Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 14

Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view
In the course of the above discussion, an editor has proposed a change to this page. Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see a (very confused) discussion that relates to this page, but not an actual language change proposal. In any case, if an editor wishes to change this page, he/she will need to discuss and gain consensus for that change at this page before implementing it. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the proposal involves changes to at least 2 pages, how would you manage that? Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By having the editor who wants to change policy post some suggested wording on the talk pages of the two policy pages that are involved. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that splitting up a discussion of related topics is lible to result in inconsistency. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"The same holds true for conjectures and theories in other academic disciplines"
Currently, this guideline states:

"Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or in non-scientific contexts. The same holds true for conjectures and theories in other academic disciplines. "

I find the last sentence (in bold face) curious. Does this mean that we should treat fringe theories the same in non-scientific academic disciplines (such as history) as we do in scientific disciplines? That is, should fringe theories be excluded from articles about non-scientific academic disciplines? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I imagine so. Is there something wrong with that? Peter jackson (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the whole phrase is really a violation of NPOV. notable viewpoints should always be included, even in scientific articles.  They may have to be qualified to show that they have no scientific support, but they can't be excluded just because they are wrong.  I'm curious how this particular bit of oddness crept into the guideline.


 * Yes, notable viewpoints should be included... the phrase is talking about non-notable or fringe viewpoints. The point here is that the academic dicipline does not matter... the same rules apply to non-notable historical theories, non-notable linguistic theories, non-notable religious theories, etc. as apply to non-notable scientific theories.  Fringe is Fringe.
 * I think the current wording is due to the fact that the policy was originally created due to issues over fringe science, and the editors who created it did not think about how it might be applied to other diciplines. That happened later. Perhaps it is time to take a more wholistic view.  What if we edit the section to say:
 * "Conjectures and theories that have not received critical review from the relevant accademic community or that have been rejected by that community should be excluded from articles about accademic subjects that fall within the scope of that community. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or in non-academic contexts." Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate to say this, but....Now that I've thought about it further and read the comments above, I'm thinking that this section needs to be changed or removed. We cannot simply make a blanket statement that discredited theories should be excluded just because they're wrong.  Can anyone seriously imagine our article on gravity without mentioning Newton?  Or the chemistry article not mentioning alchemy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Those things are important as history. They'd go in the history sections of the articles. Also, in the case of Newton, it's not "discredited" in a straightforward sense. Newton's theory of gravity is an excellent approximation in all normal circumstances, & is still taught on that basis. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about we change "should be excluded" to "may be excluded"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The point here is that the sciences are not unique in having fringe "pseudo" theories. They exist in other disciplines as well.  We can debate how we should discuss or not discuss them in Wikipedia... but whatever we decide should be the same for all academic areas. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've decided to be bold and make the change I suggested above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted to "should be excluded": per Peter jackson above, Newton's views are not in any way "fringe" – we do not exclude Newton's laws of motion from related articles, but we should exclude views from science articles if those views have not been reviewed by the scientific community. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to see how the above discussion could be read as consensus for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Should WP:PSCI be moved to this guideline?
WP:NPOV contains a section about dealing with fringe topics in general, and pseudoscience in particular (see WP:PSCI). In the last week, there has been a lot of discussion about this section on the NPOV talk page, resulting in a local consensus that the section should probably be moved to WP:FRINGE. Before that idea goes further, we need input from those who watch this guideline. Please swing over to WT:NPOV read the comments (some in the section headed: "Overly bogus ideas", and others at the more formal RFC) and share your views on the idea of a move. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just documenting that this occurred on April 12, 2010. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Main or mainstream?
In the Pseudoscience section the word main appears twice, once alone and once as part of "mainstream". The first instance looks like this:


 * "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views." [Emphasis added.]

If I'm not mistaken, it would be more accurate to write "mainstream views" here, since "main" is very ambiguous. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless I get some input to the contrary soon, I'm going to try that change. Please comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to wait longer... it seems obvious that the passage means "mainstream". Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks and done. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Particular attribution
A little while back the "Particular attribution" section was renamed "In-text attribution" and the guideline was radically rewritten--reversed even. As WP:FRINGE is a guideline that affects all fringe theories I think that this change was profoundly unhelpful. According to the change, all fringe articles must now, essentially, "teach the controversy": "Regarding subject V, academic W thinks X, but, on the other hand, academic Y thinks Z." This is clearly not the best way to go. Far better to restore the old guideline which allows the mainstream to speak as the mainstream: "Regarding subject V, academic W thinks X, but, on the other hand, mainstream scholarship thinks Z." Consider this in relation to an article like intelligent design: right now (and per the old guideline) that article contains many unattributed statements of the views of mainstream scholarship. But if the changes are allowed to stand, an ID supporter could waltz in and throw tags all over it. I'm changing the guideline back to the older, more helpful text. Eugene (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I attempted to address your concerns in that section. The new wording did leave something to be desired. In-text attribution should not be used with facts, and that needs to be made clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Subconscious and Psychoanalysis
I find the examples of pseudoscience a little confused. You have

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Ideas which have a following, such as astrology and the subconscious, but which are generally considered pseudoscience....

and also;

3. Theories with a substantial and respectable following: Articles about established ideas and practices such as psychoanalysis, which some critics allege are pseudoscientific but which also attract an academic following

Leaving aside material published by behaviourists like Hans Eysenck supporting astrology, I am curious to be referred to that body of opinion that accepts (Freudian) psychoanalysis as "scientific" yet rejects the (Freudian) notion of the subconscious as "pseudoscience". If anyone could be so kind? Redheylin (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the point. Some uses of "subconscious" are very different from Freudian use, and perhaps it is those that are meant. On the other hand there are many people who regard psychoanalysis as pseudoscience, so perhaps it is just a matter of different editors editing different parts of the article and producing inconsistent results. Perhaps the thing to do is to remove the reference to the subconscious, but I have made a change which may be better. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your attention and agreement. I have to say, though, that I do not know of any "new age" idea of the subconscious, no definition of it and certainly no scientific consensus that this is bad science. This adjustment will amount to the impression that, once some journalist has spoken of a word as having "new age" connotations, then this is in and of itself sufficient to mistrust any such word. And so, for example, Buckminster Fuller, because he was popular with hippies, may be called a pseudoscientist - not an engineer but a "new age" engineer. So far as I can see, the phrase "new age" means more or less nothing definite, and the phrase "new age idea of the subconscious" is empty. Sorry to pick nits, but can we have clear-cut examples, since it's inappropriate to add discussions and references to the section? There's plenty of stuff - Ionized bracelet, anyone? - a clear-cut use of "scientism" to back meaningless claims for financial gain. Whereas people discuss astrology, the subconscious etc. without any scientific claims, nomenclature, bad research etc. If it is not presented as science, it cannot be "pseudoscience". Redheylin (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hi. Could I have some help dealing with an anon editor over at synthetic telepathy. The article is currently filled with fringe conspiracy theories about mind control, all of which is original research because, apparently, the real sources are classified information. GDallimore (Talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added it to my watchlist and will await developments. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apparently I don't understand the technology behind intercepting fluctuations in the human magnetic field. GDallimore (Talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just realised I should have put this on the noticeboard. Am moving the discussion there: Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I thought that's where we were! Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Extension to social sciences
Coming here after a brief discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. Quite a chunk of the questions brought to FTN are not about the natural sciences at all but about pseudohistory and archaeology. It seems to be quite urgent to extend the guideline so that these things are sufficiently addressed. Do people agree? I was thinking of adding a pseudohistory section after "pseudoscience". And would it be useful to restate here the sourcing guidelines that WikiProject History have for history articles, which are quite strict? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...well, I'm of the opinion that fringe is fringe. It doesn't matter whether the the topic is science or history.   I'm not sure we should be singling out science as it implies that this guideline doesn't apply to other topic areas.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had thought that it was fairly obvious that the 'science' in pseudoscience can refer to both hard and soft sciences (like sociology, archeology, etc). But feel free to make this clearer if you think its necessary – I'll support any such effort. Perhaps the term 'pseudo-academic' would be more appropriate when referring to fringe theories. LK (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * point of interest - the terms 'hard' and 'soft' with respect to sciences is a holdover from the 50's/60's that is pretty much considered passé. 'physical' and 'social' sciences works better.  physical sciences are not 'hard', they simply have variances that are sufficiently small that most physical scientists ignore them (e.g., you can't really treat a physical body as though all its mass were concentrated at its center-point, but the errors you get from making that assumption in normal cases are inconsequential).


 * That being said, this kind of extension will cause a lot of headaches, since it would ultimately force us to revise the notion of pseudoscience for he physical sciences. I'm all for that, mind you, but it will meet with a lot of resistance.  The problem is that if you start trying to account for things like 'pseudohistory' you have to make a much clearer distinction between accepted, rejected, and unaddressed ideas.  pseudohistory can only be a rejected historical narrative - historical narratives that are not addressed by scholarly work might be history or might be legend, but they are never considered 'false' without reason.  However, there is a strong tendency on the physical sciences side to conflate rejected and unaddressed ideas as though both were pseudoscience.  I'm just saying...  -- Ludwigs 2  17:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

move to delete one of the lists of TC's from Ten Commandments
The three lists called TC's in the OT or in popular conception have been listed side-by-side, stably, for a year and a half. There's now an edit war pushing to delete one of them, which has its own article. IMO, the main article should cover all points of view; if some editors want to cover only the traditionalist POV, then the article should be renamed 'traditionalist account of the TCs' or some such. — kwami (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are only two sets of lists that are commonly called the "Ten Commandments". The Ritual Decalogue is commonly called the "Ritual Decalogue", which is why Talk: page consensus has always been that the Ten Commandments article deal primarily with what is known as the "Ten Commandments", while the Ritual Decalogue article deals with what is commonly known as the "Ritual Decalogue". Of course, the Ten Commandments article does make reference to the Ritual Decalogue article, and no-one is suggesting it shouldn't. And what on earth does this have to do with "Fringe theories"? Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * People have argued that the RD is fringe, that when the Bible calls it the Ten Commandments, it isn't really talking about that passage, but some other.
 * The "Decalogue is not the Ten Commandments" argument strikes me as specious. They are generally considered synonyms. Indeed, the intro to the article starts with "The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, ...", and the only reason 'TC' was chosen over 'Decalogue' as the name of the article is that it's more frequent. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Time Cube
I find it amazing that Time Cube is used as an example of obvious pseudoscience. It contains no science. It does not purport to be science in any understandable manner. It's just the chaotic, meaningless ramblings of a crackpot. Crackpot ideas are not the same as pseudoscience and it is a serious error to confuse them. GDallimore (Talk) 23:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also stunned that this guideline would deign to ignore a policy as key as WP:No original research. GDallimore (Talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm...does anyone want to weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This example is from an Arbcom decision, the ultimate arbiter of things on Wikipedia. Hence as far as wikipedia is concerned, it is pseudoscience, and it should stay in this guideline, regardless of what any individual wikipedians may think about it. LK (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is most definitely not the "ultimate arbiter of things on Wikipedia". Arbcom's purview is limited to editorial conduct issues and In particular has no say over content. Paul August &#9742; 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. GDallimore (Talk) 13:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I hadn't actually looked at the amendment process before.  once this case is done (just so the issues don't get confused) I may start a more substantive request for amendment, maybe get some of the troubling ambiguities of fringe debates cleared up.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks the amendment has passed and we need a replacement fringe theory that is obviously pseudoscience. Any suggestions?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...just read through List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, (and am surprised at some of the entries, such as faith healing, which seems to be a religious belief, and does not proport to be a science, AFAIK). Anyway, how about Creationism? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the point that Time Cube is crankery rather than pseudoscience, but it is excellent for the example in the guideline because everyone reading this page is very likely to instantly agree that it is nuts, and deserves some kind of appropriate label. The guideline is not the place to argue whether Creationism can obviously be described as pseudoscience. The original proponent of Time Cube presumably felt they were dealing with science because many scientific buzzwords are used, and according to our article it is a "theory of reality ... suggesting that all of modern physics is wrong". That is close enough to "pseudoscientific" for the purpose of this guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually like orgone for the job. it was (at its inception) a marginally acceptable scientific theory that failed on evidentiary grounds, but was (and is) still promoted by various people (from true cranks to well-intentioned adherents).  it's worth looking at, anyway.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just read through the article on orgone and don't think it's a good candidate, as some of the claims made are so vague as to be undisprovable. IMO the Nibiru collision is a better choice as it's pretty obvious that it's provably false (e.g. the photo purportedly of Nibiru is that of a star with a surrounding nebula). The status of orgone is too similar to that of astrology, which is the example of "generally considered pseudoscience", we need something more obviously pseudoscience as the example of obvious pseudoscience. LK (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed Time Cube as an example since the only original justification for including it was the arbcom decision and that has now been amended. As far as I am concerned, Time Cube may be completely bogus, but it is not and does not purport to be science, pseudo- or otherwise. It is just a vague, semi-philosophical rant.
 * A better example would be any noteworthy machine/device that purports to be a perpetual motion machine. My vote would be for Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell. Perpetual motion is clearly psuedoscience, but not every single device that purports to be a perpetual motion machine has a reliable source giving it that tag; they rarely get enough attention from serious scientists. In essence this article has already been labelled and categorised as pseudoscience since the perptual motion category is a sub-cat of pseudoscience, and I think an example like this is a good way to ensure it stays that way despite a reliable source that specifically gives it that label. GDallimore (Talk) 15:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How about Inter-Dimensional Reptilian Shape-shifters? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert
Verbal, any particular reason for restoring the wordiness, e.g. "Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it"? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me enumerate the problems I see:


 * 1) Your edit equates 'fringe theory' with 'a view held only by a tiny minority', which is inconsistent with what is expressed in the rest of the page, and in WP:NPV. The current definition (given later in the article) is closer to how the term is currently used in the other policy pages: "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view".
 * 2) Your edit equates giving undue prominence with improper sourcing, whereas the more relevant guideline is WP:UNDUE.
 * 3) Lastly, your version removes the motivation for this guideline from the lead.
 * I understand that you do not agree with WP:UNDUE, and that you don't think it should be policy. But it currently is policy, and a consensus of Wikipedians is behind it. Until and unless a consensus of editors agree to revoke WP:UNDUE, it is inappropriate to edit other policies and guidelines to remove reference to a policy that you do not agree with.
 * LK (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We have always had three basic levels of POV: majority views, significant-minority views, and tiny-minority views. The last category is what we mean by "fringe."


 * Something could depart significantly from a mainstream view and still be a significant-minority view, or even a majority one. So you're seeking to introduce a new idea that doesn't make much sense. And I have never said UNDUE should not be policy; my concern is only that it's very poorly written and lends itself to misuse as a result.


 * The above is separate from the issue of the writing in this guideline. This lead is currently badly written and needs tidying. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please say what was wrong with my copy edit:

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 09:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot support the "tiny minority" wording, it's a free pass for wikilawyering and would have most altmed, which is clearly fringe, removed from this definition. Verbal chat  09:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the wording that's been in use for years on Wikipedia in numerous policies and guidelines. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not this one. And it's demonstrably wrong. Verbal chat  10:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, when the term 'tiny minority' is used in relation to 'fringe', it usually refers to a tiny minority of proponents in 'reliable sources', not a tiny minority 'hold this view'. Your lead is misleading in that it implies that if more than a 'tiny minority' of people hold a view, it is no longer fringe. Since quite a large proportion of the population believe in astrology, young earth creationism, UFO's, homeopathy, and that Obama was not born in the US, according to your argument those views are not fringe, and views like those do not fall under the provenance of this guideline. Such a view contradicts other material on this page and the intent of several arbcom decisions. LK (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's understood that we refer to reliable sources when we talk about majority, significant-minority, and tiny-minority (we only ever talk about reliable sources when assessing views), and I have no problem making that clear. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to say I really like the shift from "Wikipedia does not become a validating source" to "Wikipedia does not become a primary source", which I think is a much clearer way of putting it. If this is hung up on the tiny minority thing, then I'd suggest the following:
 * "Fringe theories are broadly defined as views which are disputed by an overwhelming majority of sources because they contravene currently accepted scholarship. Such views should be covered on Wikipedia where appropriate and necessary, but Wikipedia should not become a primary source that promotes, defends or refutes such ideas. Fringe theories have been the subject of several arbitration cases; see Fringe theories arbitration."
 * better? -- Ludwigs 2  15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That also sounds like a wikilawyers paradise. Please state what exactly is wrong with the current text, and then maybe we can fix it. I've yet to be convinced it needs fixing. Verbal chat  15:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Without commenting on your proposal, I'll just point out that your initial remark suggesting that "Wikipedia does not become a primary source" is a "shift" introduced by Slim Virgin is inaccurate; that language is in the present version on the right above:  "Reliable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories." I prefer the language of the present version, as it gives correct emphasis to the importance of reliable sources.Woonpton (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Woonpton: yeah, I noticed that myself after I posted. my bad.


 * @ Verbal: first, this isn't about being broken or fixed, this is about improvement. wikilawyers will do what wikilawyers will do, there's no stopping that, all we can do is be as clear as possible.  there's really very little difference between these three versions - it all boils down to what gets said in the first part of the (current) second paragraph:
 * do we (version 1) call Fringe theories 'tiny minority' theories (problematic phrasing, that lets wikilawyers redefine 'tiny' to support or attack whatever they feel like)
 * do we (version 2) waffle on about 'independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality' (a pseudoskeptics wet-dream, allowing them to redefine practically anything not discussed by science as fringe)
 * do we (version 3) specify that fringe theories are those theories disputed by the vast majority of sources? (I wrote that, so I have a hard time seeing anything wrong with it, though I'm sure there is).
 * We all agree that Wikipedia should not be a primary source (though I've gone the extra mile to specify that it shouldn't be one for validating or refuting), we all agree on the last paragraph. I think mine's best (as clearest), and between the other two I have a mild preference for SV's version because it seems more concise and less subject to POV-pushing.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretations, the present version is by far the best. Rather than fixing anything the proposals are to break this page. Verbal chat  16:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * can you explain that comment, or is that merely your belief on the matter? because frankly, I don't think it's a valid belief (and ILIKEIT is not really a valid policy concern).  I'm willing to be convinced, however.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have yet to convince me there is a problem, and your IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to change the page - especially in a way that would assist in advocacy of a sort familiar to some here. Verbal chat  18:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Verbal, I learned a long time ago that it's impossible to convince you of anything, since you never actually discuss issues. I'm simply waiting for considered opinions from others, so that we can reach a reasonable consensus with or without you.  but thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a "civil" FU, but rather than drop to that level why don't you actually present some problems with the current wording. I'm surprised you're not blocked yet, but while you're here I'm willing to work with you. Verbal chat  21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose I could say the same about you, but let's set aside our mutual dislike for a bit and get down to brass tacks. Seems to me I gave nice set of bullet points 8 lines above about the problem as I see it, but let me repeat myself in more detail.  the problem with the current version (which is not a huge life-or-death problem, mind you) is that it is a bit redundant, it is imprecise, and it is slanted a bit to promote pseudoscientific wikilawyering.  in detail:
 * the phrase "Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence" is covered by NPOV and rightfully belongs there - it does not need to be repeated here.
 * the phrase "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects" is misleading lawyer-fodder. Wikipedia does not validate any topic or source, while 'significance' is something that can only be determined in the context of particular topics and articles - subjects do not have '(in)significance' in some over-arching, value-free manner.
 * the phrase "one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it" is practically an incitement to rabble-rousing. Does this phrase literally mean that we should not write about fringe theories neutrally?  Does it mean we should not write about fringe theories at all, even if they are notable?  this is - again - lawyer fodder for skeptical advocacy.
 * -- Ludwigs 2 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comments

 * 1) In the current text box above, I have trouble with this sentence: Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. The first two phrases are fine.  But the third is quite odd, at least in this context.  First, by itself it sounds like it is discussing original research, not fringe theory handling.  Second, if we take the first two phrases as premises, the does not become really is logically cannot become, and the it is important becomes almost meaningless.
 * 2) The next sentence is written too prescriptively.  An improved ending would be "Reliable sources that discuss an idea are required, thus Wikipedia cannot become the primary source for fringe theories".  More descriptive: it just can't happen.  But again this sentence veers into sounding like it's handling original research: is this desired?  Also, shouldn't that sentence end with "or indeed any topic.", or reversing: "the primary source on any topic, including fringe theories."?  This shows more clearly the logical relations involved. But to be honest, this sentence seems redundant given the previous one, especially if the previous one's wording is tightened to deal with my first point.
 * 3) A minor change suggestion: This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, ... to This guideline advises how fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, ... "Which" sounds too litmusy, the "maybe included" covers the possibility that it won't be.
 * 4) The end of the last sentence: of reasonable reliability and quality about it. "reliability" and "quality" are in this case somewhat redundant; for the project, "reliability" is the metric used to judge sources (something is a quality source if it is deemed reliable), so I propose to drop "and quality" from this.
 * 5) After rereading my above comments, I think that even in lieu of them the current text reads too prescriptively from top to bottom. While the general ideas are fine, it has the sound of a teacher wagging a scolding finger at a schoolchild.

I do hope this imput is constructive. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with most of these points. what do you think of the other version, or of the variation I suggested below them?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Too many versions floating around. Can someone write out a proposal below so that I (and others) know exactly what we're proposing? LK (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * there are only three versions floating here, and they only differ significantly in the second paragraph. and they break down as follows:
 * (current version - defended by Verbal). second paragraph reads: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Reliable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it."
 * (original proposal - offered, I think, by Slim Virgin). lacks the first 'this guideline advises' line, and second paragraph reads: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory—broadly defined as a view held only by a tiny minority—appear more notable than it is. This means that reliable sources are required so that Wikipedia does not become a primary source for such ideas. Fringe theories have been the subject of several arbitration cases; see Fringe theories arbitration."
 * (alternate proposal - mine). lacks the first 'this guideline advises' line, and second paragraph reads:"Fringe theories are broadly defined as views which are disputed by an overwhelming majority of sources because they contravene currently accepted scholarship. Such views should be covered on Wikipedia where appropriate and necessary, but Wikipedia should not become a primary source that promotes, defends or refutes such ideas. Fringe theories have been the subject of several arbitration cases; see Fringe theories arbitration."
 * Everything else is (more or less) identical. -- Ludwigs 2  23:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I find all versions problematic. I propose a fourth version: "Fringe theories are views that are contradicted by an overwhelming majority of reliable sources as they contravene currently accepted scholarship. Wikipedia should not give fringe theories undue coverage and make them appear more notable prominent than they are. Reliable sources are required so that Wikipedia does not become a primary or validating source for about such ideas. Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases (see Fringe theories/Arbitration cases)."
 * LK (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, ok: four then. It seems to me there are three issues being contested.
 * 'held by a tiny minority' vs 'disputed/contradicted by an overwhelming majority'
 * 'not be a primary source that validates' vs 'not be a primary sources that validates or refutes' vs the vanilla 'not be a primary source'
 * whether or not to mention notability and undue weight
 * with respect to 1, I think the 'overwhelming majority' language is better. the whole 'tiny minority' thing seems prejudicial and is difficult to assess in practice; it is easier to judge when there is a broad rejection of a particular idea.


 * with respect to 2, we can only talk about not validating if we also talk about not refuting, otherwise it will (as it frequently has) encourage intense wikilawyering (it implicitly encourages people to use wikipedia as a primary source for debunking things).


 * with respect to 3, I'd be inclined to leave them out, for two reasons: (1) Notability as policy doesn't mean this - notability as a policy only refers to whether a subject is sufficiently important to have an article of its own in Wikipedia. it's not a comparative.  what you really mean is something more like 'noteworthy', but that's not covered under wp:N.  (2) UNDUE is a given: fringe theories are not treated any differently under the policy than any other kind of material, it's just that fringe theories are more likely to be excluded by undue weight on mainstream articles.  Best leave that to be handled on the NPOV page, otherwise we tun the risk of this guideline trying to reframe core policy.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'ld agree with all the above except about WP:UNDUE. We mention all three content policies, how can we leave out mentioning what is arguably the most relevant policy concerning the inclusion/exclusion and weight given fringe ideas? I'll edit my proposal to reflect your concerns. LK (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ok: strike the bit about notability entirely (no sense throwing in a word that is bound to confuse people in/re the policy), change 'primary source for such ideas' to 'primary source concerning such ideas (to get rid of the implicit bias of 'for'), and I could go for your version. I still prefer 'disputed by' to 'contradicted by' ('disputed by' is more in tune with the actual scientific process), but that that's a minor enough point that we can debate it later.  let's see what Slim and Verbal have to say about it, and if they agree we can go ahead and edit it in.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've edited as you requested, and replaced 'notable' with 'prominent'. I think we should have something like that there as it gives the main motivation for why this guideline exists.  LK (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one objects soon, I'm going to replace the first paragraph with the proposal above. LK (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Disputed' would be a mistake. In archaeology, for instance, there are loads of fringe theories which are contradicted by the evidence, but which no archaeologist disputes because they are just ignored. Using the word 'dispute' would simply cause arguments from fringe adherents claiming no one had disputed their favorite author, etc. I take the point about 'prominent'. And I think WP:UNDUE belongs here. I also agree that 'tiny minority' is not something I'd like to see here. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

New question
There's lots of discussion about this, but I haven't seen much discussion of the most important question: What specific failings are there in the current language which it is intended to solve? I cannot get behind any proposal without a serious discussion of this. GDallimore (Talk) 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's been spelled out in several places in this discussion. read over the thread, please, and tell what is unclear about the problem, because I'm not understanding what you're not seeing.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The original is just not written very well. Nothing seriously wrong with it, but it's good to clean up and clarify where possible. I've tried very hard to make sure that the new version doesn't actually change anything. If you notice something please feel free to edit. LK (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the new wording opens up a pretty big hole for Wikilawyering, particularly the part that says "Fringe theories are views that are contradicted by an overwhelming majority of reliable sources". What happens when no reliable sources contradict a fringe viewpoint? It seems to me that a fringe theorist can demand that you provide a reliable sources which explictly contradict their fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be at least some evidence that a theory is fringe. A common definition of fringe theory is that it is a theory that departs significantly from the mainstream view. If I have a theory that doesn't contradict mainstream science, or is about an issue that is unaddressed by mainstream science, I don't think you can label it fringe. (e.g. I have a theory that I can see the sea from my front window. Is that a fringe view? ) Can you give a single example of a fringe theory that does not contradict what is currently accepted by the mainstream literature? LK (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem with providing "evidence that a theory is fringe" is that, all too often, there is none. All too often, the only people who discuss a fringe theory are adherents... everyone else (ie the mainstream) ignores it (and if it is really fringe, they may not have even heard of it in the first place).  In some ways this lack of discussion by the mainstream is what makes a theory fringe.
 * Of course, there is a the flip side to this... if a particular theory has been ignored by the mainstream (or not noticed by them) then there will not be reliable sources that discuss the theory... which means that we should not have an article about the theory (per WP:NOTE), or mention it in some other article (per WP:UNDUE). And... if there is no mention of it on Wikipedia, there is no need to label it as "Fringe". Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't that easy in practice. We've got fringe articles on stuff that has been ignored/not notice by the mainstream, being kept because notability is asserted. The only one I can think of at the moment is 366 geometry. Uriel's Machine is similar. Next to no serious analysis has been made of the hypotheses in these two books by mainstream academics because it isn't worth their time, but we have articles on them. Our guidelines need to offer help with such articles. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I'm not so sure it's as easy as that. many ideas are notable despite (or even because of) being unscholarly: UFOs, parapsychology, cryptozoology, creation science...  none of these get any significant treatment in scholarly sources (except as social phenomena) but all of them are notable subjects because they have a prominent place in popular sources. The trick is to keep them contextualized as popular conceptions and not allow them to invade scholarly discussions or present themselves in a self-approving, self-aggrandizing bubble.  But there are plenty of ways to do that don't involve villainizing the topic or the authors (and editors) who deal with it.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, can you show me how to do this on the two articles I mention? Seriously, how do we apply our guidelines to these two. And I just thought of another example, although I think the answer is simple - Christian O'Brien, only notable because of his work in the oil industry, but most of his article is on stuff he did after he retired that has little prominence. Do our current guidelines justify cutting out most of the fringe stuff? Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - where do you find these funky topics? so, there are two separate issues to be considered.  first, general notability.  By the guideline, "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."  so:
 * 366 geometry does not seem to be notable as a theory - the only significant commentary on it comes from the people proposing it. I'm not even certain it rises to the level of pseudoscience. I mean, basically it's an assertion that whomever built megalithic circles were using a slightly smaller angular degree than we use, with (so I assume) a whole bunch of speculation about astronomy and the Minoan civilization.  Big whoop.  There's no scientific evidence in its favor and no scientific evidence against it.  If it's notable as a book or books (i.e. as a bit of popular speculation), then the article should probably be rewritten to discuss the book(s) and its (their) public reception, or maybe the whole thing should be reduced to a section in an article on popular megalithic theories, or in Christopher Knight's article
 * Uriel's machine - same deal. if it's notable as a book, I'd suggest moving the Tim Schadla-Hall quote up into the lead, and rewriting it in more 'book-review' type style (and it badly needs a rewrite).
 * O'brian is clearly notable as an individual, but I can't tell from the material presented whether his post-retirement investigations into prehistory are notable. They certainly are excessive here, and ought to be trimmed back and/or moved to different articles (e.g. about eden theories or the barton cylinder) where they fit better with the material.
 * If they are considered to be notable, then we have the second issue of weight.
 * 366 geometry (assuming notability as a fringe theory) would clearly be pseudoscience, and would need balancing on both ends: I'd personally prune away a lot of the expository text (which sounds too much like it's trying to convince people of the theory) and break up the 'critical reception' section, integrating the critiques into the rest of the article where and as necessary to defuse unsupportable claims.
 * Uriel's machine (assuming notability as a fringe theory) would also clearly be pseudoscience. The article balance currently isn't too bad, though I'd (again) integrate the criticism better.
 * Assuming that O'brien's later research is notable as a fringe theory, it should really be in a different article. All O'brien's article needs to note is that he proposed the theory and claimed to have found a historical location for Eden.  it doesn't need to be expounded upon there.
 * Is that what you meant? -- Ludwigs 2 22:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification. As noted by Dougweller above, using the term 'disputed by' would mean that for a theory to be fringe it must be addressed and disputed by RS. That's why I changed it to 'contradicted by'. This means that a theory is fringe if it contradicts the accepted literature. AFAIK all fringe theories contradict the accepted literature. I had thought that this was obvious, but given the comments, apparently not. Perhaps more clarification should be added to the proposed change. LK (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of major content policies
Right now, the lead summarizes the main content policies as: Jointly these say that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be included in articles, and that any material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. This summary is inaccurate. Here are the gist of the nutshells from the three policies: A proper summary would be: Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all significant views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. I'm changing the lead as it is imperative that guidelines be made consistent with policies. LK (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPV: representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, 
 * WP:NOR: may not contain any new analysis or synthesis
 * WP:V: material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source

What can be fringe?
In the discussion "In respect to reliability", I proposed adding advice something like "Identifying something as fringe does not make it unreliable. Reliability must be determined on other grounds." This begs the question, what may legitimately be identified as fringe.

WP:Fringe is a content guideline for determining whether or not a theory is sufficiently notable for an article about it to be included in wikipedia. The nutshell says "To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an 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."

The domain of application for this guideline is theories. The range of its effectiveness is notability. It depends for its effectiveness on the number and reliability of citations.

Confusion about this came to my attention in an edit war around an article on computers and astrology (renamed "Astrological software"). Astrology is deemed a fringe theory, but its notability is unquestioned. Software is not a theory, and so is clearly outside the domain of this guideline. Use of this guideline to challenge reliability of sources was clearly outside the range of effectiveness of this guideline.

Discussion of the reliability issues indicates that confusion about the domain and range of this guideline has been problematic in many other cases and that it this confusion therefore should be addressed in some way. Bn (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have some problem with a particular article, please take it up on an appropriate noticeboard (if there is a dispute regarding whether a source is reliable in a particular context, see WP:RSN). We do not spell out every possible mistake editors can make, and clearly WP:V (with the interpretations in WP:IRS) is the authority on what is a reliable source. I do not know the nature of the problem you refer to, but WP:FRINGE spells out that certain topics are regarded as fringe, and particular care should be taken to apply the core policies so Wikipedia is not used to promote fringe topics. Your comments above seem inappropriate in that "reliability" relates to whether a particular source should be used to verify a particular statement in a certain context. The fringe issue has nothing to do with reliability, except that for a fringe topic, particular care is required to ensure that really reliable sources are used (apart from those which illustrate the claims of the fringe theory). Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The particular example is not needed for the discussion here. Per discussion in the section on reliability there are many such examples. I collapsed it, and I apologize if inserting it was untoward. The purpose of this section is to refocus discussion clearly on the principles involved. There is no question that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. However, if (as has been suggested above) debunkers and what you might call counter-advocates are abusing the fringe attribution to block statements related to a fringe theory that are not exceptional claims of the theory, some explicit guidance here may be in order. This is not just one of the innumerable mistakes that editors can make. Because both advocates and debunkers get rather heated about fringe theories, exceptional efforts to sustain neutrality may be called for. Fringe is not a tar brush. Bn (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In respect to reliability
I would like to add something like the following:
 * Fringe content does not make a publication or publisher or writer unreliable. A judgment that content is fringe does not support a further judgment that a publication about such content is an unreliable source on that subject, nor can it be inferred that a publisher or writer of such content therefore fails to be a reliable source. Such an assertion is a logical fallacy. (It is a kind of category error, in that one is meta to the other.) There are good criteria for the WP:RS label. Identifying the subject matter as Fringe says nothing about how reliable a source about that subject matter might be.

Where should it go, and is that language appropriate and adequate?Bn (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On first reading, this is far too unclear to go into the guideline.
 * One possible interpretation is that if New Scientist publishes a carefully researched article about AIDS denialism(for example) then New Scientist is not automatically an unreliable source. Well, d'uh. If that's the intended interpretation then there's no need to mention it since it's blindingly obvious from reading [[WP:RS].
 * Another possible interpretation is that publications should be given the benefit of the doubt from an RS perspective even if they publish articles supporting fringe theories. I would firmly disagree with this - supporting a fringe theory is practically guaranteed to call its reliable-ness into question since there is immediately doubt over whether there has been sufficient fact-checking. If the publication has a well-established history for fact checking or accuracy or is peer-reviewed, however, then there is no problem, but then we're back into "well, d'uh" territory again and WP:RS does not require supplementing here.
 * I suspect the intended meaning is somewhere between the two of these, but the proposed language needs significant tightening if it is to be a useful part of the guideline.
 * Personally, I don't see how anything useful could be added here over and above RS. RS is very clear about what constitutes a reliable source and the definition is rightly independent of whether or not it publishes content about fringe theories - what matters is whether the publication can be relied upon and RS sets out the necessary rules for determining that. GDallimore (Talk) 18:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I can understand the motivation or something like this. Fringe is an extension of wp:RS in that it clarifies when a particular source may not be reliable for a particular topic, but there is a tendency for people to engage in circular reasoning: i.e., determine that a particular source is fringe for a particular topic, and then turn around and say that because it's fringe in one place it's not reliable for anything.  It would be nice to clarify that the reliability of a source ought to be determined independently, without reference to particular content issues or wikipedia classifications.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "it clarifies when a particular source may not be reliable for a particular topic"'
 * Which part of the guideline does this? GDallimore (Talk) 23:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * pretty much the whole thing, no? what do you think this guideline does?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This guideline is about content, not sources as far as I can tell. The only bit about sources is quoted from RS. GDallimore (Talk) 14:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. This is the converse situation. I'm talking about a generalization in one direction, you're talking about a generalization in the other. Both are pernicious and circular.Bn (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing on anything. let's leave it that pernicious circular reasoning is bad.
 * Oh, no disagreement here, I recognize the agreement as a very interesting expansion.Bn (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The intended interpretation is the first, and yes I would have thought that it was obvious that the justification for RS must be independent of a judgement that the content is Fringe. The occasion for this was seeing an experienced editor working on an article on a fringe topic invoke WP:Fringe as the justification for RS, NOT, and deletion.


 * I think the needed clarification to be added to the above is this: when the subject matter is considered WP:Fringe then WP:Fringe cannot be invoked as grounds for WP:Not or WP:RS.


 * Perhaps that is what you intuited when you proposed that the intention was somewhere between the extremes of the two examples you give. A document about a fringe theory can be a reliable source for an article about that theory, quite irrespective of the reliability of the theory itself, and indeed quite irrespective of the reliability of that source as a reference for accepted scientific fact. The relevant fact checking concerns the fringe theory--does the theory claim x or y. Fact checking as to whether x or y is accepted scientific fact is irrelevant to an article that describes the given fringe theory. This is precisely the use-mention confusion that I invoked ("it's a kind of category error, in that one is meta to the other"). For an article on some other topic, not about a fringe theory, WP:Fringe may be relevant, but the criteria noted at WP:RS and WP:Not are perfectly adequate without that invitation to contention.Bn (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see how this guideline in its current form can be used as a way to say a source isn't reliable any more or less than RS does. If someone is doing so, then I think they must be doing so erroneously. Link to an edit.
 * And the clarification is still way too wide-ranging in my view. I cannot think of a single guideline that has such specific wide-ranging rules and I think it would be a bad idea to start on what looks to me to be an WP:Instruction creep path. GDallimore (Talk) 23:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was trying to avoid the tattle-tale vortex where this came up, but OK. One instance is "New Age WP:FRINGE publishers &hellip; are inherently unreliable" at Talk:Astrology_software and the surrounding edit war. I do see, however, that good sense seems to be prevailing there, and I recognize the merit in not over-legislating. So I guess pertinent questions are, how common is this, and does good sense fail to prevail uncomfortably often.Bn (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - my sense is that good sense triumphs in things like this more than one would expect but less than one would like. At least, I've seen enough cases where good sense has failed so utterly that I am a bit leery of relying on it.  a little clarification of good sense in this case couldn't hurt, and might help, so...  -- Ludwigs 2  06:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking over that discussion, there is, as I thought there might be, an apparent misunderstanding of this guideline as was highlighted in the discussion: there is no such thing as a "fringe source" and this guideline neither defines nor relies on whatever that might be. There are only reliable or unreliable sources and for that there is RS and this content guideline would do well to keep out of RS's way. GDallimore (Talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * granting that I agree with that assessment, I do feel the need to point out that that is not the way this guideline is used in talk page debates. On talk pages there are (apparently) fringe sources, fringe publications, fringe authors, even fringe wikipedia editors, all of which are propounded as unreliable and unworthy of inclusion.  If none of that is supported by the guideline, how do we stop editors from using the guideline in that way?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, you can stop such editors by knowing what the guideline actually says. This guideline talks more about what Fringe material can be added to Wikipedia than it talks about what can not be added. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I am currently at the tail end of an unpleasant arbitration case where a number of highly experienced editors have proven themselves deeply resistant to that logic - they've literally spent months referring to sources and editors as 'fringe' sources and 'fringe' editors (and worse) over all objections - I can't quite have your faith in appeals to a rational appraisal of guideline scope. -- Ludwigs 2 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Well, I would say that making things simpler is always best; going back to basics. By "fringe publication", the editor probably means "unreliable publication", so ask them if that's what they mean and then a sensible discussion centred around RS can be had whereas no sensible discussion can be had around this guideline which doesn't really tackle that point. As for "fringe editors", well I guess what's meant by that is POV-pushing editors. But this can and should go both ways so discussion should be focused on the NPOV guideline and perhaps resolved as suggested in Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.
 * I agree, that would be straightforward when other grounds for RS are prominent, but in this case the fringe attribution was being used to justify the RS tag (and Notability as well). Bn (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally I'm of the view that the core policies are enough and should be turned to first and foremost. Although, I think I'm in a minority there: people seem to like more and more rules but my attorney experience shows that more rules just lead to more problems. Similarly, I'll always be against adding more detail to a guideline if there is confusion over using it - 9 times out of 10, shortening the guideline and just writing it better would probably be more effective! GDallimore (Talk) 15:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree certainly with the KISS principle. Adding to legalistic complexity fosters use of policies as rules and use of those rules as clubs to subdue opposition. I've seen more than enough of that, thank you.
 * But there seems to be a little burble in consensus here. Earlier, Ludwigs2 said "Fringe is an extension of WP:RS in that it clarifies when a particular source may not be reliable for a particular topic." I'm kind of leery of saying it's an extension of WP:RS. It's too easy to paraphrase as saying that such a document is unreliable because it is a "fringe source". It's this generalization, "all documents about fringe subjects are unreliable sources for all wikipedia articles", that is the problem. The emphasis needs to be on the second half of Ludwigs2's statement above, and on the pertinent question, what makes it unreliable for a given topic?
 * Fringe content is unreliable as a source of scientific fact.
 * Content about fringe topic x may be a reliable source for an article about fringe topic x, depending upon WP:RS.
 * Between these extremes are many topics which depend upon something like expert consensus in the current state of the art, as indeed the sciences do, but where the given field is not regarded as a science.
 * I think clarification on these lines would provide editors a basis for establishing NPOV in matters that tend to get rather fraught with committed beliefs. Bn (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note: Tweaked the above to disambiguate which quote was referenced.) It seems to me that (1) is really a function of scientific consensus and not of WP:RS. A document about some aspect or finding or hypothesis or theory can change from being fringe to being science (e.g. continental drift). (2) can be better stated:
 * 2. Content about fringe topic x is a reliable source for an article about fringe topic x if it satisfies WP:RS.
 * This more clearly makes the relevant distinction between WP:Fringe and WP:RS. (3) encompasses many, many fields whose legitimacy is unquestioned, such as history, musicology, and jurisprudence, which may sometimes appropriately reference documents that discuss fringe matters (e.g. the interest of Wagner and Liszt in the occult). Bn (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I still pretty fundamentally disagree. My main issue is all these phrases like "fringe content" and "fringe topic", which are just as meaningless really as "fringe source" and "fringe editor" and have no place in any guideline as far as I'm concerned. My other big problem is the complete redundancy of it all. Take no. 2 "Content about fringe topic x is a reliable source for an article about fringe topic x if it satisfies WP:RS". Ignoring the strange use of the word "content", the proposal is a direct subset of "a source is reliable if it satisfies RS" and therefore completely unecessary.
 * Just deal with the difficulties. There's no need for any of this guideline to be changed as made clear from the redundancy of the proposed changes. And I'm coming to the realisation that, even if something does need changing, it needs changing at RS, not here. GDallimore (Talk) 21:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem we are facing here is that WP:FRINGE was never intended to be a reliability guideline... it is instead focused primarily on clarifying notability (for articles on fringe topics) and UNDUE (when discussing fringe topics within other articles) issues. Yes, we require reliable sources when discussing Fringe topics... but no more and no less so than in any other subject area in Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, people keep referring to WP:FRINGE as if it were a reliability guideline and assuming that it says things that it does not actually say. The only way to combat that is to point them to what it actually says. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GDallimore (Talk) 01:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, that was well put. maybe we can address this concern simply by adding a details-type template at the top that spells this out - This guideline addresses how to incorporate information about fringe theories in article content.  For policy on the reliability of sources that present fringe theories, see wp:RS and wp:V.  we might also want to tweak the nutshell, which leans towards sourcing issues.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the latter. The nutshell does not lean towards sourcing and certainly not in the way that's being discussed above. It says a topic must have reliable sources, it doesn't say anything about the sources themselves. I also don't see what the detail template would add that isn't already said by the very first sentence of the guideline. GDallimore (Talk) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence sort of paraphrases the first sentence of the guideline. The second sentence paraphrases other statements in the guideline (e.g. "Reliable sources that discuss an idea are required"). But the problem is the generalization that there are such things as fringe authors and fringe publishers, and that these authors and publishers and their publications are ipso facto not reliable sources. Currently, it is possible for intelligent and assiduous editors to read this guideline and still operate under that misunderstanding. 76.24.207.247 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the terms "Fringe Author" and "Fringe Publisher" are misleading and too often tossed around... but... it does have to be understood that reputation affects reliability. When an author writes primarily to promote fringe topics, he gains a poor reputation which negatively affects his reliability.  And when a publisher specializes in books that promote fringe topics,  that publisher will gain a poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy, which also negatively affects the reliability of that publisher.  I find it interesting that the opposite does not hold true for authors and publishers who debunk fringe theories... they don't automatically gain a good reputation.  It seems that even discussing fringe theories can lower one's reputation, whether it is to promote it or disparage it. Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I understand that perfectly. 'Debunkers' aren't really considered serious scientists.  The problem is that debunking is more socio-political than scientific - debunkers are usually trying to convince the lay public that some idea is dumb, as opposed to convince scientific readers that the idea is not supported by evidence.  In fact, the worst edge of debunkers actually commit the same sort of pseudoscientific errors that the people they are trying to debunk commit, just in the opposite direction (alluding to science with heavy doses of magical thinking - I see a lot of that on wikipedia...).  Scientists are generally too practical to care about debunking things.


 * to be clear, that's my main concern here - I want to see some language that reins in the worst class of debunkers along with the fringe advocates. It's those editors who can't (or won't) make the distinctions necessary to keep content, editorial and sourcing issues separate, and seem to think that anything short of outright, bitter condemnation is equivalent to advocacy.  Language to that effect would solve a lot of headaches on a lot of pages.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question... when you say you want "language that reins in the worst class of debunkers"... are you talking about sources or editors? Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * editors. Debunking sources can be handled effectively with proper attribution and due consideration of weight, just like advocating sources.  really that's what this guideline is about (how to get editors to properly incorporate sources and material that deal with outré issues); I just want to make sure both ends of the spectrum are covered.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I was afraid of... I don't disagree with your desire... but I do have to caution here... WP:FRINGE is essentially a content guideline. We need to focus on that aspect.  From your comment, it seems as if you are more focused on behavioral issues.  I don't think this the right page for such issues to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar - what do you think a content guideline is? When you separate out sourcing issues (which we have explicitly done in this conversation), then a content guideline is intended to advise editors how to work with sourced material to construct an article. That's editor behavior.  Now obviously no one wants to turn fringe into a behavioral guideline (behavioral guidelines deal with noxious behaviors that need to be controlled independent of context), but articles do not write themselves and content does not condense out of the air like dew.  Editors write content, and on contentious issues even the best intentioned editors make some some fundamental mistakes about how they approach the writing.  Content guidelines are there to help them avoid those mistakes.


 * Or do you have some better definition of a content guideline? I mean, yes, I'm happy to hear it if you do, but I don't see any way you can talk about content without talking about how editors relate to content, which is where all the troubles arise.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which editors specifically do you want to see reigned in? Or, if you prefer, which editing tactics do you want to see reigned in? Be specific. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to get around the idea that there are no fringe authors or fringe publications. I can understand the concept that they may not be reliable sources for anything but what they say, but in the real world the word fringe is used to describe authors and publications and I think has meaning. Can we say 'fringe advocates' instead of 'fringe authors' then? I also disagree with lumping together all 'debunkers' as not serious scientists. I'm coming at this from the perspective of archaeology and history, and that of course affects the way I see these issues. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Doug - my point was that 'debunking' is not a scientific activity, it's a social activity. break it down this way:
 * There are valid scholarly theories (established by scholars through a process of research, investigation, and critical analysis)
 * There are refuted (or at least rejected) scholarly theories, because they do not conform with ongoing research and evidence.
 * There are pseudo-intellectual lay theories - theories which have captured the imagination of the general public regardless of scientific standing (some of these theories are valid scholarly theories and some aren't; the general public is not good at distinguishing between the two)
 * There are people (some of whom are scientists and some of whom aren't) who try to convince the general public to reject some lay theories and accept others
 * The last category contains both debunkers and fringe advocates.


 * Unfortunately, this breakdown not quite as clear-cut as one might hope. Some scholars engage in debunking, and when they do they usually do it with a watered-down version of scientific reasoning (nothing that would pass muster in a scientific journal, but that will convince thoughtful lay-readers of the point).  Other scholars sometimes support fringe theories, usually because they think that there's some unrealized potential in the theory.  neither of these is problematic (scholars who try to explain science to the mass public are stars in my book, and all scholars have the right to question the scholarly status quo within the scientific community).  It's the sources who leave science behind to engage in public advocacy (whether for or against) that we want to be careful with on wikipedia.  right?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) well, SA, we've had this debate before, but it's an interesting discussion and worth bringing up again. in a nutshell: It's one thing for an editor to to include a source (or even well-established common knowledge) which points out that some fringe scholarship is generally invalidated, but it's not good for an editor to actively engage in debunking on his own.  The most common manifestations are editorial debunking are imbalanced presentations: excessive and ever-expanding critiques, overly-harsh language, efforts to place the article topic as secondary and its refutation as primary.  often it's unintentional (an editor/editors contesting this point and that point in an article until the article is filled with contestations); sometimes it's intentional (an editor with a particular issue against a topic who gets carried away).  either way, it needs to be brought back to balance.  For example, just recently the last paragraph of the lead of the orgone article  read:
 * "Reich's theory was quickly discredited and dismissed,[8] and at the time of his death the scientific community considered him a fraud or a madman.[5] The current consensus of the scientific community is that orgone theory is pseudoscience,[2][9][10] and that orgone itself is 'ludicruous and totally dismissible'.[2] Mainstream opinion considered Reich a quack.[11][12][5] His theory of bions supposedly violated the second law of thermodynamics."
 * A fraud, a madman, a quack, a ludicrous and totally dismissible pseudoscience that violates the second law of thermodynamics... Now if I were someone unacquainted with Reich and orgone and I read that last paragraph, I'd be thinking "Yeesh, somebody really hates the f%ck out of Reich."  That doesn't read like an encyclopedic assessment of orgone's standing in the scientific world, that reads like a mugging, and I can't imagine anyone would take it seriously. I revised it to read:
 * "Reich's theory was quickly discredited and dismissed,[7] The current consensus of the scientific community is that orgone theory is pseudoscience.[8][9][10]"
 * Which (to my mind) effectively places the theory in context without sounding like we're slobbering onto our keyboards. Mind you, the heavy-handed text is still there in the footnotes - if I had removed it I'd have been reverted (I suspect anyway - I've been reverted for removing it in the past, despite the fact that it's clearly a bit over the top).  This is the behavior I'd like to see reined in - we don't want to look like we're mugging topics, no matter how far off in la-la-land the topic might be.


 * I mean, this is usually my only involvement with fringe articles - doing what I see as copy-editing with an eye towards balance and detachment - and a ton of sh%t falls on my head for it. Call me selfish and egocentric if you like, but I just really want a more sh%t-free wikipedia life. Something in the guideline which suggests to editors that wikipedia is not the correct place for them to dispose of fringe theories, any more than it's the correct place for them to advocate for fringe theories, would go a long way towards that goal.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fringe is inherently a relative term: peripheral relative to the core of scholarly consensus. This works fine for articles about the current consensus in some field, or for articles that can reasonably be expected to be consistent with that consensus. The problems arise with the conceit that every article must be consistent with scientific consensus. A kind of scientistic bigotry results.

I agree that we want "some language that reins in the worst class of debunkers along with the fringe advocates. It's those editors who can't (or won't) make the distinctions necessary to keep content, editorial and sourcing issues separate, and seem to think that anything short of outright, bitter condemnation is equivalent to advocacy."

This seems to call for some simple statement like "Do not use this guideline as a basis to determine reliability of a source."
 * OK, I am adding this to the "Reliable sources" section: "Note that this content guideline is not itself a basis to determine reliability of a source." Bn (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to add this. WP:RS is the relevant policy. Verbal chat  21:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasons are given in the discussion above in this section. Your reference to WP:RS agrees with some of the early comments, but it is not a response to the reasons given for nonetheless saying something explicitly here. Bn (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reputation is the basis for generalizations about fringe authors, fringe publishers, etc. Blueboar said "reputation affects reliability." Of course, there is no causal or logical connection, and reliance on reputation leads us into logical fallacies. The justification for it is practical convenience. No one is going to verify the fact checking for every publisher, much less for every publication. But to flog a point that has already been accepted, a publisher that specializes in things like numerology may be a perfectly reliable, fact-checked source as to the established consensus among numerologists, and for an article about numerology the lack of scientific support is completely irrelevant for determining reliability of such sources. (And, as noted, scientists ignore it as irrelevant to them.) Bn (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your reasoning is that the bulk of Fringe material is self-published... either on line, or by a vanity press (we consider vanity press publications to be "self-published" because the "publishing house" does not do any fact checking or editorial review of the book). I find it extremely unlikely that a book on numerology will be fact-checked by anyone, much less the publisher.  Essentially,  I suppose it could be possible... but so extremely unlikely that I would need some evidence that it took place before I considered such a publisher to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But the fact-checking at Random House, Harper, Wiley, Penguin, et al. is sufficient when they publish a book on numerology? Think about it: what facts are there to check? Numerologists either say the same kinds of things about the number 5 or they don't. And it turns out they've been saying pretty much the same things for a long time. The differences are in the stories and examples that they spin out metaphorically. So what facts are you concerned about? Bn (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the text "Note that this content guideline is not itself a basis to determine reliability of a source": We do not note all the things that a content guideline is not (rather a long list). It is obvious to any experienced editor that WP:V is the relevant policy, and all guidelines mentioning reliable sources are subservient to it (and for the non-experienced, the lead spells it out: "the policies take precedence"). I oppose the addition of the above text because it is not helpful, and because it gives those who do not like the guideline an opportunity to imagine that the preceding paragraph about reliable sources is not correct. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar and Johnuniq. Verbal</b> chat  05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to also point out that not all divisions of a major publisher are on the same level and even University presses can have the 'how did that get through?' book.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a fair summary: No one disagrees with the truth of the statement "this content guideline is not itself a basis to determine reliability of a source". There is disagreement as to whether it should be included here. The statement "it gives those who do not like the guideline an opportunity to imagine that the preceding paragraph about reliable sources is not correct" only makes sense if it is unclear that the two preceding sentences summarize salient points at WP:V, to which the reader is referred. If that's the case, it's a problem that should be fixed. Perhaps the arguments against including this statement amount to an argument for removing the entire section on reliable sources. Bn (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason against including it is that it is stated in WP:RS and WP:V and belongs there. (But this is true of the entire section.)
 * The reason given for including it is that this is too frequent an error by some experienced editors. (Talk of the infinitude of "things that this guideline is not" is a red herring.)
 * I do not agree with the summary or the two points made by Bn above. It is not true of the entire section, and the wikilawyering of adherents and advocates is not a red herring. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what you mean.
 * The advice in the proposed sentence is that identifying something as fringe does not make it unreliable. Reliability must be determined on other grounds. (Maybe that would be a better way to phrase it.) The claim has been made above by several people that this advice is already stated in WP:RS and WP:V ( citation needed ), and this is the reason given for the claim that it does not belong here. I observed that the entire paragraph is a paraphrase of things stated there. You are saying this is not true of the entire paragraph. I suppose what you are trying to say is that this sentence does not belong here but the advice about what constitutes a reliable source does belong here. Please explain why one set of restatements is OK here but the other is not. In doing so, please take into account the discussion above why this advice is needed here, explain why you disagree with it (if you do), and join in the effort to reach consensus. It turns out neither RS nor V#Source says "don't use Fringe to question reliability of sources". They mention Fringe only as a cross-reference. (Hardly a surprise, guidelines are subservient to policies.) All that is left is the weaker claim that editors should know to rely on policy rather than this guideline. Please reconcile that with the reports above of competent editors being confused on this point.
 * I said 'Talk of the infinitude of "things that this guideline is not" is a red herring.' Someone (I can't find the place now) Johnuniq said "there are lots of things this guideline is not" and that obviously we're not going to enumerate them all. This attempt to trivialize the issues raised here without addressing them was a red herring. I'm happy to call it wikilawyering if that's the preferred term. Or to elide the comment. Either way, it's not germane to the point.
 * Please note that this was an attempt at a NPOV summary of the extended discussion above. Your comment does not address this as a summary, it only registers disagreement with these two items (one of them an unimportant parenthetical comment that I might well have omitted). To critique this as a summary, please identify what important parts of that discussion are not reflected in this summary. Bn (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out Fringe is too often abused as was the case of the Multi-level marketing article. It was used for a long time to keep anything negative about MLMs out of the article claiming they were "fringe". Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 is a real hoot as contrary to "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published." claim there were books that were self published in that list including one by an author who admitted to using his cat as a partner! You can face palm now.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-controversial?
WP:FRINGE has nearly graduated to policy now, so some polish is in order. I attempted some here. Knowing that this page causes controversy, I bring this edit to the attention of the talk page. If WP:BRD is invoked, I hope that the one who reverts explains why they reverted and sticks around to workshop a solution. Really, however, I'm hoping for WP:SILENCE. Cross your fingers!

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the polish job, but — and this in no way suggests that your change is controversial — I am a little startled at the thought of this content guideline graduating to policy. It seems unripe. The issue of editorial abuse articulated e.g. by Ludwigs2 17:24, 16 July 2010 needs more careful attention (the prevalent notion that there are 'fringe authors', 'fringe publishers', etc.). Also in terms of timing somewhere in talk (can't find it now) someone averred that this is not a good time of year to try to make changes, by which I suppose they meant that September would be better, after folks return from vacations. Bn (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes you say this has nearly graduated to policy now? there are still some significant problems with the wording in this guideline, and if there's a discussion ongoing about elevation I'd like to know where it is so I can make some suggested revisions.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)