Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 11

step 1 - rough draft of new lead
ok, I've taken a stab at a rough draft for the lead in the sandbox. I doubt (reasonably) it will satisfy everyone, and it may not satisfy anyone at all, so let's iron out this before I move on to other sections. -- Ludwigs 2 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your rough draft is an improvement over the current article. --Hit the fan (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The rewrite contains way too much editorializing. Trim it down so it focuses on established policy, so that it reads more like -- hey, the current version of the lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a tendency to editorialize on policy. What it should be is general enough to set the goals, not to lecture others on what is and what isn't Fringe.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes... keep things broad and flexible... The rules are principles not a detailed law code. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sandbox version should be deleted. From what I am seeing is no good is coming from it, just edit wars and personal attacks.  I am also concerned with new accounts knowing so much about things that are happening around here.  What are the thoughts about deleting the sandbox and resuming editing this policy to fix the minor problems that seem to be a concern to some? -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit warring would stop if you and OM, would stop deliberately disrupting the work of the editors trying to develop an improved version. You both really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I mean, your not even going to allow people to try to write a good a guideline. Your just going to block their attempt at every turn. You must be very afraid of what you might see.Deadasamackerel (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: User:Hit the fan is a CU confirmed sockpuppet of banned User:Jagz.  MBisanz  talk 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * is likewise a fairly obvious alternate account being abused, and I've blocked it. Let's get back on track. MastCell Talk 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall that Elonka (so beloved among fringe theory editors) once mention that it is frequently easier to make necessary changes to the body of an article, and then to go back to re-write the lead. I have found that to be good advice, and think it might prove to be a good approach in this re-write also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced that there is a need for a rewite. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand, specifically, what problems are to be resolved. Is there something that really needs to be changed, or is all this just being asked to jump through some hoops for the amusement to editors who dislike the project? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "sandbox" lead starts badly and gets worse, completely obscuring the essential points which are clearly and concisely set out in the present lead. The case for any change must be made here in detail, that "sandbox" proposal does nothing to show any need for change. . dave souza, talk 20:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't been working on the lead. I don't think it's at all a good idea to write the lead first.  The lead should be written after the article.  I'm going to comment out the current lead just to emphasize that.  What I've been doing is copying and condensing the current FRINGE, and seperating out the different issues into their own sections.  As it looks now, maybe the original structure proposal is not quite right, because most of the stuff applies whether it's a fringe idea in a mainstream article or an article on a fringe idea.  Here is how I've been working:

1. Arrangement: seperation of issues is primary 2. Content: relationship to the policy pages is primary 3. Condensation: I've condensed things without changing their meaning.

In terms of new content, I suggest we need to make the violation of other policy which the current Parity of sources section in the current FRINGE embraces specific, so the reader knows that this is special stuff for FRINGE. As it is now, we already do what we need to do, but we don't say so. I have an idea of how to write it and will do so later today. But that's really necessary: how do we use fringe sources to round out an article while still writing a reliable encyclopedia. Again: we already embrace this, it's nothing new. We only need a better discussion of it. Suggestions before I start writing? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "how do we use fringe sources to round out an article" Bizarre. Truly bizarre.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I also need a current consensus version of this section to put in the new FRINGE, unless people would like to just junk it. I won't put it in till we can come to some sort of consensus on it, as my re-writing it myself would not be good form. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See below for a suggestion for discussion. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is especially important: it's the principles behind Parity of sources, and I'd like any feedback you can give me. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This really looks muddled and too prescriptive to me, with overlap with other policies and a perception of conflict when in my opinion reasonable aricle talk page discussion should be able to reach a sensible consensus. The current wording appears more suitable, as far as I can see. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we're talking about the new draft, here, not the old one. This is not a policy, but a guideline.  A guideline explicates what policy pages say, so saying it overlaps means I got it right- thanks (:  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

request grammar edit
editprotected The lede currently says
 * Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories.

At least to US speakers, the indicative does is a bit jarring in a mandative clause like this. Please change to something like ...that Wikipedia itself not become... or perhaps ...that Wikipedia itself should not become.... Or, if this is thought to be too heavy, perhaps reword. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the phrase to "[…] it is important that Wikipedia does not itself become […]" which I think is an improvement. Do you think that further changes are necessary? { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 16:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is not the position of itself, but rather the indicative does in a clause that calls for the subjunctive. Please just remove the word does, then it will be fine.  Or if that seems too American, then change does not to should not. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to "should not"; I find the immediate transition to "not" somewhat jarring myself. :) { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 23:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally didn't see a problem with the original, but now it sounds awkward. I suggest "it is important that Wikipedia not become a validating source for non-significant theories," which I see as a good compromise between the two grammatical opinions. NJGW (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims

 * This seems to me to suggest an either/or approach, rather than evaluating each aspect according to the weight of third party expert opinion. Here's a rough suggestion for rewording this section –


 * Critique and alternative suggestions welcome. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That just about works. Need to take out the word "evaluate." If you can just change it to "discuss," I'll put it in the draft.  "Discussion" means just reporting what the sources say, which will mean evaluation if the sources present it.  Otherwise, it gives a loophole for editor WP:OR.  Thanks for the help (: —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And Dave, why can't you get behind the new draft? As a guideline, it only applies policy.  We need to separate out the different issues, relate it to actual policy, etc.  Is it because you don't think you can work with me?  I am not trying to make FRINGE more friendly to fringe claims.  The current balance is correct.  In fact, I'm thinking that it is too friendly to fringe claims, but I'll deal with that later.  But basically, although I completely disagree with SA's last edits there, I believe fringe doesn't need much besides a rewrite, and as with the promotion section I have already made it much stronger.  How about getting onboard, instead of feeling like you're going to lose something?  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, consensus, where's the consensus?
OK... we have some people working revisions in a sandbox... some people working on a different revisions here on the talk page... and then we have a few people who have stated that they prefer the current version and want to simply stick to that.

With so many different venues and concepts floating around, I am concerned that we are headed for another WP:ATT situation... where a core group works for months and months achieving local consensus language among themselves... only to be told by the rest of the community that their efforts were for nothing... because the consensus of the larger community (who did not participate in the discussions that achieved the local consensus) preferred things the way they were.

So I think we need to take a step back and ask a basic question... Is there a consensus to support revising the guideline in the first place? I am not sure there is. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Unfortunately, the guideline is somewhere between a notability guideline (should Crypto-archaelogy have an article), a content guideline (relating to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT) for articles about fringe subjects (what should be in Crypto-archaelogy if it has an article), and a content guideline (relating to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT) for discussion of fringe subjects in non-fringe articles (what aspects of Crypto-archaelogy should be in Archaelogy if there is no Crypto-archaelogy article).  It's shifted between #1 and #3, with it being assumed by some that #2 and #3 should have the same standards, and by others that they shouldn't.  In particular, the section #Parity of sources in the present article specifically refers only to #2, but has been applied to others for #3.


 * I think that would should be done is to separate the guideline into three sections as indicated above, without changing content except to properly point each section to the appropriate parent guidelines, and emphasing which are just copying the parent guidelines, which are interpreting the parent guidelines, and which are exceptions to the parent guidelines (pointing to other releant guidelines). Then the usual edit wars could be restricted to sections.


 * I don't know if there's consensus for this, or not, but that's what I'd like to propose, and to try to reach consensus. It may be too early for the draft revisions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a separate issue, and one that should be dealt with only after we ask if anything in the content needs to change. I think Blueboar's absolutely right in asking for consensus for specific changes before we start talking about how to word the changes.  So how about it Martin and Levine etc... what does the policy do/say or how how is it used that you feel should be changed?  Please be very specific in your answers, but don't yet focus on the grammar or layout.  NJGW (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When your kite string gets snarled up, in principle it can be unsnarled, especially if you're patient and analytic. But there's a point beyond which principle lapses and practicality triumphs. Some snarls should just be abandoned. Go get a new kite string. It's actually cheaper in the end than the labor it would take to salvage the old one, and you will get your kite airborne again sooner.


 * Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research.

This seems a very long way of saying that when writing articles we should not include our own thoughts (OR) on the topic. And what of the very particular way of putting the point in terms of the detail of the sources? Is this because the real target here is not so much OR as non-RS? That is, is what we are being urged to resist here the temptation to pad out what can be gleaned from RS by reference to non-RS rather than by reference to our own thoughts on the subject (OR)? Or is a bit of both jumbled up together? Note, for example, that the last claim (“as it would constitute original research”) is actually false since we could just as easily fill in the gaps using non-RS.

Note also the section in which it appears is supposed to be about “Identifying Fringe Theories”. But what does this paragraph have to do with identifying a fringe theory? Nothing! It is clearly a paragraph that stipulates something that should not be done after a fringe theory has already been identified. As such it is muddled, false and in the wrong place. Time for a new kite string. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.153.90 (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The section you quote is not about OR, or RS. It's about the correct proportion of coverage devoted to minority viewpoints in articles on a subject. Verbal   chat  21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that it ends with the suggestion that exceeding the level of detail is "original research" strongly argues that it is about original research. Admittedly, the word "proportion" in the phrase "proportion to the level of detail" does suggest that it may have started out as a point about issues of weight. If that is what it is supposed to be about though, the paragraph should say "a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute undue weight". Hopelessly muddled. New kite string needed. 66.37.153.88 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, how do you think we can avoid the situation you lay out so clearly? I think there are two obvious things: one, the current version is muddled. It mixes issues under various headings, which should be separated out. It's also very wordy- look at my revision of the section on links. The second thing is, just why are editors opposing a rewrite before they know what it will be? They have no possible basis for this. They could only have basis for it if it were already written and they'd read it. Do you think this is proper behavior? —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the generalities... it's getting us nowhere. If there is a specific issue (muddled, wordy), start a section below and give examples.  If there's nothing actually broken, then what are you trying to fix???  Let's turn this right around and say it appears to us that "you have no possible basis for this rewrite.  Do you think this is proper behavior?"  NJGW (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, first, I think the situation can be avoided by starting over and going significantly slower... and by taking the time to fully discuss (here on this page) each issue, one at a time. Right now, I am so confused by all the different proposals that are floating around, that my reaction is to say "NO" to any changes, no matter how good or bad that change may actually be. I understand that this is an instinctual knee-jerk reaction... but it is my reaction never the less.
 * I really don't have any problems with the current language of the guideline, and do not see a great need to make significant changes. Obviously, you do.  If you are going to convince me to change my mind, you to clearly and carefully explain exactly what you proposed to change and why.  Saying... it't too wordy and muddled does not help... because I don't see it as being overly wordy and muddled. Blueboar (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #1 - wording of Parity section is unclear
OK, I'll start. I was recently told by an anon IP that "this guideline (WP:PARITY) seems to be promoting the use of Hoopers self-published web-site not preventing it." The IP I'm quoting cited the sentence "Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review," but I think the whole section could use a rewrite to explain that a) non-peer reviewed or self published sources can be used to describe a notable position/hypothesis, and b) when discussing the details and scientific consensus, all sources must be on par (parity) with the highest quality available (with the caveat that some fringe/pseudo topics are not considered worth discussing in serious journals). Can we have a support/oppose etc poll to see if there's a consensus that the wording of the parity section is unclear, and that it should be fixed? NJGW (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be fixed. I have some new thinking on it, but first I would like to have more feedback about the justification for it which I wrote into the draft. That's important. Here. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #1.5 - Parity section needs examples for why it is needed
I think this relates. Parity is only needed as an exception to the rules, so that sources which normally would not be allowed in can be used. We need to start from that point in discussing the section, because if we are not using it to loosen the rules, the we don't need it. I think someone needs to come up with examples, because I've never seen any used. Not hypothetical ones. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Examples are good for context. Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories is one article which uses on-line news agency articles, non-journal magazine articles, scientists' blogs, on-line videos, primary sources, and self published sources to support it's various hoax-disprooving points.  Anyone else have examples? (PS: the Apollo hoax article could use some clean-up if anyone here is crazy enough to duke it out over the extremely obvious ;-)  NJGW (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's a good example. Where are otherwise-un-allowable fringe sources used in articles?  I mean, truly not RS, not just those where people feel they aren't RS, but they actually meet the technical qualifications?  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another example is at Titanic alternative theories, where editors often insisted that the curse of the Mummy be mentioned. The best source which discussed this was Snopes.com.  NJGW (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So what you are saying is that these sources, which are not ones which we would use under the RS rules, are justified by the FRINGE Parity section?  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, given your history here, it's very strange that you're having a hard time understanding what I'm talking about... I don't like to repeat myself, so if don't know what some of my words meant in the section above, please ask for specific clarification there. This section is asking about examples.  NJGW (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #1.5.1 - Parity section should be removed
Ok, I'll come out and say what I think is right: this section, as my defense of it shows, is against policy. It needs to be entirely removed, and any articles based on it cleaned up. There is no excuse under RS for it and it must be removed. I say "must," because in trying to defend it I have become convinced that it's against basic Wikipedia policy. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, I don't know what to say... I can't believe you've been holding back on us, hiding your true feelings. I don't know where to place my trust anymore.


 * So which policy is it against? Which articles are "based on it"?  What do we do with notable fringe theories which have no description in journal sources, or the ones which have been completely debunked to the point where even the debunking is not mentioned in journal sources?  These are all issues which would need to be addressed if Parity was to disappear, and I imagine other issues would crop up as well.  NJGW (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #2 - Guideline is so poorly written that it should be rewritten from scratch

 * OpposeI think we also need to ask "with the guideline so unclear on where its policy actually comes from (what policy it is drawn from), and with its different threads of policy all tangled up in different sections, does this guideline actually adhere to policy? How would one know, seeing how confused it is?"  Granted, a guideline can be ignored.  But we should make it as clear an explanation of policy as we can. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose That is an opinion that has not found any consensus in the recent calls for similar action: October 2008, July 2008 RFC. Continuing the same old saw in the face of such obvious consensus is getting tiresome.  NJGW (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't count anyone who's for it, no. —— Martinphi    Ψ~Φ —— 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that consensus is a vote, but I count 10:1:1 (Ludwigs said "whatever") and 21:1 (and several of those were saying "upgrade to policy")... so I have no idea what your point is. NJGW (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you must be counting better than I do. I see several editors who think as I do.  Not that consensus is a vote. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I definitely do not think it needs a complete rewrite. Clarifying the wording of individual sections I can agree to, but not a complete rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, you really can't object to text you haven't seen. That's not really valid.  Since there could be no reasons given against it, there could be no validity to the arguments against it.  Do you think you could revise that to say "I doubt I'd like another version, but I'm open minded and willing to look at the text and see?"  I fail to understand rejection without knowing what you are rejecting.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is whether a complete rewrite is even necessary. Please don't try to change the question.  If you feel that there are questions which would address specific issues you have with the guideline, feel free to start new sections below.  BTW, in case you decide to object to the nature of the question, it was first raised by Blueboar above, not by me or you.   NJGW (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with the proposition that a wholesale rewrite is necessary. As with any policy or guideline the occasional tweak or clarification may be necessary. But the guideline as a whole is not "poorly written." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you guys afraid of? That it might be worse?  Better?  That you won't be able to tell?  If something is worse, reject it.  If something is better, accept it.  If you think I have a POV which I can insert without you knowing I did it, why, thank you.  I didn't know I was that smart.  If you are just opposing for the sake of opposing... keep goin'.  But give a reason for opposing the creation rewrite that no one asked you to work on yourself unless you wanted to.  You simply have no reason for this.  BTW, if editors want to rewrite, that is their business.  Wikipedia doesn't work by "getting consensus to draft."  So, perhaps I shouldn't respond, but this is just getting us nowhere.  If you don't want to participate in the discussion of the rewrite, that's up to you.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment here seems orthogonal to the statement that I made. I was responding to the specific assertion that the "guideline is so poorly written that it should be rewritten from scratch." I acknowledge that giving a specific answer to a specific question is unfashionable in some quarters, but that's what I tend to do. If you want me to respond to an alternate proposal you need only ask. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, no one is telling you what you can and can't do... but if there's no consensus for a rewrite don't get upset when you come in with a rewrite and we say, "we don't need it." Obviously if you think a rewrite is needed, you have specific issues you feel should be addressed.  Now's your chance to list them below and see if others agree, or else we'll assume the guideline is fine the way it is.  NJGW (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose As I've said before, I think the issues that are debated that seems to need fixing should be discussed here. I don't see a need for a total rewrite like is being done by a few.  Just bring your concerns here and talk it out.  As I have said before, this guideline is referred to very often and needs to be stable and issues should be discussed here and a consenses reached for major changes prior to implementing them.  I'd like to ask is what is the fear of doing it here and not on another rewritten page?  This is the page that editors refer to thus the page they are watching.  Of course this is just my humble opinion from watching both.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * None: you see, the problem is that what's needed is arrangement of current ideas in FRINGE into a coherent whole. That can't be done piecemeal, thus the need for another page, where all the sections can be seen to fit together before we put them in.  There is no objection to consensus.  In fact, wider consensus than those here will be needed.  I'll announce at the Pump and other places before putting it in.  In the meantime, there are specific issues which I've brought up here, and I'd like your comments on.  BTW, what we're doing is not a rewrite, but a separating out of ideas. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 20:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If "what we're doing is not a rewrite" then why does the title of this section say "it should be rewritten from scratch"? My head is starting to spin like that girl in The Exorcist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask NJGW, I didn't make the headings. The heading is the reason I voted, above, not to rewrite it completely.  I just want to clean it up, as the draft shows.  We have complete consensus it shouldn't be re-written from scratch.  All I've done with the draft is copy things over, while keeping different subjects separate.  I took out the redundancies.  I did rewrite the lead, tho, but it's just a suggestion.  I rewrote only enough to make it clear- as little as possible while taking out the cruft. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #3 - Some guidelines and policies need to be reiterated here
Some have suggested that policies and guidelines like wp:SOCK and wp:RS need not be discussed here, but as a recent episode at at ANI pointed out, it might be very important to make strong and, to some, redundant statements:

"I would suggest making all of the nationalist and pseudoscience articles explicit sock-free zones. Choose a date for implementation, and from that date forward, only one account per person can edit anywhere in the zone, and using multiple accounts to edit would resulting in blocking of all.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)"

I agree, and think that this should be stated explicitly here. Perhaps the only changes I would make would be to make the wording perfectly clear that, while some sections may seem repetitive to other policies/guidelines, there are very good reasons for this. NJGW (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we already had policy against such socking? Anyway, this isn't the place for it. You have to do more than change FRINGE. Fringe is, also, a guideline: we don't create new stuff here. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the links. It's layed out very clearly, in multiple levels of detail.  Then come back and support or oppose this proposal, with a reason.  Thanks.  NJGW (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Oh, you mean the AN/I?  Are you saying that there is consensus on that thread to invoke special measures on fringe articles?  If so, could you give a quote, as I don't see it after the Kww quote.  This is not a matter, anyway, for a guideline.  It's a matter for the ArbCom special measures which apply to FRINGE areas.  Try to get consensus for it at AN/I.  So, my above objection applies.  —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 03:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * reply I didn't say there was consensus there for anything, only that a long drawn-out discussion came up there that could have been taken care of with a few lines here. Kww explains the issue quite well.  Thank you for your input.  NJGW (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't write policy here. I think you should look into the ArbCom special restrictions. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 04:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the arbcom special restriction against us preventing disruption through tweaking this guideline. NJGW (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NJGW, we don't tweak a guideline to make policy, we tweak policy to make policy. ArbCom doesn't deal with that issue.  Go and put it in WP:SOCK, which is a policy.  Don't try to change policy from a guideline. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh man, from your previous statement I thought you were going to give me a reference for your statement... now all I have to go on are your confusing replies. Please explain to us why we should not try to change any guideline into a policy.  NJGW (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you changed the subject. If you want to try and turn it into a policy, that is your prerogative. —— Martinphi     Ψ~Φ —— 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Who changed the subject? You brought up making policy.  This section is about restricting disruptive behavior.  I heard something about a restriction from Arbcom (who was it again that brought that up???) that might apply here, but since no one's linked to it I guess it doesn't apply.  NJGW (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see no reason to go into wp:SOCK in this guideline. While articles on Fringe topics might attract more sockpuppets than articles on more mundain topics, it is a different issue from a policy point of view, and we already have a clear guideline on sockpuppetry.  As for wp:RS... all we really need to say is that the need to cite to reliable sources applies to all Wikipedia articles, and that includes articles on fringe topics. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin asking for suggestions in draft
Arthur Rubin, I'm having trouble in the draft separating it into the original sections, because so much relates to both articles on fringe topics and articles with fringe topics in them. So that may not quite work. However, what really needs doing is to say where the guideline is coming from in terms of policy, and to keep the issues separated.

As to what in the guideline needs to change in terms of meaning: not much. However:

We need to do some major talking about the Parity of sources section. I have some new thinking on it, but first I would like to have more feedback about the justification for it which I wrote into the draft. That's important. Here.

Other than that, probably not much change. I do insist that we keep the bit about not debunking- sorry (:

I do agree with the IP that while the meaning doesn't need changing, the layout of the ideas is just too muddled to fix the current version.

So please, give me some feedback on Parity, and also read the new draft- I think you will see that it keeps the essence, while also making things just a bit stronger. For example, in the Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories section I added "Even when reliable sources mention a fringe theory, Wikipedia may not include the theory if its prominence in the sources is very low." —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we please keep comments and questions that relate to the sandbox draft to the talk page for the sandbox draft... this way people know what is being talked about. When the sandbox draft is in final form, it can be presented here, until then it just confuses matters to mix the two. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories wiki proposal
There is a proposal for the creation of a fringe theories wiki at Wikia. You can join in that discussion if you wish. Discussion link --Shambola (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The proper place to discuss this is at Wikia itself, and not here or at the Wikipedia article about Wikia. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Please discuss the proposal at this linked page: Discussion link. --Shambola (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this guideline
Does this guideline apply only to fringe science topics, or does it apply to minority or fringe ideas in any field ? For example, does it apply to articles on minority religions, such as Discordianism, or to articles on minority political beliefs, such as anarchism ? This question has arisen in discussions of the Seth Material article, which is certainly not a fringe science topic (as it makes no scientifically testable assertions), but may be a fringe idea within its own field of mediumship and channeling (although how one can distinguish fringe from mainstream in that field is far from clear to me). Gandalf61 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It started as a guideline for Fringe science topics, but quickly to encompass any and all Fringe theories. In the case of Seth Material, both medumship and channeling are Fringe concepts (ie beyond the mainstream) and so are subject to the various cautions and strictures of this guideline.  Thus the same would apply to the Seth Material/
 * Remember that this guideline does not say that we should not have articles on Fringe topics... it mearly tells us that, in order for us to discuss it, a fringe topic has to have achieved a certain degree of recognition by the mainstream. Not acceptance by the mainstream... just recongition that the theory exists.  The guideline then goes on to tells us how we should discuss those fringe topics that do meet the recognition requirement.
 * Channeling and Medumship are definitely broad topics that have achieved enough recognition by the mainstream for us to discuss them in wikipeida... However, I have doubts as to whether the Seth Material itself has achieved such recongition. In other words, I think we are dealing with a specific Fringe idea, which falls within a more general fringe topic. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. And when you say "mainstream" here, do you always mean mainstream science ? Or could this be some other mainstream - mainstream religion, mainstream philosophy, mainstream politics, mainstream music, for example ? Gandalf61 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, when we use "mainstream" we are not limiting outselves to mainstream science... although for topics that involve science that would certainly apply. We use a broader meaning of the word to include: anything "belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc" (to use the definition found at Dictionary.com)... In other words, we use mainstream in its broadest sense of: ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay - but "most people" is terribly vague - do you mean "most of the people in the USA" ? "Most English speaking people" ? "Most people with a secondary education" ? "Most of the people in the world" even ? Taken across the world as a whole, "most people" have never heard of Ethelred the Unready or baroque music - does that make them "fringe topics" ? What objective benchmark do you think we can use to measure or determine "recognition by the mainstream" or "ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people" for non-scientfic topics such as Ethelred the Unready, baroque music, Seth Material, Discordianism or anarchism ? Gandalf61 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is no "objective benchmark" ... because it is a subjective concept. In the case of Ethelred, baroque music and anarchism, the mainstream would be what is accepted by the majority of people who have a basic understanding of history, music or political science.  The mainstream is guided by, but not defined by what experts in the field (scholars and the like) say.  Even an expert can come up with a theory that the mainstream rejects, and that theory will be considered Fringe.  More to the point, Ethelred, baroque music, and anarchism are considered "mainstream topics" because most people consider the broader field of study under which they fall to be acceptable topics of study.  That is less the case with the other two on your list.
 * In the case of Discordianism and Seth Material... these are both Fringe topics, because they both fall within broader fields of sudy which the majority considers somewhat Fringe to begin with (minority religious beliefs in the case of Discordianism, and spirit chanelling in the case of Seth Material). Yes, within the small group who study these topics, there may be accepted and non-accepted ideas, but the topics themselves are not accepted by the majority. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you don't want to clarify what you mean by "most people" or "the majority". So let's leave that to one side.
 * Let me see if I understand the rest of your post correctly. You seem to be saying that, outside of the area of science, there is no objective benchmark that separates fringe from mainstream. And so the definitions of fringe and mainstream are a matter of individual opinion, experience and taste - but the opinions of experts in a given field carry more weight than less informed opion. So when you say Discordianism and Seth Material are both fringe topics, is that your opinion as a lay person ? Or are you an expert in the fields of comparative religion and spirit channeling ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion as a lay person, as a member of the mainstream... which is exactly the point. "Mainstream" is determined by the opinions of lay people and not by experts.  Experts often inform what the mainstream thinks, but if they reject what the expert says then it isn't mainstream.  Sometimes the mainstream has not made up its mind on something (for example: was Jesus devine, or was he just a wise rabbi?  The mainstream is split between Christians non-Christians.  Both views are considered "mainstream")  Sometimes it has (Can you contact spirits through channelling?... the mainstream says no).  Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Can you contact spirits through channelling?... the mainstream says no" - does it really ? How do we know that ? Well, by your latest definition we need to consult the opinions of lay people - and there are a very large number of lay people who believe you can contact spirits through channeling. So just how many believers do you need for a belief to be "mainstream" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The key here is that there is a vastly larger number of people who do not believe in chaneling than who do believe in channeling. Like it or not, channeling is considered a Fringe concept.  However... and this is important... it is a notable Fringe concept.  The mainstream has definitely taken note of the concept of channeling and it has been discussed extensively in mainstream sources.  Thus, Wikipedia can and should discuss it.  The next question is... has the mainstream taken note of a specific aspect of spirit channeling?  Has it noted the existance of a specific medium, or a specific medium's claims about channeling.  In other words... while we certainly should have an article on the broad Fringe topic of Channeling, there is a legitimate question as to whether we should have an article on a specific medium or claim? Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A Google books search on 'pseudoscience psychic channeling' shows up some useful stuff from reliabile sources that puts channelling squarely within pseudoscience. dougweller (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how that is relevant, as I am asking about the definition of fringe topics outside of the science/pseudoscience field. And Seth Material is clearly not a science/pseudoscience topic, as the books make no testable scientific claims. There seems to be some confusion here between the contents of a book and its means of production - note that the Seth Material is not about channeling, although it was produced by channeling. If you are saying that Seth Material must be a pseudoscience topic because the books were produced by channeling, a pseudoscience method, then isn't this like saying that every book written on a computer must automatically be a computer science topic ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not produced by channelling, it was written by Jane Roberts. There is a claim that it was produced by channelling and that is pseudoscience. You're begging the question. dougweller (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how channeling is not testable. It seems testable to me, and therefore scientific. II | (t - c) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that some claims made for channeling may be testable, and the topic of channeling itself is a pseudoscience topic. But the Seth Material article is not about channeling and it makes not claims about channeling. It is about the background, contents and critical reaction to a set of books. The books themselves are spiritual/philosophical/religious in nature - nothing in them seems to be scientifically testable.
 * But this is a side issue - perhaps we can return to the main topic of this thread. I still see no clear definition here of what separates fringe from mainstream outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience. Blueboar made a brave attempt with his suggestions that mainstream is "ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people" and "what is accepted by the majority of people who have a basic understanding of ". However, both of these definitions are too vague and subjective to be useful yardsticks, because we don't have an agreed context for "most people" or "the majority", and we don't know what counts as a "basic understanding". Can anyone else do better ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to reitterate something here... the "mainstream" does not have to accept or believe a fringe claim for Wikipedia to have an article or section of an article on that claim. The threshold is discussion by mainstream sources, not acceptance by the mainsteam. In this sense, WP:FRINGE is a notability guideline, clarifying and expanding upon the requirement at WP:NOTE that notability must be established by reference to reliable sources that are independant of the subject.  Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see - so the most important criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether a topic is "mainstream" (however we might define that), but whether it meets WP:NOTE. So, is WP:FRINGE a stricter requirement than WP:NOTE ? Or is it a commentary that clarifies the application of WP:NOTE in certain situations - like we have at WP:PROF and WP:BIO, for example ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say it is both. It is a guideline that clarifies and expands upon WP:NOTE.  While it is rooted in NOTE, it does lay out slightly stricter standards than NOTE does. It also goes beyond NOTE in that in addition to laying out the inclusion criteria, it also discusses how to discuss Fringe topics that meet the inclusion criteria.  Thus, it can be seen as being both a notability guideline and a content guideline.  It is a synthesis of NOTE, RS, and the UNDUE section of NPOV, as these policies and guidelines apply to Fringe theories and concepts. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So naturally my next question would be - for any particular article, how do I know whether to apply WP:NOTE et al or the stricter WP:FRINGE. And I guess the answer is "WP:FRINGE applies to articles about fringe topics". But that's where I came in - just how do you define fringe and mainstream, outside of the fields of science and pseuodscience. And on that point your latest definition was "mainstream is determined by the opinions of lay people, as long as a vastly larger number of people do not believe something else".
 * Now that's not really a very satisfactory definition, is it ? Leaving aside the vagueness of "vastly larger number", it is just impossible to apply that yardstick to an article like covenant theology, to pick a random example, because the vast majority of lay people will have absolutely no idea whether they agree with it or not, on account of not having spent much time thinking about the three theological covenants or the six Biblical covenants etc. etc.
 * So, once we leave the safe haven of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, no-one seems to know which articles this guideline should be applied to. That's not a very good situation, is it ? Gandalf61 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you determine if something you are working on is fringe? My answer would be... if you have to ask, it's Fringe. Seriously, if there is any question as to whether something is mainstream or fringe... treat it as if it were fringe. Our articles are never hurt by applying stricter standards. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you are proposing a two-part definition:
 * Every topic should be treated as a fring topic unless it it is unquestionably a mainstream topic.
 * Mainstream is determined by the opinions of lay people, as long as a vastly larger number of people do not believe something else.
 * Does everyone else agree with that definition ? Shall I put that it into the guideline text ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am definitly not proposing any such definition. I don't think we can or should try to so clearly define either of these terms, fringe or mainstream. I am reminded of the comment made by a the Justices of the US Supreme Court when asked to define pornography... he said "I know it when I see it".  I know this does not help you, but that's as good as I can give. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you want to leave the key terms in this guideline undefined and entirely subjective (outside of the fields of science and psedoscience, of course). I must say I am very surprised by that response. If you say "X is an article about a fringe topic and is therefore required to conform to WP:FRINGE" and someone else says "No, X is about a mainstream topic, and is therefore only required to conform to WP:NOTE et al.", how then do you propose to resolve that difference of opinion ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct... I do want to leave them undefined. As for disputes, I don't propose to resolve them.  At least not at the policy/guideline level.  Our policies and guidelines should give broad sweep principals, not clear cut, black and white definitions (See: WP:The rules are principles, an excellent essay on this).  To resolve disputes, I would turn to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard (WP:FTN).  If two people disagree as to whether something is Fringe or not, they can ask there.  Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Taking questions of scope to WP:FTN is a process of sorts, I suppose. I am not yet convinced it is the most practical approach, but I am willing to give it a try. Do you have any objections if I mention this process in the guideline text and in the rubric on the WP:FTN page - something along the lines of "If there is any doubt as to whether a given topic is fringe or mainstream, this question should be raised at the Fringe Theories Noitceboard to determine consensus" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the notice at the top of the page to read: "For questions or help with specific examples, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.". That should cover it. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this also needs to mentioned in Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Header, because at the moment those instructions focus on reporting breaches rather than giving advice. Anyway, I have added a sentence there too. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit
I have reverted the recent deletion by Science Apologist pending discussion here on the talk page.(olive (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
 * I have no problem with SA's edit. He actually deleted very little... I see it more along the lines of a rewrite in more concise language. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 9. I have warned you about posting ignorant edit summaries. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SA, if the editors here feel its OK to delete large pieces of info as you did, that's fine. They are commenting, as is appropriate. One usually enters a comment on the talk page when one makes such editorial moves, and you did not. You have never warned me about posting "ignorant" edit summaries, and in fact I do not post such summaries. Your comments are somewhat misplaced. I note that it is not your place to warn another editor in the tone you just did as if you somehow are speaking from some higher place than the other editors here. Its always a mistake to underestimate the intelligence, knowledge and experience of others, I find. One learns that very quickly when teaching. I watch the policy /guideline pages as I have mentioned to you before as I am very interested in collaboration and the rules that guide collaborative communities. I will continue to do that, and I will continue to question the kinds of moves you have just made should you continue to do so. Thanks. Always insightful.(olive (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia is ultimately not a collaborative community. It's an encyclopedia that some people think is a social networking site. Collaboration can only work when people are able to contribute meaningfully. Your interest in collaboration is fine for you, but it should not be driving your activities here. Be a fly on the wall if you want to study collaborative communities, but don't impose yourself. If I'm guilty of speaking from authority, you are hypocritically guilty of the same since you demanded collaboration without actually checking to see that it happened. That's why your comment was ignorant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we read through the discussion which SA describes (Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_9), the first thing to note is that SA didn't participate in the discussion (even though he was asked a direct question about NPOV). The second thing to note is that the version which SA has recently reverted to did not have a total consensus as written. Please read the archives and consider adjusting the Project article to reflect what was actually discussed and agreed upon there. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I remembered that ScienceApologist is currently banned from editing this article ( - for 30 days beginning Nov. 4. He was banned specifically for edit warring over this guideline, making the very same edits which has edit warred over today (just 27 days into his 30-day ban). Perhaps this 30-day ban has been lifted? If so, I am unaware of it. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SA, I know, that you know, that I know, that you know, that Wikipedia self defines as both an encyclopedia and as collaborative.My interest in collaboration leads me to keep in my sights the policies and guidelines since Wikipedia is changing rapidly, they help "guide" the community in its editing practices, and they may have to adjust to suit the growing community. My interest in collaborative communities does not lead me to impose on the editing practices here.


 * My interest in following the suggested practices for editing as I did in reverting your deletion was in aid of supporting the practice that will best define this somewhat contentious article/guideline, that is, talk about it first. That is a standard editing strategy. Had I wanted to make a substantial edit,I would have checked the discussion and archives. I didn't. I simply asked for discussion for a substantial deletion.(olive (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
 * FYI, has been blocked for 48 hours, for violating his ArbCom enforcement ban. See Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. --Elonka 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really going to tamp down drama. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proportionality
ThuranX says I'm not reading edit summaries any more; maybe so, I seem to be getting frazzled, and didn't read my own where I did a self-ref to fringe instead of my intended ref to WP:UNDUE. My point is that instead of "proportional", we need to allow for articles on fringe topics, with respect to which UNDUE says "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views can receive more attention and space." By inserting proportionality, ScienceApologist seeks to cast his preferred vision of wikipedia into policy. I don't know how to work on this without mentioning him and what he is trying to accomplish by such changes. Enough for today... Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we need some way of indicating that this guideline is subordinate to and an extension of WP:VALID. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A little emphasis in the lede
I've added these two sentences to the lede to emphasize that stating that few or no studies exist when that is the case is not WP:OR even without a citation. Believe it or not, somebody asked for a citation for something like that. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done. Most of this guideline was written due to people asking for citations for obvious principles. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I like it, so I took it back for now. It says one can say that "little scientific evidence exists", without a source, if I read it right.  When is that appropriate, and why?  Is there policy that supports that?  What kind of topics do we want to add that to?  Examples?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

JUSTIFICATION requested
Please provide justification for this reversion:. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like putting "fringe" in front of theory in a few places was unnecessary, and made it appear that theory would need to be categorized as fringe or not before the statement would apply. Is that what you had intended?  If so, who makes the categorization decision?  Or more generally, who not explain your intent, per WP:BRD ?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted an explanation, but if you would like mine consider the fact that this guideline is about fringe theories, not other theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So that leaves me even more confused. On the one hand, adding "fringe" inside in various places seems redundant; on the other hand, it supports the idea that one has to decide whether a theory is fringe before letting this guideline play a role.  So I presume the latter is what you intend, yes?  So my question again: who decides, or how do we decide, which theories this guideline applies to?  The changes are in a section called "Identifying fringe theories," but that's not what they're about; they read to me as sensible policies for all theories; are you saying we need to indentify theories as fringe, or otherwise these are inapplicable paragraphs?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The guideline is meant to be about fringe theories, not about all theories. Specificity is important for reason you guessed at. This guideline applies across Wikipedia, but it does not apply to theories which are not fringe theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, actually, that entire paragraph is just a variation of wp:undue, with or without the added 'fringe' words. I suggest we delete the entire paragraph and replace it with a link, as a way of trimming CREEP.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this section,with the original language has proven useful in coming to fair compromise solutions in the case of disputed articles. I think we should retain this section. I think the suggestions of changing the wording are perhaps attempts and  actual balance here. The language worksvery well as it it. The present status of fringe theories is I think to most of us an acceptable compromise. We've had enough problems getting to the present state that we should leave well enough alone--and Is ay this to the people at both of the extremes. DGG (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with DGG. The language is effective as is; it's not like someone can really point to the weight of sources for the theory of evolution and declare it a Fringe theory, while even treated as a 'theory', there's nothing past the 16th century which makes Flat Earth thinking look like anything but fringe, and so it shouldn't be regarded in any serious means. I understand the desire to specifically apply the proportion idea to the Fringe Theories, but as this is the Fringe guideline, I think it's fairly reasonable that many are reading instances of 'theories' with the understandign we refer to Fringe theories here. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * well, I will say that I am (mildly) disturbed by the extent to which this particular passage is distributed across various guidelines and policies. if memory serves, there is some variation of the 'proportion to the level of detail' statement in at least four policies/guidelines, and multiple instances in a couple of those.  I'd have to check to get an accurate count, but you see the point.  this will eventually (and I'd argue already has) lead to confusion as different versions get edited differently by different 'special purpose' editors.  at the very least, I think it would be good to link each instance of this language back to the core statement (if we can even figure out what the core statement is at this point) to prevent some weird form of policy drift.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that synchronizing our various policies & guidelines is an important goal, but we won't do this by modifying them in isolation. The policies tend to have different aspects according to the questions which have arisen in a particular context, and the language sometimes reflects it. More important, a discrepancy between different statements can indicate that the true consensus is somewhere in the middle. We may in fact have in some cases the greatest consistency we are likely to be able to agree on--some variations this way is an inevitable result of our intrinsically decentralized manner. DGG (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I may be confused, but on reading this section it seems to me that most people don't really care if we add two adjectives to the third paragraph of the first section. However, the sentences added to the first paragraph may be more controversial. I'm not sure, people are not being totally clear. I added the words back to see if there are any objections. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it matters whether we say "fringe theories" or just "theories"... I don't see the meaning changing in any significant way, no matter which we phrasing we use. Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * lol - SA... are you seriously trying to tell us that you're 'confused' by the multiple reverts that you got on this (not to mention the reverts you got the other times you've tried to introduce this change)?  I know that 'acting dumb' is a time-honored way of getting away with stuff as a tool for getting away with stuff, but you should be careful.  if it becomes habitual it's no longer acting .  but to play along: Yes, SA, I think that adding the 'fringe' words is both unnecessary and potentially harmful, and I would prefer that they not be there.  now that there is no longer any confusion on this, can we continue the discussion without any further fuss and bother?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is essentially nothing more than a personal attack. I guess it's okay to do that to me, though. Now that you've stated your objection, can you offer an explanation? What make adding two words so harmful? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, yes, SA, I understand. you and others are going to accuse me of making personal attacks (regardless of what I say) in most every post you make, and eventually use that to game an admin into blocking me again (much as you all have done in the past).  nothing I can do about that, really, so such is life.  I'm not here on Wikipedia because I need to be, SA, or because I have some agenda to pursue; I'm here because it's an interesting way to spend time, and I have a lot I can contribute.  If you get me blocked, it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine.


 * in the meantime, though, I'll try to answer your question as best I can, and try not to use any form of humor (no matter how good-natured) when addressing you, since my humor always seems to fail with you. What we have is a passage that applies very well in articles in general - so much so that it's already part of policy elsewhere - added into a policy about fringe topics.  thus, on one side it's already clear that the passage is supposed to apply to fringe topics, which makes further specification utterly redundant. on the other side, the specification adds a degree of confusion to policy (creating the impression that the passage only applies to fringe topics, and not to other kinds of content), a kind of confusion which is actively fostered on some articles.


 * in short, there's no gain here, and a clear potential for problems through the creation of a kind of loophole which some editors are already inclined to use. therefore I'm opposed to the change.  response?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with DGG too. The language works, and there is no need to fix what isn't broken, so lets leave it the way it is. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which bit? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The bit referred to in the first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth... comment in this talk section. I.e. the 'Identifying fringe theories' section. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree all around. SA is confused and we don't need the extra words. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is about fringe theories, there's no harm using the word.I note the argument against has changed from being harmful to potentially harmful. I've yet to see either elucidated convincingly. I don't agree that the passage can be construed as only applying to fringe theories and not others. Kevin McCready (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, please don't read into my minor word changes. I would personally prefer to continue using the word 'harmful', but that would require proof of actual harm, which (if I provided it) would inflame tempers and cause all sorts of needless aggravation.  so I left it at 'potential for harm' with the assurance that potentialities will become realities.  -- Ludwigs 2  08:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(speaking of justification, please excuse the de-indent) I see no reason to make this change; it's redundant. The paragraph is a straight recap of WP:WEIGHT, which applies to all theories, fringe and otherwise. What purpose does adding "fringe" serve? Those who want to make the change, I think, ought to convincingly answer that question, rather than demand to know what's so bad about making the change. (I'm kind of a cautious incrementalist about changing policies/guidelines, and think that WP:BURDEN pretty much applies here even though it's not article space. I also find SA's entire approach above unnecessarily confrontational, and thin on addressing the simple question of why the proposed edit is a good idea.)  --Middle 8 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why this guideline is not about "theories in general"
This is a guideline about fringe theories. The paragraph under dispute above is discussing "fringe theories". It is not discussing other theories. Since "fringe theories" are not technically "theories" in many senses of the word, it actually does harm to lump all possible "theories" with this term. For example, conspiracy theories are fringe theories, but they are generally not scientific theories. Guidelines for dealing with "all" theories would necessitate some means of making both scientific theories and conspiracy theories part of the same category. I cannot come up with any category to which both scientific theories and conspiracy theories belong. Please identify it. (The best I can do is say that both scientific theories and conspiracy theories begin as ideas -- but a scientific theory is much more than an idea and a conspiracy theory is also much more than an idea, though in a different sense.) ScienceApologist (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * SA, the answer to your question is really fairly simple. let's start with the dictionary definition on my computer (Oxford American):"Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."  right there you see that a theory (in the general sense) is any thought system intended to be explanatory, while scientific theories would fall under the 'special' sense of the word, in that they base themselves on independent general principles.  pseudoscientific or fringe theories, thus, are theories that are believed to be (or at least presented as) based on general principles, when in fact they are not.  If you ever gird your loins and listen to a real conspiracy theory buff, this is exactly what you'll hear: a long stream of reasoning that would (in itself) be perfectly reasonable except that it's based on a set of principles and assumptions that are loony/paranoid.


 * the problem with your desire to split categories, here, is that the split isn't driven by conceptual concerns; it's driven by value judgements. it's a way to 'ghettoize' fringe theories because they're 'bad' theories that detract from 'good' scientific theories.  but that value judgement doesn't hold water.  the distinction you really want to make is over the bad use of theories that are in-and-of-themselves innocuous.  For instance, if we take a clear fringe theory like creation science, the theory itself is not a problem (it's a cultural referent point for people of Abrahamic faiths, who often find inspiration in it whether or not they believe it's true).  the problem comes from a group of fanatical advocates who tried to use the theory in an effort to illicitly reinstate Christian values in public schools.  the theory is fine, the advocates are misguided, and the use of theory in that way is bad because it confounds sound reasoning.  but you see, you can say the same thing about any theory: chemistry is fine, but the use of chemistry to make weapons of mass destruction is bad (even if it's considered necessary, it's still recognized as bad because it confounds moral reasoning).  do you see my point?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

finally, someone who makes sense. Thank you for the comment Ludwigs, its about time i've seen someone with an NPOV point of view in the matter of editing articles (most editors that continually state that something isnt NPOV because it supposedly supports the "fringe" theory are not NPOV when editing).--GundamMerc (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the word theory is equivocal and the word subject is not, I have replaced the words in the guideline. Thanks for your input. Fringe theories are marginalized because this is a mainstream reference work. You are free to start a fringe reference work that treats marginalized ideas differently if you'd like. We'll continue to make people who want to see fringe theories treated "kindly" feel bad simply because that's the way to do it neutrally, verifiably, and reliably. Creation science is not a theory. It's a subject, but theory it is not. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should change this guideline to be called "Fringe subjects" rather than "Fringe theories", because if we don't consider Creation science a theory, then how can we apply a guideline called "Fringe theories" to it? How? Well, I think perhaps the community thinks of the word "theory" in its most general definition: speculation, conjecture, a possibility, an assumed hypothesis for the sake of investigation or argument. In fact, by stating that "Creation science" is not a theory (but merely a "subject"), we are actually applying our own POV and not the required NPOV of Wikipedia. "Creation science" - as absurd as it may seem to god-less scientists like you and me, SA - is still a theory; for it still offers a (remotely) possible explanation of things. Now whether or not "Creation science" is actually a science is another argument apart from whether or not it is a theory or a subject. I think perhaps we are conflating the two arguments here.


 * One thing I did realize while typing this is, you're right, SA - Creation science is a subject. However it is a subject which offers a theories. Actually, it is a subject which offers many theories. Similarly, Astonomy is not a theory but just a subject, however, it is a subject which offers a lot of theories. Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to me it doesn't. Concur with SciAp. (I really should not be commenting here since I advocate junking this altogether.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ah, me. I don't really care about the subject/theory distinction (though it strikes me as being petty and argumentative).  I do care, however, about SAs line: "We'll continue to make people who want to see fringe theories treated "kindly" feel bad", both for the imperial 'we' and the implicit threat.  I'll be bringing this up over at ArbCom.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevant proposal at WP:NOR
I have introduced a policy proposal at WP:NOR that has some bearing on the treatment of fringe theories. Please join the discussion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note... discussion is now in NOR archives. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific procedure
I think there could be a little more about the procedure that traditional scholars go through to come to their conclusions. There could also be more about how frige theorist fail to do this. This could also be put on articles that debunk fringe theorists, for example Zecharia Sitchin promotes a planet with a 3,600 year orbit. It might be a good idea to point out that this ignores the habitable zone for life. This is probably already on wikipedia somewhere. If not I'll put it there when I get a chance, I'm sure I have a reputable source. In othere words I think it would be a good idea to provide a better explanation why they are considered fringe so that people will be able to figure this out better on their own. While doing this it would incolve pointing out scientific principles. Some of this could be added to this page but I'll wait for input first. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there was no objection I added a little to this article that I believe fits with what I previously mentioned. good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While your addition was reasonably correct on the face of it, it would be problematic to put in this guideline. It is not WP's job to determine whether something is fringe, or to debunk it, but rather to report whether it is described as such, and if so, why (if this is done well, the scientific problems/contradictions will be clear to the reader).


 * You may wish to consider incorporating some of that content into the article about fringe science, as there are whole fields of study devoted to what makes them so, etc. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The History of Racism, and the Racism of History
There are places where the rules on minority opinions get a little sticky. The policy of discounting something being a minority view, though necessary in many or most cases, leaves room for a lot of discrimination, as with any such policy with minority views. For one, what if the majority view is racist or discriminatory? Lets ask the simple question - would any scholarly historical research before 1960 that involves anthropology and history of the non western world be considered reliable? In fact scholarly opinion was devoted to racism. As George Orwell said, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." Academic institutions were greatly devoted to establishing the supremacy of the "White" race, by crediting everything to "white" and "western" peoples, and belittling everyone else. Anything before 1960 is suspect. Much of the foundations of history continue, and the intellectual establishment relies on it. We should not think highly of ourselves and consider today any different from a few decades ago - biases are biases.

Furthermore, and this is where it gets more complicated, what is "mainstream"? India, China and Africa have a relative fraction of the academic establishment that Europe and the United States have. This adds another item of supremacy - the dominance of the West. Even if the foremost academic in Eritrea were to claim something, would that be considered even "notable", when there is little accredited intellectual establishment (forgetting the example, focusing on the point)? NittyG (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy change/Expansion
With all the above said, I'll reproduce policy from this article:

In cases where racism or other such biases are apparent, that be included as a minority view, along the lines of what the guidelines above. This is a serious issue. What do people think? NittyG (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

An example to work with
This was brought to my attention with my editing of an article, one of many I and others will likely do in adding view of systemic biases. This can serve as a context to the discussion on this issue, but I will separate it from the discussions that are taking place on that article.

I've been trying to make an update to the article on Euclid, where this exact situation is taking place. To give an overview, I reworked the article to include work done by C.K. Raju. He claims, using sound evidence, that Euclid was a figment of history. This may seem outrageous, but one has to understand - whole histories have been created that are outrageous to this day (see Origins of Tutsi and Hutu for the part racist history played in the Rwandan Genocide).

Here are the points I'm making on this subject:


 * With the above said, all of the key scholarly research devoted to Euclid, which have been referenced in this article is before 1960, in fact much earlier.
 * The primary scholar, who all references point to, including the wikipedia article, were blatantly racist. Heath simply discounted Arab primary references of him being Arab as the "Arab tendency to romance". If this were a court case, the evidence would be thrown out immediately.
 * Now, look at this objectively. Would you cite all the evidence that Jews were inferior using Mein Kamf - from a notable author, or from the pre-1960 mainstream anthropological evidence that Blacks had smaller brains, all of which were contemporaneous with Heath and Rouse Ball? The bulk of scholarly knowledge at that time was devoted to racism, anti-Semitism and Eugenics. As Heath was a British civil servant at the heights of the British Empire, that is for the numerous peoples colonized and ravaged by the British, like quoting a German civil servant during the Third Reich on the subject of history. We should apply the same regard one has about these topics as we would with this. What Heath said, perfectly acceptable at the time, was completely outrageous and deeply offensive. Anyone who uses him as a a completely reliable reference is excusing racism and having double standards. We should regard such people for what they're worth, not discriminating against them in return, and likewise make exceptions to the minority opinions when it is based on a majority bias.

Personally, as I noted above under "Policy change/Expansion", I feel that CK Raju's work should be included, as I put it, as a minority view, as explicated in the above policy quotes.

NittyG (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * NittyG's is not challenging or discussing Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy, but rather is opening a second front, on this page, in his campaign to inject material into the Euclid article that is contrary to all established reliable sources, which has been going on since January. To give a fair overview of this content dispute, if one can call it that, he should have pointed to the discussion that has gone on thus far at Talk:Euclid, where the debate belongs, and previously at Talk:Euclid and Talk:Euclid.


 * Raju is a computer scientist, but promotes himself as a polymath and revolutionary thinker. You can judge for yourself by taking a look at his own web site—which includes a panel of fragments of quotions (without citations to a published source) as "Reactions" to his work, in the style of motion picture advertisements—and in Web cites that he links, and also at Dia-Gnosis and the links there.


 * On most of his published views, he is a minority of one, and of no notability. He claims to have found errors in Einstein's relativity equations, a claim no reliable source has corroborated. He would "reform" the basic equations of physics to include time travel. He also maintains that the underlying paradigm of mathematics should change from its current mathematical rigor to one of emperical problem solving. He is pushing a point of view that the accepted hisory of mathematics is the result of a conspiracy of Western Europeans to diminish the contributions of India and other cultures. He claims that Indian mathematicians developed calculus a few centuries before Newton and Liebnitz, and that Euclid is imaginary (and that all the scholars misinterpreted the source of his name). In short, he is classic WP:FRINGE. Finell (Talk) 04:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right about this being fringe, as I have repeatedly admitted, but I am attempting to gain a wider discussion here on the issue. I am not trying to simply push an issue on one article. I am using this one as an example to work with. This is not specifically about CK Raju. Things are meaningless if they are done abstractly, without some context to work with.
 * Also, I have made this clear - I fought against the article and anything on "Uclides". That was certainly the POV of from that author.
 * If you wish to discuss this issue, either under the broader issue I explicated above, or under the example I am giving here, then discuss the points I am making (which still has not been done), namely - What what if the majority opinion and the "reliable sources" are clearly racist, sexist, ethnocentric, or dominating? In this case what are called "reliable" sources threw out evidence in the sourced articles on racist grounds. If you are judging a source from 1908 from a British civil servant who in the source that is cited claims that Arabs cannot be trusted for their "tendency to romance", to be reliable, you are holding double standards and regarding racism as a means of scholarly opinion. Please be a little more honest with yourself and look at this objectively and deeply. Even the most strict rules require wisdom. The policy expansion I am proposing is completely reasonable and based on deeper common ethics. NittyG (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If a citable reliable source says that "the majority opinion and the 'reliable sources' are clearly racist, sexist, ethnocentric, or dominating," that could be included in a Wikipedia article. If no citable reliable source has published a statement to that effect, the judgment is most likely in error. In any event, the sound policy against publishing original research forbids us from including such a judgment without citation to a reliable source; a fringe source is, by definition, not a reliable source. Wikipedia's policies, taken as a whole and applied sensibly, assure the reliability of information in Wikipedia where those policies are followed. Wikipedia's reliability suffers when editors fail to follow those policies. The last thing Wikipedia needs is to lower its standards.


 * Regarding your example of Heath, you fail to realize that other reputable scholars of the history of mathematics all over the world, who do not blindly accept what other scholars have written, conclude that Euclid existed, was Greek, and wrote the works attributed to him. The Muslim mathematicians, who preserved and analyzed and translated Euclid's writings, obviously accepted that Euclid existed and understood the worth of his work (otherwise, they would not have bothered mastering it)—and we have them to thank for re-transmitting it to the West after the West emerged from its Dark Ages, together with the Muslim mathematicians' development of algebra and the Indo-Arabic numeral system. That gift from the Muslim mathematicians, in turn, led to the Western European Renaissance in mathematics.


 * Heath, whom you dismiss as a "a British civil servant," is the leading authority on mathematics in the classical era who writes in the English language. Have you, by any chance, read Heath's edition of Elements, with his lengthy historical introduction and extensive commentaries? Or his A History of Greek Mathematics? Or any of his many other books? If not, on whom are you relying for your opinion of him? Finell (Talk) 02:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fringe, and can only be mentioned as such. Heath, like many 19th century UK scholars, was a government administrator. Doesn't make him less of a scholar, necessarily. However it is in general a very good idea to look for more recent references. The 19th c. is the birth of modern classical studies, not its culmination. If modern works make positice statements about his birth, they probably need to be qualified. Euclid's actual origins is a mystery--the most current reference work, the marvelous Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists ed. by Keyser & Irby-Massie, 2008, says ""We have remarkably little personal information about Euclid" p. 304. and does not give either firm dates or a birthplace.  I will l add this statement to the article, along with the small amount addition of what it says of relevance. As with most discussions of Euclid, their article is 95% about the works ascribed to him.  DGG (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you help DGG.
 * As I said, we should not in turn discriminate against those who discriminate. I think we should still cite Heath's work on its own right, judging it for what it does provide.
 * But this is the key point I am making:
 * We should be aware of when there are systemic biases. We should point out when there is reason to believe that a point an author is making or leaving out, or an author in general is biased or dominating.
 * By repeating that wikipedia should use reliable sources according to the policies on reliable sources is going in circles. The point I am making is that the policy needs to be expanded. This will not diminish the quality of wikipedia as being well-rounded - it will increase it significantly.
 * It is contradictory to claim we need "reliable sources" to claim that the "reliable sources" and "majority" opinion is biased. Of course this goes into some deeper philosophies, but we should be able to agree on what suggests bias based on what is commonly agreed as bias.
 * In this case, we do not need a "reliable source" to say that the claim that "Arabs have a tendency to romance" and cannot be trusted is racist. We can use our own judgment, as we often, in fact always do. Taking this further, we should in this case point out in the article a key source as having a racial bias and why.
 * NittyG (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)