full days of my time), and should want to get back to the wiki after a nice long break. But I find myself making similar efforts here. To get the social networking part correct in my mind by my actions for Wikipedia, I must point out what I feel are some elementary errors on your part.


 * In debate, make sure and look at the dates that the comments were made. (I feel safe in making this minor assertion because otherwise I would have to make a major assertion.)
 * When making a response to someone who even slightly implies that they may have been personally attacked
 * Be more careful than usual with wording.
 * Be more certain in counter claims or debate.
 * If you should decide to defend yourself, keep near the nature of the topic. It's not technical.
 * If you should decide to make an apology to the other, make it for your own actions. Do not apologize for the feelings of another person.
 * When deciding to ignore some rules, be more careful on the purpose, especially if they are etiquette.
 * The other editors purpose in breaking etiquette might be justifiable, but yours was more like a mockery because it was late. I will be happy to explain, if you do not understand each point.


 * My top post is objective. The bottom is neutral.  The tone in both is cordial.
 * Please verify this for yourself. Thank you very much for your valuable time.
 * I look forward to perhaps getting some approval from you on some shared page in the future. Happy editing!
 *  Cp i r al  Cpiral  22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read your post. I understand some of its points, but not all. For example, I do not know what your comment about checking dates refers to; if it is important then perhaps you may like to specify which comments you are referring to. At first I did not know what your remark about apologising for the feelings of others referred to, but after some thought I decided that it was intended to refer to "I'm sorry that I seem to have upset you, or annoyed you, or whatever is the right word. I suppose, thinking back, that I could have been gentler". If so I think you have misread what I wrote: I apologised that I had upset you, and said that I could have been gentler in my expression: I did not say "sorry that you have chosen to feel upset". I hope you can accept my apology for what it was intended to be.
 * It is not clear to me whether or not you have taken my essential points. It is unfortunate that, because of my not-very-careful choice of how to express myself, I seem to have largely deflected your concerns onto how you view my behaviour, and away from what were intended to be my essential points. The most important point, I think, is that there seems to be a clear consensus against the kind of change you are single-handedly attempting to make. You refer to "those of us who want to try an algorithm": I doubt that many people do. You say that the present version of the page in question "lacks an explicit, systematic, quantitative approach to significance", but you do not explain why we need a "systematic, quantitative approach", or in what way the present guideline suffers from not, in your opinion, being sufficiently systematic and quantitive. When I wrote my comment in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories I had carefully read and re-read the section to which I added my comment, to make sure I was aware of the full debate. Since then I have realised that the section does not in fact contain the full debate, as for some reason the discussion of your ideas for changes has been broken into about five separate sections instead of being kept together in one. In my comment I wrote "seven other editors have commented in this section, and not one has given any support at all to the proposal". I now realise that the full amount of discussion on your proposals is even greater, with more than seven editors opposing your suggestions, and still none at all supporting them. Wikipedia works by consensus: since there is a clear consensus against your proposals you really should drop them. There are plenty of areas of Wikipedia to which you could make constructive contributions, but on present showing this does not appear to be one of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally receive the first paragraph of the first section of WP:fringe, poorly. It simply defies my logic to hear you advising me against wp:fringe when you (as you say) "do not understood a single point" I have made about wp:fringe, (and similarly when telling me in a discussion what the opinion of the other editors in the discussion are.) In general any unsolicited advise from a person of your high esteem can easily be misinterpreted dramatically.  I and others like me are not so easily dissuaded, persuaded or swayed in any way by such advise.  I defend my right to make my own judgments honorably, even if it lessons the honor of those who would do it for me.


 * "Five different sections"? I broke the first discussion off because the arguments were unwieldy. I see no good reason to continue on this point, nor on the other technical points you take up, although I could elsewhere. I am more concerned here with your unawareness of drama causation.
 * "Date?": Each user entry has a date.  Please make note of them when considering an entry into a "debate". In the discussion we address here, the other half-dozen or so editors all made there remarks on Oct 1.  My bowing was on Oct 2, and yours was on Oct 6.  The dates are important in the context of your statement "[They] seemed to have failed [to communicate to you]" Why?  In actuality they had communicated to me four and five days earlier. During that four days of silence, certainly (had you observed the dates), you could have imagined that I had gotten the messages.
 * "Others feelings". Because I am somewhat taken aback by the "dates" question, I hesitate due to DFTT to completely answer the question of "apologizing for other's feelings". Thank you very much for reiterating. I understand that you are quite aware that one does not cause another person's feelings.  I better see where you are coming from your heart. But the words I read belie the heart I now "see". The short answer is this. If you will agree on the two principles 1) Be responsible for your actions.  and 2) Don't blame others for any drama troubles.  It simply follows "Don't apologize for another's feelings in a shared drama."


 * I am still learning from you that my writing is unclear.  I truly desire my writing clarity for your reading clarity.  As I shape my active response, I begin to understand that it is getting drama out that I am concerned with. Drama is addictive.  It is pushed (but not necessarily effected) in the following ways that you should understand since they apply directly to your recent past  with me:
 * making a discouraging remark
 * making a personal remark: a user name, the pronouns you or your
 * coughing up an unsolicited apology
 * dumping the specifics of an article or proposal (If there is that much wrong, consider the "How to provide a solicited opinion" response instead.)
 * making any general remark about the wording of a proposal (I cannot think of a single general descriptive remark about a proposal for an improvement, no matter the size, that is productive except the general "No". Can you?)
 * giving personal advise that is general in nature or unsolicited
 * referring to anything but the project at hand
 * making reference to non-existent drama. The reference alone is a trigger.
 * There may be more violations, (the pointing, the pulling of triggers, the firing of questions) but should we not prefer instead to meet in a green field, graze on the actual data (words in an article), piece by peace in a slow and steady manner? I to am here with you in a dark, mysterious, project-data-less drama, but I don't break "no drama" rules on discussion pages as you have.  One of the worst distractions in communicating useful information is the long-term effects of negative drama. They can last forever.  Humor (moo pow) is a drama that has a short-term positive impact but mockery is a dangerous humor.
 * I never asked for an apology from you, but only hoped that by "confirming" your actions, that I would have an opportunity to question and dialog that would lead to revelations, if only by simply looking back and reviewing (about the dates for example.) I will thank you for acknowledging a latent "gentleness" inside, but how can I accept "I'm sorry that I seem to have upset you"?


 * I never said or implied that I was upset. If I had either said I was upset or asked for an apology, then your way of apologizing would have been acceptable to anyone. I could accept if you had apologized "for loading you with seven quotes of your remarks all at once". That would be apologizing for the cause.
 * Apologizing for an effect, as you have done, is, in effect apologizing for "feelings that should not be there." In general that kind of apology backfires.   (Do you debate this point further?)


 * In our case (to address your entire second paragraph), your potentially beautiful, valid, "essential points" are indeed not being studied by me, and for many good reasons, chief among them being "drama". The lack of appreciation of your project-data-points is however, something that you could choose to take a responsibility for by considering 1)People and there feelings are primary in all situations, and must first be relaxed not re-taxed.  "People first." is logical when considering the biggest picture possible ("What is life.") and 2) your deep down earnest desire to help by way of addressing "where it does need" (making specific, self-responsibility-oriented, types of apologies) and not "where it should need" (giving a vague apology addressing a supposed egotist). The validation of my refusal to study them is here: 1) There is little feeling of loss amongst the group who ejects a brilliant person who could have otherwise made superior contributions and 2) it is analogous to the way Wikipedia has a paradoxical stance: no experts allowed.


 * If you are still not clear on the detractive nature of the apology you offer and have defended, or remain unsatisfied concerning "deflection of essential points", or do nut understand any point I have set forth, I will answer you in response until we are clear. However, I hope it will not be to familiarize you with any more of my experiences of just how you were both a root cause of a drama, and a furtherance of it for me, personally.  Please believe me that the resulting reasoning presented here is not so personally directed as could be imagined.  This discussion has become to me a work to express my attribution of drama as the main the counter-force of any project, and to you a main force for the project.  Happy editing.
 *  Cp i r al  Cpiral  06:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)