Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 12

Notability versus acceptance
I see a problem with the approach that this section takes towards the labeling of material as a pseudoscience. It states: "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." There is a serious problem with this, because it implies a level of centralized direct, literal speech that simply has no mechanism within the scientific community. Put another way, yhe scientific community generally does not take the time to literally label every fringe theory a pseudoscience in a specific announcement. However, the scientific community does have a way of expressing whether something is even being considered as a having the possibility of being scientific, which is publication in mainstream academic journals. In a nutshell, not every article in a mainstream journal is correct or represents accepted science, but it does represent something of interest that the scientific community believes may be of scientific value. If a 'theory' is not new and if it is well known and has never been the subject of a significant body of publication in mainstream journals, lack of mainstream academic publication is the way the overall scientific community states that something is not considered science. In other words, if there is a theory which has many proponents outside of the scientific mainstream, a lack of mainstream publication on the topic implies that every relevant mainstream journal has rejected the theory at the most basic level: it is not even worth of serious scientific consideration. If the scientific community does not consider it to be scientific and if its proponents claim it to be, it is by definition a pseudoscience. I thus suggest that we clarify the criterion above.

It aught to state something to the effect that "In most cases the lack of a significant body of publication in mainstream scientific journals on the subject of a well-known fringe theory is sufficient evidence of lack of scientific acceptance for the theory to be labeled a pseudoscience. In this case the scientific journal databases used to establish this fact should be cited.  However, if the theory is especially new, or if it has simply not come to the attention of the scientific community for other reasons, this evidence may not be sufficient. Finally, publication in mainstream journals does not necessarily demonstrate acceptable of a theory; rather the lack of publication demonstrates a lack of acceptance."

The wording above is clunky and poor; but I think we need something along these lines. Right now, any fringe theory that is too ridiculous or minor to even be commented upon from within the scientific community is effectively immune from the pseudoscience designation. In other words, the present policy allows only the least extreme pseudosciences to be labeled pseudoscience and protects the most extreme. Locke9k (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If a reliable source can not be found to say a subject is pseudoscience then Wikipedia editors should not take it upon themselves to determine it is pseudoscience. See WP:V. Full stop. Ward20 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. And note that Locke9k is currently insisting upon labeling Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience based upon his own personal beliefs despite the fat that a pretty reliable source says merely that it sometimes can be pseudoscience and sometimes can be useful science depending upon how it is practiced. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assertion isn't relevant to this page, and as you will see if you return to that discussion and read my responses, I have shown that you picked one quote out of an entire chapter source in a way that took it out of context and did not fairly represent their overall report on the topic. Locke9k (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If a fringe theory is too ridiculous or minor to have anyone call it a pseudoscience yet (or some term not the same but similar, which can be used that way in the article) then it's undoubtedly too ridiculous or too minor to have a Wikipedia article (or be mentioned in one) in the first place, per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with advocates of fringe theories
Is this correct? The following is a comment of mine copied from here:


 * You say you are "not an advocate", but your writing says otherwise. That you have a POV on the subject, even an advocate's POV, is itself not a problem. We all have POV. It's when it causes you to perform original research synthesis violations, and without reliable sources, that the problem becomes evident. I have no doubt that you are trying to improve the article, but this isn't the way to do it. This is a fringe subject that is covered by our fringe theories guideline:


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


 * Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.


 * That's why articles like this are treated differently than articles about proven ideas. In articles like this, mainstream sources (like Quackwatch) are given preeminence over fringe sources, and mainstream POV is also given preeminence over fringe POV. NPOV requires that all significant POV are presented, but fringe POV, being unsupported by scientific evidence, take a backseat to mainstream POV. Proven and unproven ideas are not given equal weight. Promoters of fringe POV should be glad that their ideas are even allowed to be presented here. It happens because Wikipedia's goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge and experience, but it must be done using verifiable and RS. If it isn't documented in such sources, and is only presented in fringe sources, then it gets very little, if any, coverage here. That's the way it works here. If you want to change that, then take your concerns and questions to the Fringe theories Noticeboard. Good luck in your future here. There's alot to learn, and learning to edit here according to our policies and guidelines is an education that will benefit you in many ways.

-- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was OK until you got to the last paragraph, which sounds like ScienceApologist's failed proposal for "Scientific Point of View" (SPOV) and "Mainstream", which were attempts to warp NPOV to give precedence to anti-fringe sources over fringe sources. It's better to stick with NPOV, where all viewpoints can be reported, and there doesn't need to be a cencensus as to whether an idea is fringe or not, or whether it is proven or not.  An article on a fringe topic should report on the topic, both from the point of view of its supporters and from the point of view of its detractors.  Just because Quackwatch is a detractor of an idea doesn't mean they get automatic priority to frame the article, or that the topic should be presented as fringe or unproven; of course, it usually should also not be presented as mainstream or proven; just report all viewpoints, with attribution. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that NPOV still rules. Interestingly, even within our V & RS policies, mainstream views will usually dominate, since fringe subjects are often poorly sourced. As far as QW goes, of course it won't always be the best source. If there are better ones, we should use them, and since QW is usually about alternative medicine subjects, the "medical and scientific facts" part is governed by MEDRS, while the controversies part will often benefit with sourcing to QW or the sources it uses. BTW, have you followed along in the latest developments regarding QW as a RS? Here are a couple links:


 * RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery: The consensus is that it may be used as a source under the same rules and precautions that govern the use of any other RS. It is an obviously notable source that is highly regarded by the mainstream (no criticisms) and villified by the fringe/alternative side, which is to be expected -- it exposes their unscientific practices, scams, and other illegal activities.


 * Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal: The amendment removed the false charge against me of having used "unreliable" sources (QW), and it vindicated QW by removing the description of it as being "unreliable". Justice was finally done after two years!


 * -- Brangifer (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

user pages used as fringe articles
What about turning one's user page into a Wikipedia article that's been deleted from mainspace, per consensus that it's crackpot? I'm thinking of User:Iberomesornix. After this article was rejected, the editor recreated it on his user page and attempted to link to it from mainspace; just now another (?) editor used it as a source for adding some of the content back into mainspace. Would I be out of line in deleting the user page?

I asked at Wikipedia talk:User page, but there hasn't been much response. As for the fringiness (besides the socks, personal attacks, the paranoia, and the fact that these accounts have claimed to be the "persecuted" authors of the crackpot hypothesis they're pushing), a prominent epigrapher who originally championed the idea that the Iberian script is found on the Canaries has with further discoveries changed his mind; and the Wikipedia editor(s) tie this in to a second fringe idea, that the Iberian language was Basque, which for evidence they include known Latin borrowings in Basque (like BAKE "peace", from Latin pace,) apparently unaware of this elementary error.

So, is this an appropriate use of one's user page? kwami (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say this usage goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of several points at WP:UP. In particular, wp not a free web hosting service for material deemed unfit to be included in the encyclopaedia, and irrelevant to any other valid wp purpose. I reckon it would stand a reasonable chance of being terminated if put through WP:MFD. A few of the current MfD noms seem in a similar vein. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Using user space to recreate a deleted article is not permitted, unless it is created in a substantially different form as a step toward writing a real mainspace article. You can inform the editor of this, and if you don't get a cooperative response, you can bring up the issue at WP:ANI.  This is disruptive editing, and MfD is not the right place to deal with that. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I asked at ANI. kwami (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep tabs on Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories
I note that this guideline point editors to the above article, as an example of how to write an article on a Fringe theory... With the 40th anniverary of the Moon landing upon us, that article is getting a lot of edits. That means we need to keep close eyes on it, to ensure that it does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please put it on your watch list. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Differentiating a fringe theory from a non-fringe view
This article does not give sufficient guidance on how to differentiate between a fringe theory and a non-fringe view, such as a mainstream view. I suggest that the article be modified so that more guidance is provided. The process of differentiation needs to be made more objective and less subjective so that individual editors cannot proclaim a view as being fringe in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The current system inadvertently allows individual editors to proclaim a view as being fringe without them having to provide justification, which gives them an undue amount of influence in preventing that view from being included in Wikipedia or otherwise getting sufficient coverage in Wikipedia. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Examples of where this has occurred might help us (or at lest me) understand your point. I've usually found the opposite to be the case. Cheers, Verbal   chat  20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit unusual that a brand new editor immediately comes to a policy page with changes to make, and hope this is simple coincidence, and not a blocked or banned user returning. I would also like examples wherein editors have unfairly proclaimed a non-fringe idea to be fringe unfairly. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I provided examples, I would be doing so arbitrarily since there is not sufficient guidance in the article. --Atomic blunder (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So be arbitrary. I agree that an example would help. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I will not provide an example. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since most editors seem to understand the difference between a fringe theory and a mainstream view, without at least one example of where they don't, I don't think we need to change anything.Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the difference between a fringe theory and a minority view (that is not a fringe theory). There is less of a distinction there and therefore could be a source of confusion. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at one level the differences are simple... a mainstream view is one held by the mainstream... a minority view is one that is accepted by the mainstream but held by a minority... and a Fringe view is something not accepted mainstream. I realize that this is essentially defining something by its opposite, and not all that helpful.  The problem is that what is Fringe is determined by Mainstream acceptance, and that will often be objected to by those who's views are rejected (few fringe advocates will think their theory should be considered fringe.) Also, what is and is not Fringe is very subject specific.  You can not draw parallels between why one theory is Fringe and another isn't.
 * This is why this guideline concentrates on whether something is notable, rather than whether it is Fringe. We assume that if you are reading this guideline, the theory you are thinking about is probably considered at least boarderline Fringe.  We shift the question from, "is it fringe?" to "can we discuss it even if it is Fringe?"  And that question is determined by notability... ie whether the mainstream has taken note of the theory... not agreed with it, mind you... just noted it in a serious manner. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your explanation:

"a mainstream view is one held by the mainstream... a minority view is one that is accepted by the mainstream but held by a minority... and a Fringe view is something not accepted mainstream."
 * is not included in the article, nor is an alternate explanation. Why don't you put it in? Also, I assume a minority view according to your explanation would receive more space in the article than a notable fringe theory. If so, that is another reason for clarifying the difference between the two in the article. I would think that a better discussion in the article would help to alleviate problems with fringe issues. --Atomic blunder (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the entire point of this guideline is that it does not really matter what one's definition of a Fringe theory is... no matter what the theory is, if reliable sources beyond the adherants of the theory itself have discussed it (even to disparage or debunk it), then it is appropriate to for us to have an article about it (or to discuss it as part of another related article), if reliable sources have not taken note of it, then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See my first post of this section. I suppose one could argue that the converse of my argument is true as well. That is just one more reason to modify the article. I have nothing further. It is clear that fringe issues in Wikipedia are a mess and will apparently continue to be so. Nobody wants to change anything. --Atomic blunder (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar. If the treatment of a topic depends on someone's assessment of whether it is fringe or not, then we've got a problem.  It's better to stick to NPOV, and present all viewpoints on all topics with reasonable balance, fringe or otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Atomic... what needs changing? You complain that someone can arbitrarily declare something Fringe... so what?  If you can establish that there are reliable sources that discuss it (and disparaging or debunking counts towards this), then you can have an article on it... even if it is Fringe.  Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything is perfect. Don't change anything. --Atomic blunder (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

According to above views, (supposedly) non-fringe views should have reliable and well cited sources. Ironically, the lead of Fringe theories article doesn't seem to have that. 25+ years generated 4 citations for the cited view. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All of our policies and guidelines interact, and we can not ignore one when looking at another. That views (Whether Fringe or Non-finge) needs to be reliable sourced is a statement that is made in multiple other policys (see: WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research) and guidelines (See: WP:Reliable sources).  I don't think we need to repeat ourselves in the lede of this guideline (indeed over repetition sometimes leads to conflicts of intrepretation).
 * I think there is some confusion as to what this guideline is about. It is not about keeping fringe theories out of Wikipedia.  It is not about determining if something is fringe or not... it is about when and how to discus topics that someone (anyone) already deems to be fringe.  The core point of this guideline is to say that it does not matter whether the topic is fringe or not... what matters is how notable the topic is.  We determine notability by reference to reliable sources that are independant of the subject (see: WP:Notability).  In other words, has the topic has been discussed by people who are not advocates of the theory?  If the answer is "yes" then we can discuss it (giving it a weight equal to the weight it is given in the sources).  If the answer is "no" then we shouldn't discuss it.
 * Let me repeat something... this guildeline does not ban the discussion of fringe theories... in fact it explicitly says we CAN. What it does do is outline the circumstances under which we discuss them, and how we discuss them.  Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And ironically it is not discussed properly in the case of fringe theory article lead. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Atomic blunder is right, in that this article does not give sufficient guidelines as to how to differentiate between a fringe theory and a non-fringe minority view. "The process of differentiation needs to be made more objective and less subjective so that individual editors cannot proclaim a view as being fringe in an arbitrary and capricious manner." Well said. As a start, consider this phrase:

"ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus..."

Is it true that ideas (that purport to be scientific theories) are fringe theories if they have not gained scientific consensus? This is what the above phrase implies. And this is not correct. For example, highly controversial theories have not gained scientific consensus (consensus might be split), and yet they are not considered fringe theories. Similarly with modestly controversial theories. Scientific consensus has very little to do with this. It seems a better and more accurate formulation of this phrase would be:

"ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support"

Dbrisinda (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For instance: theory has also aroused opposition because, in its extreme, it implies that standard chemotherapy goes after the wrong targets and is ineffective." “It’s the most amazing polarity that I’ve seen,” Dr. Clarke, the Stanford researcher, said of the debate over stem cells among cancer researchers. “It’s like two religions fighting.” Non of the above theories have gained consensus. Are they fringe?--JeanandJane (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know this is Wikipedia, and perspective is illegal, but have you guys considered that not everything can or should be dichotomized into "fringe" and "not fringe"? There's a continuum here. The process cannot be made "objective" because it is not an objective process. Fortunately for all of us, the advice given in this guideline is sound pretty much across the board - use good, reliable sources; represent ideas in proportion to their acceptance by experts in the relevant field of knowledge; don't use Wikipedia to promote or increase the visibility of a minoritarian viewpoint; and generally try to create a serious, respectable reference work. It matters less whether a given topic is "fringe" or "not fringe" than whether your editing is driven by a desire to achieve that goal. I'm going to humbly suggest that if you find yourself expending a lot of energy arguing that a given topic should be exempt from the points made in this guideline, it might be worth thinking about whether you're in the right venue. MastCell Talk 03:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't personally encountered any Wikipedia policy stating that perspective is illegal (have I missed it?). Perspective, I think, is inevitable, and we ought to expect it on the talk pages. However, I do recall reading in one of Wikipedia's policies regarding articles proper, that if someone can read a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph or an entire article, and come away from it not knowing if the person(s) that wrote it were for or against, then the editors have successfully done their job. Perspective is to be expected in talk pages, but should not be tolerated in articles.


 * My attention was brought to the content of these pages because of the discussion that was occurring on the homeopathy pages. This is not about homeopathy per se, but it was the discussion of homeopathy as a fringe theory, and the up-teen different definitions of fringe theory, the majority citing WP:FRINGE in some way in support of their views and several (myself included) disagreeing due to the large number of quality peer-reviewed publications that show both evidence for and against it's effectiveness beyond the placebo effect. Given this context, it seems clear to me that there is a problem with *how* to differentiate between fringe and non-fringe from my direct experience on those pages.


 * Your point of dichotomizing into "fringe" and "not fringe" is well taken. But *how* do we, as objectively as possible, decide where along this continuum a theory falls, especially when it's controversial? I'm not suggesting we have to nail it down into black and white, but rather, as Atomic blunder stated, providing clearer guidelines. I would like to encourage you to re-read my first edit here, as the reasons and arguments provided are very relevant. And if you disagree with those statements, and my suggested edit, I would be interested to know precisely why. In good faith, Dbrisinda (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The confusion between fringe belief and fringe theory is obvious in the homeopathy talk page.We have to make distinctions. What is the difference between a fringe belief and a fringe theory or system which is not a fringe belief in terms of popularity (non fringe view ) ? Different concepts require different names or epithets. --JeanandJane (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbisinda, we decide where on the continuum ideas fall by honestly examining what reliable sources have to say about them. By "honestly", I mean that rather than selecting the primary sources we personally find most compelling and highlighting those, we instead defer to the judgments made in reliable secondary sources and by respected and reputable expert bodies. The overarching guide is simple: what would a serious, respectable reference work say about a topic? How would Brittanica, or another reputable encyclopedia, describe a claim (assuming they'd even bother)? The problem isn't a lack of clear guidance. The operative principles are quite simple; it's the will to adhere to and apply them that lets us down repeatedly. MastCell Talk 23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are we concerned about this? I don't think there's any policy that requires us to decide where on the spectrum some theory or belief sits, or to treat fringe and non-fringe differently.  Or am I missing something?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What I'm getting at is the categorization or characterization of specific theories *as* fringe vs. non-fringe. Some topics appear to be borderline, with many arguing one way vs. the other. It's these particular topics that I'm referring to. Dbrisinda (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, those are the ideas that the policy applies to: the ones that some people might think are fringe. But it's not necessary to have any agreement on what's fringe and what's not for the policy to apply.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comment below. Dbrisinda (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * MastCell, what you say seems very reasonable. But it is these special cases, where the primary and secondary sources as well as respected and reputable expert bodies cannot definitively say, due to a large body of inconclusive scientific evidence, with some positive and some negative evidence. Could the situation that I have just described be criteria for perhaps an *additional* guideline to help with classification of a theory into fringe vs. non-fringe? I.e., when there is controversy and lack of consensus in the topic area in question among respected and reputable expert bodies?


 * You also asked what a serious respectable reference work would say about a topic. Good question. I consulted Encyclopedia Britannica, Crompton's Encyclopedia, and Worldbook Encyclopedia (all online), and they all dedicated a few paragraphs to a completely neutral description of the controversial topic, followed by a few sentences of criticisms. Dbrisinda (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Classification is irrelevant. Just treat all ideas according to policy; that's what this guideline suggests.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your statement that classification is irrelevant. Could you elaborate? On the treating of ideas according to policy, there is one phrase in the existing policy guideline which seems quite problematic to me:


 * "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus..."


 * Is it true that such ideas are fringe theories if they have not gained scientific consensus? This seems incorrect. For example, highly controversial theories have not gained scientific consensus (consensus might be split), and yet they are not considered fringe theories. More formally, scientific consensus is a sufficient but not necessary condition for a theory to be classified as non-fringe. I.e., (A) scientific consensus => theory is non-fringe --> TRUE, but (B) theory is non-fringe => scientific consensus --> FALSE. It seems a better and more accurate formulation of this phrase would be:


 * "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support..."


 * Also, your recent main page edit thoroughly confused me (not that that's difficult to do). Could you reword and clarify? Dbrisinda (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any policy that contains that phrase; the current guideline has it, but does not say to treat such theories differently from other theories, does it? My edit was an attempt to clarify that classification is tangential to the guideline, not crucial to it; that inevitable differences of opinion as to whether an idea is fringe or not do not matter. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. The "policy" I was referring to is actually the guideline we are now discussing, in the first paragraph of the section "Identifying fringe theories" of this article. Does that change things as per my comment above? As for treatment, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSCI seem to indicate that fringe theories should be treated differently from other theories. Dbrisinda (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, so I removed the recently added final qualification sentence since this seems to confuse things. In order for these guidelines to apply to an issue, the issue must be identified as fringe. This seems logical, otherwise everything stated in these guidelines becomes vacuous. Especially in light of WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI that show fringe ideas should be treated differently than regular or non-fringe ideas. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources and External links
I'd like to point out that "ELs that are not RS should be removed or replaced", as well as the effective requirement which said edit restored, contradicts WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." PSWG1920 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know... this is a pretty hard fought guideline. Given that people have fought tooth and nail for each word, I have a feeling that EL could have been listed on purpose.  NJGW (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the edit which appears to have added it: . I assume that such a large edit would have been discussed in talk, so I'll look through the talk page archives from that time. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching this guideline's talk archives I find no discussion whatsoever of External links. My conclusion is that the text in question is simply a poorly written, poorly contextualized sentence which originated in a large addition and which went unnoticed for 2.5 years. It also contradicts the External Links guideline as noted above. PSWG1920 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both this project and WP:ELMAYBE are guidelines and so are not the final word. Assuming the text has been unchallenged for 2.5 years (and knowing that fringe science is a very contentious area), I would say that there is solid consensus to retain the wording restored by NJGW. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether to include an EL has to considered on a case by case basis. Per WP:EL, external links most definitely do not need to pass WP:RS (for the simple reason that they are not being used as sources). We should at least amend the sentence under discussion... However, WP:EL it also asks us to limit the number of ELs... so we should not use the EL section as a dumping ground for every crack pot website that discusses the theory.  The EL section should contain a few links to carefully chosen websites that discuss the theory (or an aspect of the theory) in more depth than we can discuss it on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the context of making statements about the idea, a website promoting a fringe theory can be perfectly RS. How about: In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. External links should be examined critically for their ability to explain the topic.? Saying both sources and citations is redundant, as the first category contains the second. This second sentence does not really provide any guidance beyond EL, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If this guideline is going to address External Links relating to fringe topics, it would best be done in a new section. This is irrelevant to "Sourcing and attribution". PSWG1920 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support"
Is this a better and more accurate definition for fringe science? --JeanandJane (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do we need a definition? What depends on it?  Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that there was a important guideline to identify fringe science and as suggested above needs clarification. Do you imply we don't need a guideline for fringe? --JeanandJane (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some fringe theories don't even purport to be scientific. There are schools of thought that consider the scientific approach invalid for one reason or another. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does the guideline suggest that it's important to identify which theories are fringe? I think the guideline suggests treating all topics according to WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, even if they may be fringe, and even if people disagree on whether they are fringe or not. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: Identifying 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 not gained scientific consensus, 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. However, nothing in this guideline should require that a theory or idea be classified in a consensus view as fringe or non-fringe before the guideline applies – the guideline applies to all theories and ideas equally, but may be particularly helpful for those ideas that some regard as fringe.
 * Do you think the above guideline is not useful and must be removed or improved? --JeanandJane (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me. It doesn't say one needs to classify an idea as fringe or not, nor does it suggest treating an idea differently based on that classification.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is insufficient. Ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus are not always fringe.Correct? --JeanandJane (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I brought this point up above, let me clarify here. I think it's important to be clearer on this because WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI do indicate that fringe theories should be treated differently from other theories. So it seems we need to be a little clearer (additional guidelines) on which theories fall into these categories. One improvement is to use the phrasing that JeanandJane has supplied above.


 * Consider the existing phrasing in the main article: is it true that such ideas are fringe theories if they have not gained scientific consensus? This is incorrect. For example, highly controversial theories have not gained scientific consensus (consensus might be split), and yet they are not considered fringe theories. More formally, scientific consensus is a sufficient but not necessary condition for a theory to be classified as non-fringe. I.e., (A) scientific consensus => theory is non-fringe --> TRUE, but (B) theory is non-fringe => scientific consensus --> FALSE. The above phrasing would correct this. Dbrisinda (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This small word change would correct the subtle logical fallacy contained in the current phrase. I will make the change to the main article. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--JeanandJane (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I say again that Dbrisinda seems to hung up on needing to classify an idea as fringe or not. There is no such need. The guideline doesn't say to treat fringe ideas differently from other marginally notable ideas. There's no hard boundary needed, just a way of thinking about NPOV. If it ever comes down to arguing whether an idea is fringe or not, you're just going to have a fight on your hands from the advocates versus detractors. There's no need for that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to keep a logical fallacy in the guideline. There is a constant need for complying with reason and logic in this process.--JeanandJane (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Identifying fringe theories is one of the sections in the current guidelines. It attempts to provide guidelines precisely for this purpose. I'm only attempting to improve those guidelines by providing additional clarity, and removing logical problems with the language of one phrase. Also, the guidelines do state that fringe theories should be handled differently than regular theories as per WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI. So it seems that some guidelines for classification are important. I agree that no hard boundary is needed or probably even possible. But *additional* clarifications that help clarify the boundary, at least to some degree, instead of having it be pie in the sky. Dbrisinda (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May I draw your attention to a wonderful essay: WP:The rules are principles. We should focus on the broad principles in our policy and guidelines and not try to over clarify them.  As far as that applies to this guideline, the more you attempt to clarify where boundaries are, the more Fringe POV pushers will find loopholes around the boundaries.  The key to understanding this guideline is simple... if a theory is not discussed in a serious manner by mainstream sources, then it is too Fringe and should not be discussed in Wikipedia.  If it is, then it is not too Fringe, and can be discussed in Wikipedia (This does not mean, however, that a specific theory should or should not be discussed in a specific article... Once a theory passes the bar here, NPOV and UNDUE still apply). Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this—it was an excellent essay. I will try to keep this in mind. I've added it to my bookmarks. Dbrisinda (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this article
I suggest renaming this article from "Fringe theories" to "Minority viewpoints". --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No... there is a difference between a minority viewpoint and a Fringe theory. The guideline makes it clear what that difference is. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would take Atomic blunder's suggestion seriously for discussion.--JeanandJane (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I didn't take it seriously... (you don't have to agree with an idea to take it seriously)... this guideline draws a distinction between minority viewpoints and Fringe theories. They are different things and should be treated differently.  Minority viewpoints are dealt with at WP:NPOV... This guideline deals specifically with Fringe theories.  Thus I would oppose any proposal to rename it. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The examples given in this article/guideline are not true theories in a scientific sense but are speculations and conjectures that could be described as minority viewpoints. --Atomic blunder (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, you state that the guideline makes clear the difference between a minority viewpoint and a fringe theory. Please specify where that explanation is given in the guideline. --Atomic blunder (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The two terms mean different things. Minority views within legitimate scholarship are part of scholarship. Fringe denotes views that are outside the realm of legitimate scholarship. The distinction needs to be maintained. The guidelines of Fringe theories do not apply to legitimate minority viewpoints. —Finell (Talk) 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * However, I did not propose naming the article "Minority viewpoints within scholarship", just "Minority viewpoints". --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think this goes to show that additional distinctions seem to be necessary for the suite of topics: fringe theories, minority views, fringe science, pseudoscience, fringe beliefs, questionable science etc. In my mind, these are all different to degrees, and some effort needs to be made to attempt to distinguish them at least partly. The Fringe science article has already made some of these distinctions and efforts. Also, the arbitration ruling at the top of this talk page also seems to indicate additional guidelines that could be incorporated into the main article in some form. Dbrisinda (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have people actually read the guideline? It goes into all of that, discussing when (and how) it is appropriate to discuss Fringe topics in articles and when it is not. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not talking about how and when it's appropriate to discuss Fringe topics in articles. I'm talking about identification of fringe topics as such. Some distinctions seem to be necessary in this regard in the sense of degrees. I can propose some suggestions if interested, along the lines of arbitration rulings etc. But I agree, the article already seems to handle what you're talking about (how and when) reasonably well. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbrisinda, what do you think about the idea of starting a new essay titled "Wikipedia:Points of view" or something like that. --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose RtA. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current name is exactly correct, and no reason appears to have been given for why a term with different meaning should be used. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fringe is ffringe, minority is minority. A Minority is the Hawking/Susskind black hole arguments, Fringe is that the Earth is Hollow. Reasonable people interpreted evidence different in one, the other has fanatic faith and no evidence. ThuranX (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As others have written, there's a basic difference between fringe and minority that Wikipedia should and does distinguish. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As virtually everyone has noted, the two are distinct. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose different things, as above. Verbal chat  10:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

According to consensus, fringe theories and minority viewpoints are different things so the name should not change and the difference should not be explained in this guideline. --Atomic blunder (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Fringe theory versus a minority viewpoint
I propose that this article be modified to give a better explanation of the difference between a fringe theory and a minority viewpoint. --Atomic blunder (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would that be necessary? I'm wary of instruction creep anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially on a guideline as prone to excessive tinkering as this one. MastCell Talk 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see us needing to differentiate between Fringe and Minority if this gideline said something like "Fringe theories should not be discussed in Wikipedia but Minority viewpoints should be"... then we would need to help people determine whether something was Fringe or Minority. However, the guideline does not say something like that.  Instead it says we can discuss some fringe theories, but not other fringe theories... the determination being made based on the amount and type of coverage the theory has recieved in reliable mainstream sources.  In other words, we set the bar somewhere in the middle of Fringe and not at the Fringe/Minority boundary.  There is thus no need to differentiate between Fringe and Minority. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a separate essay would be the best way to address the difference. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to write all the essays you want. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the best name for it, maybe "Wikipedia:Points of view". --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm isn't helping your case. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no sarcasm, I'm serious. --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Thuran was addressing me, as my last remark was somewhat sarcastic. Sorry about that. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was addressing Atomic blunder. WP:POV. ThuranX (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream academic community often portrays fringe theorie as theorie that don't apply scientific principles and they are usualy right. But sometimes there are cases where the mainstream overlooks certain simple inconsisstancies which make them fringe by the definition of using scientific principles. The best way to address this would be with the help from academic institutions but in the meantime it would be a good idea to point out those rare cases where there are obvious contradictions and let the reader decide. In this case it would help to define the basic principles in the simplest way possible. Better guidelines would help but the most important thing is how they are used in practice. Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * People keep missing the point here... this guideline isn't about whether a given theory should, or should not be labeled as fringe. It is about determining whether the theory should be discussed in Wikipedia, and if so how. We don't actually care what label is given to a theory... The determination on whether to include it or not is not based on labels... it is based on notability... on whether reliable mainstream sources have discussed the theory in a serious manner.  Please read the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I missed the point at all. Wikipedia invited members of the public to participate which enables us to take notice when the scientific community isn't being honest. People in major academic institutions shouldn't have virtual copyrights to the truth. If we're going to have an encyclopedia edited by the people and the people don't want to believe false facts that should be acceptable. That is essentially what this debate is about is fringe minority or unscientific? Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, the 'science is always wrong or lying to us to keep secrets from us' argument. Yeah, that holds as much water as a bucket made of swiss cheese. It's been established here many times what Fringe is. The definitions here keep getting chipped away at by tin foil hat wearing nitwits who insist that the moon landing was faked and science lies ,the earth is flat and science lies, evolution is fake and science lies, aliens probed them, and science lies, tunguska was a dinosaur time warp and science lies... If a minority of people hew to an idea they purport to be based on evidence and a scientific examination which does not hold up to any scientific examination by an outside group, it's a fringe idea. If that Fringe Idea gets reported on by reliable secondary sources, then we can and do write about it in the appropriate light - "100 out of 100 scientists agree that water does not have memory, thus a core tenet of homeopathy is nothing but a fringe science idea' for example. ThuranX (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or to be even clearer... THIS GUIDELINE DOES NOT BAN THE DISCUSSION OF FRINGE THEORIES ON WIKIPEDIA. It tells us when and how we CAN discuss them. (sorry about the shouting... but two-by-fours don't fit through USB ports). Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're missing, or distorting, Zacherystaylor's point. It's not the scientific consensus is often wrong or dishonest, but that we allow for discussing those cases where some people think it might be; the guideline is about how to balance such discussions.   Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is in order to find out whether something should be called fringe in a perfect world should be whether it applies scientific principles. In some cases this doesn't happen. the examples cited above are obvious frauds but there are some that may not be so obvious when that happens it is necessary to do the work to figure out if it is accurate or not. However this isn't a perfect world and fringe is not always being used properly so as far as I'm concerned the guidelines are fine for now since they do allow people to provide different ideas as long as it is notable. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing link from first sentence of guideline
I'm going to remove the link from the first sentence of the guideline that links "fringe theories" to the "Fringe science" article. The examples given in this guideline are not fringe science and fringe theories are not limited to fringe science. I will add a link to the Fringe science article to the "See also" section. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I started to revert this under the idea that a guideline about dealing with Fringe theories should link to the artice on Fringe theory... but actually I think Atomic blunder has a point... We don't actually have an article on Fringe theories ... it is redirected to Fringe science. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... it seems that it was created as a redirect (back in 2007). I never noticed that before. It seems to me that Wikipedia should have an article on Fringe theories in general... one that includes but is not limited to Fringe science. To give just one example: most conspiracy theories have nothing to do with science, but they are clearly Fringe theories.  And while Fringe science tends to get a lot of attention in Wikipedia, there are Fringe theories in other academic disciplines as well.
 * How does one undo a redirect? Is there a proceedure? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... found it... and have nominated it to be undone. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A Fringe theory article has just been created. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

New Article on Fringe theory created... please help
As discussed above, we did not have a seperate article on Fringe theory (the title was a redirect to Fringe science. As it turns out, I did not need to request an undo at RfD... unless the redirect is locked, you can be bold and simply delete the redirect and write the article.  I have done so.

It is a bare minimum stub at the moment... which obviously needs to be expanded and sourced. I am not at all sure where to take it... and could use in-put as to what should be discussed, not discussed, its structure, etc. Please help. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Very unpopular viewpoints
Can a scientific viewpoint be considered notable, despite a lack of peer-reviewed journal articles supporting it - if prominent scientific organizations have spilled enough ink denouncing the viewpoint?

I tried mentioning NARTH's idea that homosexuality is not immutable (here) (, but was told that no such mention is permitted - on the grounds that it was a "fringe theory". However, the most prominent statement about how homosexuality develops mentions "environment" (presumably meaning social environment, including one's interaction with parents and other family members, interactions at school and so on). Moreover, at least one notable scientist has said that there are causes other then genetics.

Anyway, is there room for unpopular viewpoints at Wikipedia? If so, how should they be described? Is there a "fair" way to talk about them that avoids giving the misleading impression that they are held more widely than they are?

In particular, is there any risk that describing alternate theories about topics like homosexuality would violate the "equal validity" clause of our NPOV policy? I mean, if we make it clear that it is not part of the mainstream but is all but universally condemned, are our readers nonetheless likely to conclude that a minority POV is just as valid as any other?


 * If there is a risk like this, is there a way to reduce this risk, as by emphasizing the degree of opposition to it?

For example, we could list the prominent scientific bodies that have denounced the idea. We could give the arguments and evidence which they have marshaled against it.

On the other hand, I wonder if there are some contributors here who are abusing the "no fringe theories" rule simply to censor POV that they disagree with. Such people give me the impression that any mention of a minority alternate idea (let alone a summary of the arguments given by its supporters) would undermine public support for the 'mainstream' idea.

But I thought the function of our NPOV policy was to describe all ideas (even ludicrous and patently biased ideas such as holocaust denial) in such a way that readers would be equipped to make up their own minds - even if they wind up drawing a conclusion different from the position held by the contributors.

Please enlighten me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The answer your question is... it depends. There is a subtle difference between "Notable enough to write an article on it" and "noteworthy enough to mention in an article on something else".  Extensive debunking certainly shows that a topic is Notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it... but that the same debunking can mean that it isn't noteworthy enough for inclusion in other articles. That really depends on the specific article and is governed by WP:NPOV (and especially WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the issue here is not whether NPOV requires us to include or exclude fringe views, I think the question is, fringe in relation to what? The view that homosexuality may have environmental as well as genetic causes is not fringe within science, but the view that homesxual orientation is mutable is fringe within science (many things that are environmentally caused are immutable).  The view that homosexual orientation is fringe within science but it may not be fringe in popular culture (although I suspect it is) and it may not be fringe within the Catholic Church (I suspect it is not).  "Fringe" is not an absoluter condition, it is always relative to a particular family or community of viewers.  Among Catholics, there may be a range of acceptable views concerning homosexuality, but the view that God created homosexuals because he likes homosexuality is fringe.  Maybe among another community of viewers (members of another religion) this view is not fringe.  It is relative. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, I'm interested in a number of theories which may be on the outskirts of the City of Academia, but which nonetheless have attracted a lot of attention in print. There are around a dozen ideas which I like reading about, generally because I personally think they are valid (like using reparative therapy on volunteers who wish to change their sexual orientation or using DDT to prevent malaria), but in some cases because I think the ideas are just plain silly (like homeopathy or cold fusion).


 * I had always hoped, from the start of my involvement in Wikipedia 8 years ago, that we'd all gladly work together to ensure that even the most heated controversies were described in a cool, dispassionate manner. My hope was that no one would be able to tell which viewpoint the contributors favored by reading the article or even the article history, even if they gave their own opinion on article talk or user talk pages.


 * What I've found instead is that when a large enough number (or percentage) of contributors were advocates of a given POV, bias crept in. Because I like to assume good faith, I usually attribute this bias to unconscious error. Heck, I've made a few such errors myself.


 * Is it still a viable hope that we can describe fully and fairly the minority opposing view on such controversies as the following?
 * natural evolution vs. intelligent design
 * global warming caused by human activity or natural causes
 * immutability vs. changeability of homosexuality
 * DDT being too dangerous to use for malaria control vs. it being safe enough


 * I don't just mean "okay in general" to mention the alternative viewpoint. I guess what I'm looking for is a standard we all can agree on, regarding when and where the alternative POV can be inserted into articles - and when the alternative needs an article of its own. The flat earth article is more than half as large as the Earth article. Holocaust denial has a large article.


 * I'm wondering if the articles on fringe or minority theories can be allowed to be complete, in the sense of containing fair and full summaries of the arguments and evidence supplied by minority theory advocates. I wouldn't like contributors to be able to say that a "equal validity" rule requires us to omit statements which undermine the majority viewpoint, or anything like that. The whole point of NPOV is to let the reader make up their own mind, right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are observing one of the major weaknesses in the project. There is a constant and aggravating tension between untoward advocacy and untoward disparagement.  In my experience even when relative balance is achieved with respect to content, the tone of articles still is quite amateurish, sounding dismissive of the fringe theory even as it is described reasonably.


 * However, there have been some relative successes: the evolution/ID was (IIRC) worked out a couple of years ago pretty well; I don't know if it is still as good though. My last impression of the GW articles was that they were relatively balanced, although read like an ugly truce between intellectual camps.  The homosexuality mutability issue, indeed almost any homosexuality  issue, are cesspools because the different intellectual camps use words differently, so coherence is almost impossible to obtain even without having fringe/weight issues (e.g., is the mutability you wish to discuss that of erotic attraction, of affinity to a particular minority culture, or of somewhere in between? You can answer this rhetorical question if you like but know that there will be others that will always think you mean a different meaning even when you were explicit about it).  I do not know about the specific DDT issue at all, but can add that in general these articles tend to have an alarmist slant caused as much by reliable sources framing coverage of such issues in a "victim/villain/hero" template as by fringe advocates.


 * I find an unsung idea to be that articles about a fringe theory should be more about the culture surrounding its proponents and less about the academic subject matter debates. For example, the flat earth article (haven't read, just making a point) should be less an article about a particular application of Euclidean geometry and more about the culture(s) of its adherents.  But that is just me.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ed is pointing to a grey area that is one of many areas of difficulty or weakness for Wikipedia. What he is neglecting to mention is that he spent the first couple of years of the project pushing fringe points of view in relation to 1 and 2, and questionable or original research in relation to 3.  Wikipedia is not a chat room where editors discuss their different views, popular or unpopular.  it is an encyclopedia, Ed, and no matter how hard you try you canot turn a fringe theory into a significant view.  Creationism may be a significant religious view and it is dealt with as such.  ID is entirely fringe science if not downright pseudoscience.  Careful editors working on the relevant articles, as well as ArbCom, have dealt with Ed in the past.  Since he cannot push his fring povs in articles, he has just taken to using talk pages as a place to air them.  Blah blah blah.  It would be almost charming to see this kind of conviction, if it seved any p0urpose other than Ed's vanity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

addition to nutshell
I boldly made this addition to the Nuthshell of the policy in order to remove an ambiguity. Since there are fringe theory publication that are arguably "major", the use of a "major" fringe theory publication will self-validate the notability of a fringe theory, which would result in making this whole policy moot. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah... but there are "major" fringe theory publications that pass our criteria for reliability as well (not self-published, editorial oversight, etc)... so adding reliable does not resolve your issue. We used to use the word "mainstream" here (or I think we did) which was more to the point, even though people argued about what "mainstream" means. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by reliable fringe theory publications. Isn't that an oxymoron?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No... a fringe theory can be published in a manner that Wikipedia considers reliable ... a book published by a respected publishing house for example. A good example of this are books like "Chariots of the Gods"... the idea that the Nazca lines and the pyramids were made by space aliens is definitely Fringe, but it was published by a respected publishing house (Bantom).  In wikipedia, reliability does not mean "accepted".
 * The key to this guideline is that for Wikipedia to discuss a theory, it has to have been noticed an commented upon by someone beyond the proponents of the theory and fans of the theory. By "major publication" we are talking about a wide range of sources... from Accademic journals to newspapers.  ie the "mainstream". Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying: there are non-fringe publishers that publish fringe stuff. But the current wording of the nutshell does not distinguish between major fringe publishers and major non-fringe publishers. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure it needs to... the key to this guideline is notability... what matters isn't who published the theory, but who has commented upon it. That is expanded upon in the next phrase of the sentence... it has to be someone "independent of the theory". You use the term self-verification... so I thik you are worried that someone will argue that the writings of some fringe theorist will constitute a "major" publication. However, that publication would not be "independent of the theory" and so could not qualify demonstrating notability. What we are trying to say is that someone in the mainstream has to have noticed the theory and discussed it. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, but I'm not ready to say that just being published by a non-exclusively fringe publication is enough to move a fringe theory beyond WP:FRINGE and into "independent of the theory." -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example? Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wayne Madsen, a conspiracy theorist, has been pushing this theory that the Israeli government is behind the birther movement. This theory is being propagated by PressTV, the Iranian government mouthpiece.. Neither the actual idea nor the conspiracy have been covered by the mainsteam press, but under the current nutshell wording, since PressTV isn't an exclusive WP:FRINGE publication, its publication of the conspiracy theory might the "independent of the theory" that is needed to move this conspiracy theory beyond WP:FRINGE and eligible for article inclusion. The policy must be worded to avoid this loophole, because after all, mainstream sources have essentially ignored this theory and it is classic WP:FRINGE.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AH... now I understand. Press TV is a mainstream source.  It happens to be Iranian Mainstream, which is different than Western Mainstream, but it is mainstream by Wikipedia's standards. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. Under the current wording of the policy, a major fringe publisher can self-validate the notability of its conspiracy theories just by publishing.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't PressTV's theory... it is that of Wayne Madsen. As far as I know, Wayne Madsen has no connection to PressTV.  It isn't being self-validated (I suppose you could say that it is being validated by PressTV, because they are reporting favorably on it, but that is not a self-validation). Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no different then a major fringe publisher that publishes fringe theories.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes it is... I took a look at the PressTV story you liked to... It is not propagating the theory... it is not publishing the theory... it is mearly reporting on it. It is a news story about Mr. Madsen's allegations.  It does not claim that they are true, and it disucsses them in a neutral tone.  It is, in fact, no different than the AP or the New York Times reporting on the same allegations.  Would you consider the New York Times a major fringe publisher if it ran a similar story?  Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're publishing it "neutrally", like the New York Times would if they published the story, but its irrelevant to the point at hand. Its not that the New York Times is mainstream because they don't report on this conspiracy theory and PressTV is fringe because they report on the conspiracy theory. Rather, the NYT is mainstream because they are mainstream. They have a longstanding sterling reputation of being reliable. On the other hand, PressTV has a longstanding reputation of being the mouthpiece of the Iranian government. Take a look at 2009 Iranian election protests and see if PressTV is used even once. According to PressTV, the protests were just a bunch of Zionist agents and homosexual rapists. They're a fringe source. If they report on something, whether its true or not true, whether they report in neutrally or not, is irrelevant. Their reporting is not eligible for WP inclusion because they are a WP:FRINGE publisher. Unless this conspiracy theory is covered in the mainstream press, for example the same exact article appears in the NYT, this story is a WP:FRINGE story being propagated by a WP:FRINGE publisher.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of FRINGE
I'm moving this subsection here for discussion per this discussion:

Warranting mention in other articles

 * Port Chicago disaster conspiracy theory &mdash; There exists a theory that this disaster (which itself is of unquestioned notability), held by official reports to be an ammunition-loading accident, was actually a detonation of a nuclear weapon with the intent of testing the effects on American soldiers. This theory has been proposed by one journalist, and he has published on it almost exclusively through his own self-published website and e-book, which many other non-mainstream websites and publications have parroted. The theory probably does not deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mention in the main Port Chicago disaster article, since its Internet presence is very large due to the aforementioned fringe websites. The exact wording of the mention is of course dictated by NPOV and other content guidelines.

The Port Chicago disaster, an example culled from an FA article, is incorrect because the conspiracy theory was discussed in a major book covering the incident. This subsection also contradicts the "nutshell" that requires all content to be covered by mainstream sources independent of the theory. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not a very good example, and I'd personally say that if not enough sources exist for it to be discussed in its own article, it'd usually be undue weight to mention it in the main one. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 198 FCs served 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That really depends on the context of how it is mentioned in the other article... but I agree that this no longer qualifies as a good example if it is discussed in the above linked book (question, just out of curiosity... was the discussion of the theory disparaging or supporting?) Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. Fringe stuff shouldn't be snuck into WP under the guise of not having a separate article. As stated in the "nutshell", all fringe content must meet the standard of being covered by non-fringe. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'd make one exception to this... In an article that is about a category of Fringe theories (say the 9/11 conspiracy theories article) it is sometimes helpful to mention a particular sub-theory in passing to explain a point about the larger topic. The sub-theory may not be notable enough for it's own article, but purely in the context of discussing the parent Fringe topic it might be important enough to mention. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the sub-theory were important to the larger topic it would be mentioned in a non-fringe source. Its best that we not make any loopholes to the non-fringe source requirement for all content. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New example needed
OK... it turns out that the Port Chicago disaster was a bad example... but I think the policy point that the example was trying to discuss remains valid. That means we need a new example. Start brainstorming folks. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts
I face an interesting conundrum of late: The article on parapsychology was, as far as I can tell, written by fairly extreme amateur enthusiasts, and takes a fairly extreme view of the subject, for instance:

A number of studies conducted in the American, European, and Australasian continents have found that a majority of people surveyed report having had experiences that could be interpreted as telepathy, precognition, and similar phenomena. Variables that have been associated with reports of psi-phenomena include belief in the reality of psi; the tendency to have hypnotic, dissociative, and other alterations of consciousness; and, less reliably so, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. Although psi-related experiences can occur in the context of such psychopathologies as psychotic, dissociative, and other disorders, most individuals who endorse a belief in psi do not necessarily have a serious psychopathology.

This section is basically advocating for "If anything odd happened to someone, it's psychic." However, I've poked around the academic parapsychologists, and they're much, much more moderate, saying that most such things can be explained away, and that they merely want to see if there's anything left underneath.

In short, the proponents of parapsychology we have appear to be the extreme, amateur fringe of a fringe theory that isn't nearly so bad as they're making it look.

Should we discuss this in this guideline? Because, when discussing fringe theories, we do have to decide where on the spectrum we should concentrate. We don't want to select only the presentable people, ignoring the majority lunatics in theories where that's the case, but at the same time, here we have the opposite, presenting the minority fringe-of-the-fringe, and ignoring the (at least in academia, which is the relevant set for parapsychology, even if it's not for, say, psychic), majority not-so-cranky. But would discussing it result in problematic wikilawyering? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 19:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An article has a limited space, and quality pushes out lower quality after about 5-10K words. Why not discuss the parapsychology content on it's discussion page? You could refer to WP:Fringe.  This is just discussion about the wording of WP:Fringe itself.    Cp i r  al  Cpiral  23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Nutshell
Current nutshell:

(The target of adequate is inclusion critereon, right?)

My suggestion:

 Cp i r al  Cpiral  03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the thing is really about clarifying WP:Notability criteria, it doesn't seem right to drop the mention of "notable enough" from the nutshell. This is not an alternative to notiability, just a clarification.  I think it would be better to omit the adjective "notable" from the groups and individuals, since that confuses the point by using the term in a different sense from WP:Notability.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're comment is helpful. I changed the proposed nutshell to say "notable theory".
 * (I also boldly went from a simple copyedit proposal to a more refactor proposal.)
 * However, it is not good style to have notable(our jargon) in mind when deciding what words to include or omit.
 * Now please consider what reads better for most people:
 * "to qualify for" as currently proposed, or
 * "to be notable enough" (WP:N) as it currently stated?
 * "to be verifiable enough" (WP:V)?
 * Wiki-Policy-Wonks must write wiki policy for the 65 million unique monthly visitors any of whom might read policy or submit an article:
 * Reach the largest possible audience
 * Wikilink key words to other nutshells create a "nut trail".
 *  Cp i r al  Cpiral  04:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed edit to the nutshell awaits any more objections or suggestions, please. Thank you.  Cp i r al  Cpiral  04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the change you made in response to my comment, and I was hoping someone else would have suggestions. The phrase "notable theory" seems completely wrong; is it trying to distinguish from non-notable theories?  trying to define notable?  or what?  Is this nutshell just a summary of WP:NOTE, or is it trying to be more or different from that? Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The change I made in response to your earlier comment was from "an established idea" to "a notable theory". Both this comment and your earlier comment question my attempt to "clarify" or "define" WP:N. My focus is WP:fringe. The nutshell is about WP:fringe.

I am not yet qualified to clarify or define WP:fringe. I only recommend a copyedit of the nutshell. I think the nutshell as it has stood over the year is not quite satisfying enough, and that it is a good thing to try and improve it. The archive ( Unhappy with the nutshell ) supports this. I value your studied opinion and will wait for our discussion of the copyedit to play out. Meanwhile, I am devoting some time to the article itself, and am making progress. Soon I will have an reformed nutshell that is not only representative of the current version of the article and it's links, but also a useful nutshell that will be satisfying to read. As I study I am reforming the the proposed nutshell, formerly a copyedit, and have already added two sentences.  Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

First Section was heavily modified
Please consider going forward with the changes to the title and tone. Also, the content now stresses the expanded idea of "comparison" alluded to in the original. There may be logical and factual omissions or errors, but the idea of comparison techniques in general is an improvement for this section. Cp i r al  Cpiral  18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have big concerns with your changes to the Identifying fringe theories section:
 * The main purpose of section could be more than to Identifying fringe theories as you call it. It is a useful start, this ability to identify, but the ultimate purpose in the task of identification is qualification for an article.  Using existing material, I made every sentence do both. Indeed the old section spent many words just teaching users how to identify fringe theories.  Fringe theories can qualify (or not) for Wikipedia.


 * There are several places where your new version is ungrammatical or unclear. For example, "noteworthiness is the comparative significance"; "it's need to be in Wikipedia"; "phase of the world stage"; "the particularly advanced in comprehension". Clarity is essential in a guideline document, and it is not reasonable to drop an unreviewed draft passage into the guideline and then expect other editors to help you clarify your meaning.
 * I do not know that user edits, draft or no, need to be reviewed first, but I agree that my phraseology can be challenging. I was aiming at, say, an encyclopedia senior admin who deleted articles.  I forgot about the uneducated, naive students of life who might write and post a fringe theory article.  I had assumed they wouldn't read many administrative guidelines anyway.  Each of those phrases you quote seem OK to me, so please make those changes. Those high falutin words are addressed to administrative editors, to help them, in three paragraphs, with the work of evaluating fringe theory articles for deletion.


 * The part where you imply that editors of fringe articles may be "dissembling" or "bluffing" does not assume good faith.
 * If it must mention "silly days", must it also remain silent on what the use of such a "silly day" CITE would mean? If so, then take both the mention and the warning/labeling out of the article. I'm fine with that.
 * But I think you might be slightly off in tying the two ideas together, because I think assuming good faith applies less to article deletion (fact based) than it does to edits, where the lack of assuming good faith causes needless alarm or debate. Assuming good faith, my friend, applies to discussions like ours, even if they are discussions internal to ourself about a particular edit made. Again, this section is not about, as you say "editors of fringe articles".  It is about deleters and submitters of articles.  This is a good debate point, and I hope you will respond to my opinion on the matter.


 * Most importantly, you are importing several new ideas here. "Less than theory, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations, have no purview at all" seems to attempting to draw a bright line that excludes all articles on certain types of topics. "Fringe theory, because it is compared to the mainstream, must also consider the times ... A main article need not consider the times" seems to be proposing that fringe theory articles are held to a different standard of notability than mainstream articles. "Such an article is challenging to write, to maintain, and to evolve over time; much more so than a main article" - a novel opinion. These all represent significant departures from the existing guideline, so they should be discussed here on the talk page before they are included.
 * Where I get a "bright line" for "hypothesis" and the like is from the no original research policy. "No purview" is a bit staunch, I agree, but it was well-intended to instill a healthy hesitation, and maybe even a curiosity as just to what an encyclopedia is. Please change it if you think it's to stark. I understood the original version as also having the idea of excluding hypothesis. Because I repeatedly stress the extra "challenge" of qualifying articles on fringe theory subjects, certainly I must realize it is a grey line.
 * The one new idea (singular) you mention specifically, using "the times" as a comparison tool, is an expansion of the original idea of comparison. You labeled this contribution "opinion". That "the times" is a criteria is not opinion, it is insight, worthy to share and develop.  After all it is over "the times" that some fringe theories can become foundational.
 * You debate whether there is a difference in notability between main and fringe articles? WP:fringe was tried for deletion several times, and they all failed.  It was tried because it was argued it was just like notability. I find this article's existence beautiful, and I do not try to reword WP:N.
 * Your complaint about wrecking the old guideline is to vague. I want to address all your concerns, but I must ignore those which are to general to debate.  I have not ignored any specific point about the wording or content of the article.


 *  Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see any way to address my concerns without removing large parts of your contribution and making the section even more confusing - so I have reverted to the previous text. Let's discuss and see where consensus lies on these issues. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposed revision should be made here, rather than in drastic changes to an established editing guideline. For one thing, the use of the English language was so poor as to render the entire revision nearly unintelligible, and therefore utterly unsuitable for its intended purpose.  74.98.43.217 (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Cpiral: I disagree with a lot of what you have said above. I am putting my responses in one place below, as interleaving threads in the way you have done above is very confusing for other readers:
 * You seem to think that the intended audience for the WP:FRINGE guideline is admins; this is incorrect, the guideline should be read and understood by all editors of Wikipedia.
 * I cannot correct your strange phrases such as ""noteworthiness is the comparative significance" and "phase of the world stage" because I have no idea what you mean by those phrases.
 * WP:AGF is not selective, as you think; it is a default position that applies to all discussions on Wikipedia and all editors - assume each editor is trying by their own lights to improve Wikipedia unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
 * Hypotheses and conjectures are perfectly valid subjects for Wikipedia articles provided they are sufficiently notable - see Church-Turing thesis, extraterrestrial life and Papal infallibility for examples.
 * The WP:FRINGE guideline clarifies the application of WP:NOTE to fringe theory articles - in particular it clarifies which sources can be used to demonstrate notability - but it is not intended to replace WP:NOTE for such articles. The same standard of notability applies to all Wikipedia articles.
 * So, that's my position - let's see what other interested editors think. But please remember that the text of WP:FRINGE did not emerge overnight - it has been extensively discussed here and incrementally changed over a long period of time. Please do not try to re-apply your major changes until you are sure you have consensus for them. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very will Gandalf61. I agree with you that the wording is too vaulted.  It seems you have to abandon,  for the good reason you said at first (to many changes at once, some of which were unacceptable), the rest of the debate.


 * You complained about my response, text-placement style. Again, I agree.  Let me start afresh below, and try to follow the 100 word (be concise) guideline.  Let's be specific, so that we can act on the specific article improvements I have in mind.  100-word issue at a time. (This was 95 words long.)  Cp i r  al  Cpiral  01:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Content guideline or notability guideline?
Am I the only one who sees this guideline more aimed at notability for inclusion than content? Angryapathy (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aimed at content implies also notability for inclusion, unless you mean notability for an article in the first place, which is not what most of this is aimed at. DreamGuy (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess some of the wording is confusing to me with "inclusion". So someone could not use an AfD on an article using WP:FRINGE as a reason, but would have to use WP:NOTABILITY? Angryapathy (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is both a notability guideline and a content guideline. It is a blending of WP:NOTE and WP:Undue with a healthy dose of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS tossed in.  The guideline starts by discussing the notability issues... outlining the criteria to be considered when pondering whether Wikipedia should have an article on a Fringe theory in the first place.  Then it shifts focus and discusses the content issues... outlining how to discuss a fringe theory if an article is written, and how and when to discuss it in other articles.
 * Failure to pass WP:FRINGE can (and should) be mentioned in an AFD ... that said, it is true that the good folks who follow deletion debates tend to be more familiar with the provisions of WP:NOTE than they are with WP:FRINGE. I would not cite a failure to pass WP:FRINGE alone... I would suggest also discussing how the article does not pass NOTE (This should not be hard, since if something does not pass the fairly liberal "criteria for inclusion" at WP:FRINGE, chances are it also fails WP:NOTE.) Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect this question was raised related to an article AngryApathy has recently had a dispute on and made some similar statements about. Let me answer the question I think he's really asking: A topic being a FRINGE topic doesn't mean that it should undergo an AFD or that it would be deleted if it did. Notability is a separate issue. There are plenty of topics that are fringe but notable enough to have an article. Something being fringe doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted, because it may have gotten a lot of attention. Something that has not been deleted because it's been found notable enough to have an article doesn't mean it's not a fringe topic either. Or, to be even more blunt, not being able to push a POV into an article because it's a fringe view doesn't mean you either get the choice of forcing that POV in there or getting the article deleted. That's completely opposite of what the NPOV policy and FRINGE is here to do. DreamGuy (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I just felt that FRINGE had elements of notability guidelines intermixed in with the content guidelines. Seeing WP policy as important, I was seeing if anyone else felt that way.  If they did, then doing something to the policy now would prevent arguments in the future.  Seeing as other editors find the policy to be content-only, those worries are irrelevent. Obviously, I read the guideline differently, probably incorrectly.


 * On the other note, I find it in very bad taste that you are making assumptions of my intent. I don't appreciate it, and feel you should think twice before doing the same to other editors in the future. Angryapathy (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, if that is what you were getting at, you've been educated. If it wasn't then you've been educated about some side issue and there's no harm done. Based upon your extremely aggressive editing on the article in question and comments exactly on this specific topic, though, I don't know how you could reasonably expect anyone to not think that's what you were getting at. Just going by what you yourself said elsewhere, and if you didn't really mean what you said there then that's a bad on you, not on me. DreamGuy (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sincere apology. Obviously you are aware of WP:CIVIL. Next time you want to read someone's mind, get a 1-900 number and a late-night infomercial. Angryapathy (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trying to guide some hypothetical balance between "content" and "inclusion". It would behoove you to count the words or sentences that fall into those categories.  It is possible, and there is a current balance. On the other hand, why not give the all words the freedom to fall where they will? Cp i r  al  Cpiral  22:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)