Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 17

Poll
Ok the discussion above has been mostly side tracked by other unrelated issues. Now for a short poll to gauge where we are. Who agrees with this edit specifically: and who does not? With reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Text to be added:
 * A Fringe topic is an article where a significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. This includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself.
 * An article on a fringe topic is an article where the most significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. These articles includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself.

Votes

 * Support As proposer. It clarifies what a fringe topic is in separate sentences rather than trying to do it all at once. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I read the suggested change 3 times and I have no clue what it's trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I too find the wording very confusing. Based on the above discussions, I think IRWolfie may have a valid underlying point for us to consider... but the actual language of the proposal is so convoluted that I can not agree to the proposal. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think the bar is being raised too high leaving very few acceptable avenues for notability so that it will be almost impossible for fringe theorists (other the creationists) to be deemed notable. The Guardian's Bad Science section is a case in point (see later comment). I am open to some extension of the guidelines that notability should be confirmed from sources outside the fringe field. This would be a stand alone sentence as fringe theories should be treated differently from fringe theorists. Kooky2 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I too find the wording confusing. I suggest trying to do without the word "article". Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Confusing wording, this is a change that we don't need. SteveBaker (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
The change is related to this proposal here Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories. It's already clear what a fringe theory is, and it's already accepted that an article predominantly about or related to a fringe theory is subject to Fringe_theories (see the text). What this seeks to do is replace the sentence fragment "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is ...". The first change is to use the agreed word "fringe topic" rather than "fringe subject". The second change is to try and explain what a fringe topic is in a dedicated two sentences rather than trying to do it in parenthesis as it is currently. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "A Fringe topic is an article [...]"... That is, "A [...] topic is an article [...]"... I'd say that an article can be about a topic, but it is not a topic (unless we try to write an article about an article)... I guess it should be reworded in some way... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How about, "An article on a fringe topic is an article where the most significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. These articles includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself." IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's better. But defining "An article on a fringe topic" without defining "a fringe topic" is still a bit awkward... Anyway, after this correction the problem with the highest priority is probably different. Under such definition "Skeptic's Dictionary" or "James Randi" might count as "articles on a fringe topic", as in those cases it seems arguable that "the most significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory" (the "relation" being criticism of such theories)... I wonder if there is an easy way to word the definition to distinguish between cases when "relation" is "supportive" (and yet "Majestic 12" is a fringe topic even if the fringe theorists do not praise that fictional "organisation") and contrary cases... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * From the second line; James Randi and Skeptic's Dictionary aren't "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory". @Kooky2: There is nothing here which extends the guidelines. The guidelines already says " that notability should be confirmed from sources outside the fringe field". Read the notability section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give the link and exact quote to that guideline - I couldn't spot it on WP:FRINGE. It should be somewhere in the guidelines - ideally at WP:BIO. Kooky2 (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking at cross purposes, I am referring to notability of people (not theories) and it does not state that that which is why we are discussing this here. Kooky2 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidelines of Wikipedia are not meant to be looked at individually, as if other guidelines did not exist. They are meant to be taken together. And this guideline (WP:FRINGE) is meant to clarify and "modify" what all other notability guidelines (including WP:BIO) mean. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you wouldn't mind, could you, please, answer the questions I have listed in the diff ..? It does look like you disagree with some of the statements that are listed there, but it is not completely clear, which statements are that (you do seem to agree with the statement nr. 2)... And it is hard to expect a fruitful discussion unless we all understand what exactly do we agree and disagree about, what exactly do we understand differently. For the part that user "IRWolfie-" mentioned really is meant to exclude all "pro-fringe" sources when deciding notability. If that is not clear, maybe we should look for ways to express that better. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "From the second line; James Randi and Skeptic's Dictionary aren't "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory"."... Well, I know that and you know that, but the text doesn't really say that in a clear way... Technically, "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory" is just a list of some of examples that excludes nothing. Otherwise the guideline would not apply to books promoting fringe theories (they are neither organisations, nor people, nor concepts, nor aspects of any fringe theory)... Also, maybe "organizations, people" could be replaced by something like "supporters (both individual ones and organisations)"? And if we made modifications as in "These articles topics include s the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself, but exclude organizations and people debunking such theories.", this sentence would become a relatively good definition itself... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Notability section overshot the mark, affected the Nutshell lead para
In the revision as of 04:06, 27 August 2012, Saedon revised the sentence A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is. to say A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is. This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_16. In that discussion the change was to be made in the Notability section, and subsequent very extensive discussion above has continued on the Notability section. Placing it here in the nutshell was not discussed, and is inappropriate. (What gets larded into the parentheses next? Fringe people, publishers, ...?) If there is no objection, I will revert this change.

There also seems to have been a consensus to say "fringe topic" rather than "fringe {view|organization|author|publisher ...}". Should we follow through on this? Occurrences of the phrase "fringe theory" would be unchanged, so this would not further affect the above reversion. Bn (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that begs a question... Prior to the August changes (and the subsequent discussions) the scope of this policy page was limited specifically to Fringe Theories ... Since that change, the scope has now been broadened to Fringe Topics (which includes fringe authors, organizations, publishers etc.) the question is... does this change in scope have consensus or not?
 * If so, perhaps we need to go further, and change not just the nutshell, but also the title of the policy (moving it to WP:Fringe topics). If not, then we need to reach consensus on exactly what the scope of this policy is.
 * So... the first thing I would suggest is a well advertized RFC that asks something like... "What is the intended scope of WP:FRINGE? Should it be limited to fringe theories, or should it be broadened to include fringe topics?"  The answer to that will settle what the policy should and should not say. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Er, let's see... The discussion happened in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 16...
 * There were 7 participants (Saedon, Lawrencekhoo, IRWolfie-, Blueboar, SteveBaker, Mangoe, Aarghdvaark).
 * Not a single of them objected at the time (neither did you).
 * Users discussed different wordings "fringe subject", "fringe topic".
 * IRWolfie- stated that "the guideline is typically used to refer to fringe subjects or views in general, so the change makes sense.".
 * This statement was not even challenged - actually, you personally answered him and only proposed to use the word "topic" instead of "subject".
 * That probably means that changing "fringe theories" to "fringe topics" was not much of a change, it just made the guideline clearer.
 * So, well, I guess that it would mean that the change has clear - almost overwhelming - consensus.
 * Still, did your position change, and, well, if it did, why..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. That "fringe view (or organization)" should be changed to "fringe topic". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll change it. Bn (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) However, I misspoke saying it was in the nutshell; it's in the lead paragraph. Bn (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (responding to Martynas) My question isn't whether there was a consensus among the seven editors involved in the discussion ... but whether the change discussed (and implemented) reflects the broader consensus of the entire community. I suspect it does... but we won't know until we ask (which is why I suggest an RFC).  More to the point... assuming "topic" does have broad consensus, we then need community input as to what is and is not included in "topic".   A consensus among seven people is not really a large enough consensus upon which to base what may be a significant shift in the scope of a policy like this. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "A consensus among seven people is not really a large enough consensus upon which to base what may be a significant shift in the scope of a policy like this." - do you think that there is "a significant shift in the scope"?
 * "More to the point... assuming "topic" does have broad consensus, we then need community input as to what is and is not included in "topic"." - well, you proposed the word yourself. What did you mean by it then..?
 * Yes, I think there was a significant shift in scope. And it does not matter what I think the word "topic" means... what matters is what the community thinks it means. That's why I suggest an RFC.  Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And, since that is essentially a question about your past position, I'd like to repeat another question: did your position change between that discussion and this one? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a guideline and not a policy, right?
 * I have some thoughts about this, not having been present for the August discussion, but I want to know if I should wait for the proposed RFC. If it goes here, we should probably open a new section. Bn (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if we do an RFC, it should go in its own section. Since I am the one suggesting it, I will post it unless someone objects... is the wording OK with everyone?  Does it present the issue neutrally etc.? Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The originally stated (and presumably intended) scope of WP:FRINGE is fringe theories. Rather than &ldquo;intended&rdquo; how about &ldquo;proper&rdquo; or &ldquo;appropriate&rdquo;? Also, talk of &ldquo;fringe topics&rdquo; may be difficult to clarify and may lead into muddles. It is the fringe theory that by association evokes the judgement that e.g. a writer is &ldquo;fringe&rdquo;. Arthur Conan Doyle's convincement about fairies is fringe but that does not make him fringe, nor does Newton's involvement with alchemy, and so on to Michel Gauquelin, John Addey, William Benham, Jack Parsons, &hellip;. So how about:
 * What is the proper scope of WP:FRINGE? Should it be limited to fringe theories, or should it be broadened to include topics associated with fringe theories, such as authors and organizations?
 * Bn (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That would not be neutral, as there is disagreement whether the change in the wording reflects a "broadening" of the scope. I see it merely as a clarification of the scope. Try again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I can be impartial observer in this, as I don't really have strong feelings either way, and haven't cared to comment until now. I'll post the RfC below. LK (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A restatement of the debate?
Correct me if I am misinterpreting the issues being discussed in the above threads... but... I think the underlying questions we must answer before we can formulate wording are: Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can a person's (or organization's) connection to a fringe theory confer stand-alone notability on the person (or organization)?
 * If so, under what circumstances?


 * No, why would it? It's not the connection alone, it's dependent on the nature of the coverage. There's nothing new in terms of guidelines in my proposed change rather than clarifying existing practices. I'm changing something which was described in paranthesis and put it into its own two sentences. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if there is enough coverage of a person's connection to a fringe theory, the person might be notable enough for a stand-alone bio article? Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie - I checked Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column in the Guardian on the web. It looked promising, but from what I could see there are reasons why this is just another impossible avenue for fringe theorists: Are there other newspaper columns along the Bad Science format that addresses fringe theories and their theorists? I note your comments about the Skeptical Inquirer - under your proposals, are there any sources acceptable to you that are not dedicated to debunking fringe theories? Kooky2 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Goldacre asks for submissions that have gone through peer review and publication in a scientific journal. This is not an option for fringe theorists.
 * 2) As an MD Goldacre is primarily interested in medical theories.
 * 3) Since Nov 2011, he appears to be having a break from his column to write a book.
 * "peer review and publication in a scientific journal. This is not an option for fringe theorists."
 * It's an option for everybody. You're basically engagin in Special pleading here. WP is not a platform for obscure fringe theorists to publicize their "theories", nor do we write articles on fringe theories based on the writings of their proponents. We rely on reliable independent secondary sources for material and to establish notability outside of the fringe community. While this may seem "unfair" and "unjust" to you, that's simply how the real world works, WP included. You seem to want to lower the bar for notability for those poor, oppressed fringe theorists. Also, sources which present fringe theories without debunking them are usually not reliable or of very low quality. Your basically talking about places where fringe theorists and their sympathizers can "present their case" without input from actual experts in the relevant field, so that that can get a "fair hearing" in the "court of public opinion". That amounts to little more than promotion and apologetics, which have little, if any, encyclopedic value. There are plenty of other outlets for fringe theorists to promote their wares.


 * Again, popular literature and journalism are not very reliable sources for science-related topics, as the journalists and their editors rarely have any meaningful relevant expertise or experience, and they don't have a good reputation for fact-checking, usually because they can't understand the facts that they are supposed to check. There are, of course, exceptions that can be used under WP:PARITY, but, as you are beginning to realize, they are usually devoted to debunking fringe theories. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Kooky2. If you look at the column you will see he gives coverage to fringe medical theories, including analysis etc. That contributes to claims of notability. With regards to "under your proposals, are there any sources acceptable to you that are not dedicated to debunking fringe theories", I've already told you yes. Read what I've said. Stop repeating things when I've said, above, that they can be acceptable depending on the nature of their coverage and the specific source. These aren't "under my proposals"; these are current practices. My attempted clarification of a sentence doesn't change anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @IRWolfie, I would much like to see the Bad Science column. But I still cannot see how Goldacre's particular coverage of fringe medical theories contribute to claims of notability of fringe theorists here.  As I say he asks for papers published in scientific journals (before submission to him) which everyone agrees would contribute to notability anyway?  Surely medical theorists in WP:MEDRS and medical practitioners in WP:BIO?  Lastly, you appear to be up-to-date on this - is Goldacre's column still being published?  I can't see any evidence on the web.  I will try to address your other points elsewhere.  Kooky2 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What he asks for doesn't really matter. If he gives critical coverage to a fringe theory, he increases its claims to inclusion. It's the same with a fringe theorist. If he critizes them for their support of a fringe theory that increases their claims to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that this example is redundant. A journalist whose debunking column no longer exists and who only accepts medical papers that have already been published in scientific journals is totally irrelevant to the application of your proposal.  With your many thousands of edits in fringe theories, can you show some real examples where reliable major national newspapers feature fringe theorists in a serious and reliable manner?  I am not saying that none exist, but I think they are exceptional since these type of journalists tend to address fringe subjects with ridicule and humour and not in a serious manner.  Kooky2 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dominus Vobisdu... You state above: "Also, sources which present fringe theories without debunking them are usually not reliable or of very low quality." I have to disagree.  It is quite possible for a highly reliable independent source to neutrally describe a fringe theory, without bothering to debunk it.  Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Theoretically possible, yes. But when you start examining the sources that actually exist, there are few of the type you describe that would qualify as reliable sources.
 * Also, you seem to be using the word "neutrally" in a way that does not conform to WP policies. Read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE very carefully. "Neutral" doesn't mean presenting both sides in their own words and leaving it up to the reader to decide. That would violate WP:GEVAL. We present fringe theories in the context of the mainstream theories, based on what reliable independent secondary sources written by actual recognized experts in the relevant field have to say about them. SOurces written by non-experts are worth a great deal less. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know our NPOV and FRINGE policies well (I have been a contributing editor to both policies for many years now). NPOV says nothing about the neutrality of our sources (which can be either neutral or non-neutral).  So pointing me to NPOV when I am discussing sources is off base.  That said, a source that simply describes a theory, without either promoting it or debunking it is neutral.  Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if the theory is not notable enough to be worth debunking in a serious source, is it notable enough to be worth describing here..?
 * Anyway, the problem with the fringe theories is that to describe them we have to get something that expresses the dominating "anti-fringe" point of view. In principle, a source can explain the "pro-fringe" and "anti-fringe" positions without taking sides explicitly, but such sources seem to be rare... Normal sources generally do try to say something useful (expressing a point of view) and not just imply it...
 * I guess it could be said that if we do not get the "anti-fringe" position from the source, the coverage in the source is not extensive enough for notability... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Martynas - your question "if the theory is not notable enough to be worth debunking in a serious source, is it notable enough to be worth describing here?" is an interesting diversion. Some fringe theories are harder to debunk than others and indeed Karl Popper saw the lack of falsifiability as the criterion for fringe theories. How can anyone prove that Big Foot does not exist?  Kooky2 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For our purposes (making the decision on notability) "debunking" the hypothesis of existence of some creatures would not require a definite proof that all Earth has been checked and it was nowhere to be found. Showing that the specific evidence that was claimed to demonstrate or suggest the existence of such creatures is fake or misinterpreted would also count as "debunking" and if someone would care enough to write about that in a serious source, that would show that someone independent of the fringe theory has "noted" it. And there is no requirement that the "debunking" must be done very well - just that someone would care enough to try and some serious publisher would care enough to publish that. So, get a couple of such cases and notability of that fringe theory becomes rather easy to demonstrate. Have the same "someones" discuss the author or supporter of that fringe theory at some extent as well - and it becomes rather easy to demonstrate the notability of them. Thus, for example, the notability of astrology, homeopathy, Nostradamus is not even disputed.
 * But once again, lest we end up arguing about things we actually agree about or using premises the other one rejects, could you, please, tell me which of the statements that I have listed above do you agree with..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Martynas - I get a sense that you are asking me a question here. I would request that you start a post with specific questions for me by addressing me by name as there are many people in this discussion and without a name, questions can seem as if they are addressed to someone else or every editor.  When I am here, I will notice points that mention me and if not you are welcome to put a reminder message or, if it is not directly relevant to this proposal, to open a discussion on my talk page.  Kooky2 (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I don't agree that your proposed text amendment makes no change to the existing policy. You are changing its remit and diluting its purpose by trying to suggest that the policies in these guidelines refer to persons who are associated with fringe theories, and therefore implying that notability criteria is in any way different from the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I can only repeat my earlier comment that what defines notability is not reliant on extensive coverage in academic or scientific sources, although that would help to guarantee it. It will cause too much confusion throughout WP to suggest that notability is more prohibitive for anyone with associations with fringe than would otherwise be the case. Obviously, any report of their theories or ideas automatically makes these guidelines applicable. Therefore I believe the wording is best left unchanged. In fact, I think the problem here is that it is only recently that the text was amended from specifically stating that it dealt with theories and ideas, to the incorporation of the words 'organisations'; and subsequently the attempt to iron out problems by changing the historical references to 'fringe theories' to now say fringe 'topics' or 'subjects' - trailing confusion as to what can be termed a 'fringe topic'. As I have stated before, a person is not a fringe theory, nor is a person's biography a 'fringe subject'. It can be a completely neutral and reliable account of well-estblished biographical facts. In any case I disagree that we few contributing editors can decide upon new wording for this policy which has implications on WP:BIO, without ensuring that WP:BIO is the place where these issues are clarified. A reference from WP:BIO back to this page is fair enough, providing the discussion has been explored and considered there, so that everyone is in agreement and has clear understanding of which policies apply and why. Logical 1 (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And here is where we get to the middle ground... WP:FRINGE can apply to a Bio or Org article... If we have a bio article on person who is significantly associated with a fringe theory, it makes sense for that article to mention the association... which means mentioning the fringe theory. As soon as you do that, WP:FRINGE applies.  Now, that mention could be as short as one sentence... or as long as several paragraphs.  In figuring out what is an appropriate amount of discussion, we look to WP:UNDUE weight ... we ask how much weight should we give the theory in the context of a biographical article.  We need to be careful not to turn an article that should focus primarily on the person into an article that focuses on the theory he is associated with.
 * The flip side of this is the caution to not overly discuss the person in an article about the fringe theory. An article that is primarily about a theory should not bet bogged down with discussion of the people who are associated with it.
 * In both cases, notability is not inherited from one topic to the other... the fact that a theory may be notable for a stand-alone article does not mean a person associated with it is automatically notable enough for stand alone bio article. And the fact that a person may be notable enough for a stand alone bio article does not mean that the theories they are associated with are automatically notable enough for a stand-alone Fringe theory article. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with all you have said. The point I have been trying to stress is that WP:Fringe is applicable on any page where there is discussion or report of fringe theories or ideas, so we don't need to say that it applies to persons, because no person can be a fringe subject (the reality of their existence is unlikely to be in doubt); it is their ideas and theories that are fringe or not. Let's say we have a biography on someone who is notable as the first astrologer to write horoscopes columns for well known newspapers in America in the 1930s. Let's assume that all the article gives is a brief account of this, along with details of when he was born, which newspaper he wrote for (and when), the reported sales figures, and perhaps the fact that he died suddenly at the height of his fame. I would say that since there is no discussion of his astrological beliefs - just straightforward biographical details, there is no concern for the promotion of fringe or undue weight. But if the page begins to explore his astrological beliefs then we are into WP:fringe territory. In this situation the person would not be inheriting notability as an astrologer, but would be notable as a signifcant public figure, whose activities brought a massive popularisation of astrology, impacting on 20th century western culture and the history of the press. That's the way I see it and I don't feel that there is any conflict between your view and mnine. Please correct me if I am wrong Logical 1 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we mostly agree, but use different terms to discuss it. I do have a quibble about your example.
 * In the case of someone who wrote the first to write a horoscopes column in a paper... a lot depends on what the sources say. If the sources focus on his contribution to the newspaper industry (noting how he adding a popular feature that helped to sell more papers) then the fact that his column happened to to be astrology related is secondary.  In this case, WP:FRINGE would apply in the form of not giving undue weight to his views on astrology.
 * If, on the other hand, the sources focus on his contribution to astrology (noting how he made a contribution to astrology by making it popular with the masses) then it is his contribution to astrology is what makes him notable, and the medium of his contribution is secondary. In this case WP:FRINGE would apply more directly as his notability is more directly related to a fringe theory.
 * Now, all this assumes that there actually are reliable sources that substantially discuss the fact that he was the first to write a horoscopes column in the paper. If this is only a passing comment in the sources, then he may not notable enough for a stand-alone bio article. He might be worth a passing note in a history of Astrology article, or in a history of newspapers article... but not more than that.  Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Logical 1, he is being logical about this. Perhaps a paragraph in the guideline about this issue would be appropriate? LK (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing new in what Blueboar has said. So if Logical 1 agrees with it, I don't get why there is an objection to the wording (except on grounds of it being unclear or confusing). It was in fact the reason for my attempt at clarifying the text in the article. Fringe theories comes into effect when there is a connection to fringe theory, no matter the article. This has always been the case. It is in fact why I was adding the wording above; to clarify the connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My hesitation is with the idea of "connection"... connections can be trivial or substantial (or somewhere in between). For example, I would not consider our article on former First Lady Nancy Reagan to be a "Fringe topic"... and yet there is a connection to a fringe theory (She apparently believed in astrology and consulted astrologers).  So, to what extent does WP:FRINGE impact that article?  Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If we mention astrology we don't make it look mainstream, even in the Nancy Reagan article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that... but my concern is that people will take what you are saying and misuse it to argue that Nancy Reagan is herself a fringe topic (due to her "connection" to astrology)... and thus argue that we should not mention Mrs. Reagan in other articles where it would be appropriate to mention her. I know that isn't what you are talking about, but it is how others can misinterpret it.Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Another wording suggestion
Here is a new suggestion: Old Text
 * A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers.

Suggested text
 * Any article subject which is related to a fringe theory in a significant way, is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has also been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers.

IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mention "significant" to indicate that a substantial amount of actual weight in the article will revolve around the connection to the fringe theory. So a fringe organization would fall under it, but not say astronomy where the sources give a small amount of weight to mentioning the connection to astrology in its article. I think mentioning a specific example in the text is a bad idea because it leads to a BEANS situation. The independent sourcing and the extensive coverage ensures that neutrality can be achieved, and that article is notable in the world at large and not limited to fringe coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that have to be "Any subject which is related to a fringe theory"? We don't have articles on articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, replaced. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording is more flexible and still leaves uncertainty about biographies of fringe proponents. From my searches, it appears that a lot of them are essentially entertainers and authors.  I looked at an astrologer whose popular books were best sellers in the '60s and '70s and a psychic who was and may still be the main medium in a popular ghost hunting TV series shown in many countries.  It could, and no doubt will, be argued in AfDs that their lives were related to fringe theory in a significant way.  Yet neither of these individuals presented new theories, wrote papers nor have been subject to commentary in a serious and reliable way.


 * So the real issue here is to address biographies of fringe proponents which include controversial claims relating to their fringe beliefs. These claims must be accompanied by reliable sources that show its relationship to mainstream academic ideas in a serious and substantial manner.  If this cannot be found and notability rests on such claims alone, then the subject is not sufficiently notable.


 * If you can find a wording that makes this difference very clear to editors, I will support your proposals. I believe that it will require an additional separate sentence that deals with biographies. Kooky2 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Er, could you, please, tell us the names of those men you use as examples and explain how they would count as notable entertainers in some detail? That is, which part of which guideline would apply and how? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Martynas - I din't name the examples as I didn't want the focus of this discussion to move onto the minutiae about the notability of any specific individuals. My point is that they are typical of a certain type of fringe proponent.  The astrologer is Linda Goodman and the ghost hunter is David Wells (medium).  For example, with David Wells, if a serious mainstream reference to his work cannot be found, under my proposal the wording of "Wells predominantly seems to be clairvoyant.." or "He only rarely channels spirits." would be drastically modified or removed.  Then his notability should be reviewed accordingly. Whereas under this blanket proposal both these bios would be deleted without due consideration of other evidence of notability. Kooky2 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this?
 * The notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are no different than any other topic: the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources from promulgators and popularizers - such as the creator of a fringe theory - are not sufficient.  References that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.  Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season).

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That definitely works for me. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as clear and inarguable. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The wording is clear. I cannot see any problems with implementation in a diverse field. Kooky2 (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This actually waters down the current requirement that a source cover it extensively. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How can we justify having a higher standard here than in other parts of the encyclopedia? Everywhere else, the standard is "non-trivial/significant". Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we need to ensure neutrality is met, where for other articles, this isn't generally an issue. We ask for the extensive coverage, rather than just significant coverage in non-fringe sources, precisely because we expect the article to have the capacity for neutrality without resorting to original research. If a topic can not be discussed neutrally because of an absence of sources which provide that sort of coverage necessary, then we shouldn't have it. Essentially there are two issues, 1. Fringe sources don't demonstrate notability, as they tend to aggrandise specific topics and don't demonstrate true notability. 2. NPOV is required to have the potential to be met for all articles. That is, an articles must have the capacity to be neutral (even if it is not immediately realized). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic of this. How is extensive coverage guaranteed to be neutral when significant coverage is expected not to be? Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Extensive coverage and in a serious and reliable manner" seems to indicate to me that neutrality will be far more likely than merely "significant coverage". Current guidelines state that the coverage in at least one source must be extensive, serious and reliable. You want to replace that with just significant coverage. When we say extensive and serious coverage we are talking about a critical analysis which will show how the fringe topic is perceived in relation to the mainstream position. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per IRWolfie. The new wording significantly lowers the bar. Also, "reputable" news sources are any thing but reputable when it comes to reporting on science and science-related topics, especially psudoscience. Solid evidence is needed that the subject is extensively discussed within the mainstream scholarly commnunity, not just found "interesting" by popular journalists with no special competence or experience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion has shown that there are limits when attempting to set guidelines that go beyond the well tested existing rules in WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:RS. If a source for controversial material is not reliable, it will fail under WP:RS as sources should be appropriate to the claims made and in particular WP:NEWSORG “News reports may be acceptable depending on the context.”  And the context here is notability.  As has been clearly demonstrated with examples here, notability can be determined in ways other than scholarly journals and a few debunkers. Kooky2 (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A "scholarly community" standard is going to cause problems. First, it's going to hurt us in fields where the quality of scholarship is poor by external standards. We've had a number of huge fights suppressing various bits of queer theory speculation (e.g. the homoeroticism of The Hardy Boys series, because we've often had to resort to editor criticism of the sources. In a lot of fields the most readily available criticism is in non-scholarly material directed at a knowledgeable popular audience (e.g. reference to Biblical Archaeology Review is standard in shooting down nonsense in that field). Second, I think it's going to be hard to justify that standard against the more lax standards adhered to in the rest of Wikipedia. Most of the material concerning 9/11 conspiracy theories, for instance, is published at an authoritative but not scholarly level. I understand the concern about the reputation of MSM reporting, but that's an issue of their competence even on non-fringe topics, and needs to be addressed on its own. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - it says "significant coverage" in A Quest For Knowledge's proposal, whilst the current version says "referenced extensively". I think those requirements are equivalent, but the new proposal is clearer since nobody is then going to complain about there being no references! And reliable sources are reliable sources. Requiring fringe theories to be discussed in the mainstream scholarly community just won't work because mainstream scientists for many reasons - time, distraction, threat to career progression, lack of interest - don't generally engage with fringe theories unless they begin to threaten things outside science, e.g. creationism, which would be notable without any input from the mainstream scholarly community. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mainstream perspective on a fringe topic will always be required to ensure NPOV is satisfied. If the sourcing doesn't exist, then we can not have an article on the fringe topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * IRW - There is a distinction between what we look for in sources as they relate to notability (whether we should have an article on a topic), and what we look for in terms of content (what we can or should say within that article). Obviously, if the sources that discuss a fringe topic are limited to media coverage, that limits what we can say about the topic within the article... but that limitation does not mean we are unable to say something about the topic. It may only be a bare bones stub of an article, but at least we can have that. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, NPOV is not optional. If the only sources exist do not allow NPOV to be met they should be deleted. WP:WEIGHT: "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." If that can't be met without original research, then we shouldn't have the article as it can never be neutral. Also, the fact that something hasn't attracted a mainstream response, is itself a sign that something isn't worthy of note. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I read what you wrote and I am still not entirely sure to what extent do we have a disagreement about the intended meaning of the guideline... Could you, please, answer the questions I have asked the user "Kooky2" ..? Maybe that would clarify things a little..?
 * For at the moment it is not entirely clear if you think that it is acceptable to have an article about a fringe theory (or something related) without its criticism... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Martynas, I will also look at your questions and answer if I can.
 * IRW, this proposal works because any guideline for all things fringe (theory, groups, products and people), has to separate questions of notability from questions of NPOV. They are different issues which serve different purposes and to try to mix them is unnecessary, confusing and will result in inappropriate decisions.  These detailed rules should each address their particular issues at separate stages.  I can only explain this in the form of a series of decision points about any fringe related article:
 * 1. Is the article notable with significant independent coverage in reliable sources?
 * No - the article is deleted.
 * Yes - onto next question.
 * 2. Is an explanation of the minority fringe view necessary for this article?
 * No - the article can be published.
 * Yes - onto next question.
 * 3. Is there sufficient detail from reliable sources to compare it with the majority view?
 * Yes - the article can be published.
 * No - onto next question.
 * 4. Is there any merit left in this article without an explanation of the fringe theory?
 * Yes - the article can be published in a slimmed down version.
 * No - the article is deleted.
 * Kooky2 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, you ("Kooky2") already answered those questions. You don't need to answer them again. That's why now I'm asking user "Blueboar" and not you. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Martynas - afterwards I realized I had answered your questions. It was hard to tell who you were addressing. Kooky2 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think my reaction to your questions are best answered by pointing to our article on Masonic conspiracy theories. This is a very notable topic, the idea that the Freemasons are in some way conspiring to rule the world is almost pop culture.  And yet the coverage is extremely one sided.  There are thousands of webpages and fringe books detailing numerous theories, but the mainstream remains silent on the topic.  It does not bother to even try to rebut or debunk it.  And yet I think we were able to write a very neutral article about it. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (unident) So, you (Blueboar) take the article and claim that: 1) we have no mainstream coverage of Masonic conspiracy theories and 2) that this article is neutral? Sorry, but both claims are wrong. The article itself lists a book "Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies" - that looks like a mainstream source (at least the customer comments on its Amazon.com page would indicate that). And the article is not neutral. Now seriously, do you think it is neutral to give one sentence to the theory "That Freemasons have secretly plotted to create a society based on the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity, separation of church and state" that is relatively serious, relatively well supported and rather complex and one sentence to the theory "That Freemasonry either aids or is made up of humanoid reptiles who control the world by replacing world leaders." that is laughable even by standards of conspiracy theories..? Not to mention many other problems that tempt me to add a "cleanup" tag there... So no, that's not a good answer. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more. That article is scrupulously neutral... consisting of purely descriptive statements as to what the various conspiracy theories about Freemasons say, without any further comment... The article does not attempt to provide "evidence" that would prove the theories, nor does it attempt to provide "evidence" to debunk the theories (attempts to add such are quickly removed).  The article makes no claims as to how nutty nor how reasonable a given theory might be.  It is essentially a descriptive list of what the various conspiracy theories about the Freemasons are, written in a neutral tone and from a neutral point of view. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And what about the first point - that the mainstream coverage of the subject does exist?
 * Still, while you (Blueboar) have shown all evidence that the article in question is useless, uselessness is not sufficient for neutrality. For the WP:NPOV also includes WP:UNDUE. And it hasn't been followed in this article. Do you agree with that - or do you think that WP:UNDUE is not vital? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My appologies. you are correct... there is a mainstream source (you have to have at least one mainstream source, or the topic isn't notable).  However, that source is definitely not the kind of academic level mainstream source that IRW was talking about (which is what I was referring to). In fact I would rate the "For Dummies" books as being along the same lines as "significant media coverage".  They are on the reliable side of the line... but hardly high quality. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I never implied limiting things to academic sources only. I even gave an example of reliable newspaper coverage earlier. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - the wording suggested by A Quest For Knowledge is clear and in line with WP's general policy requirements. I think it covers everything in requiring significant coverage in reliable sources. Logical 1 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose (as written). Some additional "wordsmithing" is still going to be necessary. For example, the proposed wording starts with "The notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are no different than any other topic: the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". That's wrong. It is the general guideline but it does have exceptions. Some of them are (or can be) based on WP:IAR alone (for articles "Human", "Earth", "Language" etc.), in other cases we have other notability guidelines (though it is not entirely clear if they are meant to provide shortcuts or exceptions). Thus this part will have to be reworded - maybe like "The main notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are similar to the ones applied to other topics: in general, the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". And, perhaps, a clarification could be inserted next - something like "However, since there are common problems with getting the critical (mainstream) point of view on such topics, there are some peculiarities concerning the application of those principles.".
 * Second problem concerns "Sources from promulgators and popularizers - such as the creator of a fringe theory - are not sufficient.". Who exactly are the "promulgators" and how are they different from "popularizers"..? Furthermore, sources written by some journalists that do not seem to care (thus might not count as "popularizers"), but cover the material sympathetically also do not help us to write a decent article. Thus I guess something like "Sources sympathetic to the fringe theory or written by its supporters are not considered independent and do not count towards notability." would be a better formulation...
 * Third, "References that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.". Wouldn't it sound better with "On the other hand, [...]" inserted..?
 * So, in conclusion, the proposed text is not acceptable yet, but can be made so after some relatively minor changes. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your 'wordsmithing' suggestion for the first sentence.


 * Since this section is about the question of notability, it doesn't matter if the sources are positive or negative so long as they are reliable and independent. If the only reliable sources are ones debunking the theory then that can be adequate. I too, am not sure who are the 'promulgators and popularizers', though I see it is an exaggeration to go from the example of 'the creator of a fringe theory' to any independent body who makes a comment that could be interpreted as being positive.


 * Many fringe related topics do not require an explanation of the minority view as this can be done by reference to the the main article that outlines the theory. Unless we can address these articles and many other possibilities and without exaggerating NPOV, it is simply not viable to try to mix NPOV requirements with Notability in a way that applies to all fringe-related topics.  Kooky2 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is related to NPOV: first of all we demand enough good sources to be able to write neutrally. It's not like we have a very finite supply of paper and want to cover only the most important things (although willingness to improve the "signal-noise ratio" is one of secondary reasons for that group of guidelines).
 * But by now I doubt if we actually disagree. Recently you (Kooky2) wrote an "algorithm" that looks very similar to what my text was meant to accomplish (maybe it would be a good idea to work it into the guideline as well..?). For if there is "any merit left in this article without an explanation of the fringe theory", there must be some source that describes the subject in a way that is not sympathetic to the fringe theory and does it in a sufficiently extensive way. Thus the subject judged notable in one case should be judged notable in another case too. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would, of course, favour inclusion of a simplified step-by-step guide. It covers all the options and I think it would help editors work through a maze of rules that govern fringe topics.


 * A few fringe articles will reach the final question "Is there any merit left in this article without an explanation of the fringe theory?" However, being notable and involving a fringe theory without mainstream response, these are the articles which could lead to repeated and extended AfD discussions until a new guideline is made.   I can think of a few hypothetical instances:
 * Where someone very famous develops a fringe theory that has not been taken seriously by mainstream sources. It's not unusual for a Nobel Prizewinner such as Linus Pauling's Vitamin C advocacy to follow a controversial fringe theory in their retirement years.  (Pauling's huge profile as a scientist meant that his theories were debunked by mainstream views.)
 * Or Jimmy Carter's report of a UFO sighting - which has been reported in a respectful tone in his Wikipedia Biography. If he now develops a particular theory about UFOs, his bio of course remains (being of the highest order of notability) but full inclusion of the theory would require a mainstream response.
 * Throughout history there have been secret fraternities involving notable characters that have followed strange fringe beliefs (perhaps like today's Scientologists) which have only been reported in pseudo-historical literature. The 'frat' is worthy of an article because of their members and deeds, but details of their beliefs might be ignored.
 * But if the fringe theory is central to the article and though notable, it has not been addressed by critical or academic mainstream sources, the article cannot be published. For example, this might be a lowly smaller branch of a popular fringe belief.   I think it would be misleading to state the reason that this article is not published is because it is not notable as it has already passed that test, but for Wikipedia's rules it could be described as simply not viable or not meritable as an article. Kooky2 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, in short, the main reason of disagreement for you (Kooky2) is the word "notability"..? Well, I guess the word is not perfect, but at this point it is rather unlikely to be changed... Still, if you'd like to, feel free to look for ideas in the Village pump (idea lab). Just don't expect too much... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - it boils down how to handle a fringe theory when it is notable in one sense (popular) and not notable in another (mainstream). We don't have a way of dealing with it. I have some proposals, but I need to hear from some of the three objectors if this is their principal objection to the proposed wording.  Otherwise there is no point working on compromise suggestions if it is something else.  So Martynas - is this your objection? Kooky2 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Kooky2, but even after some thinking I still don't get it - what (well, which) "objection" do you have in mind?
 * Anyway, there are many cases when something rather popular is not notable in the sense used in Wikipedia. For example, recently I was trying to write articles about voice actors of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for Lithuanian Wikipedia. I guess it is safe to say that they are popular (there are many blog posts about them etc.), but finding good sources is still hard - to the extent that I haven't written a single article... I don't see why things would have to be very different if the articles were about, let's say, astrologists and not voice actors. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What if someone creates an article about a fringe theory that is notable in that it has been published in magazines, major newsprint or even been on TV, but there has been no academic or critical comment? Would you put it up for AfD and what guideline would you cite? Kooky2 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Does "there has been no academic or critical comment" mean that all coverage has been sympathetic - let's say, the creator of the theory telling how great it is and a journalist (not a very competent one) nodding..? If so, then the AFD would be a good idea, citing both WP:N and WP:FRINGE (to show that there are sources, but they do not count). If not then, well, something might be different. It is hard to tell without a specific example... Yet, to take some example, I would consider closing Articles for deletion/Life Before Life as "Delete" or "Merge". Would that answer your question?
 * Anyway, if the question is specifically about my actions, I doubt that I would actually reach AFD... For the article "Tibetan eye chart" it took me a couple of months just to escalate from tag "unreferenced" to "notability" and then I did next to nothing until about a year later some mainstream coverage has been found... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will look at the life before life AfD.


 * In the instance I put to you, by sympathetic (I mean neutral in real life terms) - simply reporting this is what they claim - you make up your own mind up rather than saying it's BS or great. So in this example, editors have no alternative mainstream view.  Rather than questioning your personal actions, I was asking what guidelines would be available to close down this type of article.  I think your answer - WP:N (I would think WP:GEVAL, WP:UNDUE & WP:PSCI in particular) and WP:FRINGE covers it and I would add WP:REDFLAG.  If such an eventuality is well covered by the guidelines, is there any necessity to add anything to this notability proposal?  Can you imagine any article that would result in problems with these proposals and if so, how and why?  Kooky2 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Er, maybe I'll answer in a separate section "What is covered by other guidelines?", for I have no idea how to unindent this without making something ambiguous... Also, the section is rather long... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie - would a second paragraph outlining guidelines for these possibilities give you the clarification and comfort you seek? Kooky2 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there is some confusion as to what constitutes a Neutral Point of View. A simple descriptive statement outlining what a fringe theory says can be neutral. For example, suppose nutjob thinks you can generate electricity by harnessing the effect differences in the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter upon the Earth, as the two planets move closer or further apart in their relative orbital positions.  The descriptive statement: "The Jovian Energy Theory is a fringe theory, proposed by Dr. Ima Nutcase, contenting that unlimited electrical power can be obtained by harnessing the differences in the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter upon the earth as the two planets move closer or further apart in their relative orbital positions" is quite neutral.  The statement does not imply that the theory is true (or false)... it simply states what the fringe theory is.  Now, let us assume that this theory is significantly covered by lots of media sources, but is ignored by the academic scientific community (as being patently ridiculous).  It would pass our minimum criteria for notability, so we can have an article about the theory.  Given the limitations of the sources, we may not be able to write much more than the above descriptive statement... but we can at least write that.  We can at least create a stub article so someone coming across a reference to this "Jovian Energy Theory" can log into Wikipedia and find out what the hell the "Jovian Energy Theory" is. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You probably won't find a newspaper source that covers the source with credulity saying it's a fringe theory. It's calling it a fringe theory that is putting it into perspective with regards to the mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is why we have WP:Ignore all rules... yes, there will be some Wikilawyers who will argue that "You can not call something a fringe theory unless you have a reliable source that explicitly calls it a Fringe theory"... and they will point to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in an attempt to support their argument. But there is a fairly strong consensus that it is not POV or OR to call a spade a spade.  Wikilawyering arguments can be dismissed if there is a consensus of editors who agree that "Never the less, it clearly is a fringe theory and to not call it a fringe theory would mislead the reader." Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is more likely that they will claim that their theory is not fringe (perhaps even sincerely). And they will find some paper (with magic words "peer reviewed") that "shows" that.
 * Anyway, if you want to override such vital policies as Verifiability and No original research so often (would it be a good place to an essay Wikiheresy? Yes, just joking.), you'd better write it in the guideline itself. For we cannot be sure that in all cases the "anti-fringe" editors will outnumber "pro-fringe" ones. The number of the editors who are willing to "patrol" the articles about fringe theories and keep them neutral is rather finite. And if we are going to let the local consensus override vital content policies, are you completely sure that we will not end up with "pro-fringe" consensus..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gets a good cross section of society among its editors... if we assume that a debate over whether to call some theory "fringe" has been well advertized (so a few pro or anti fringe proponents can not dominate the debate) and there still isn't a consensus to call a particular theory "fringe", then we have to consider the possibility that the theory actually isn't fringe... It may be a "minority, but mainstream view". Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire debate would be based on original research in that case. If the sourcing doesn't exist you can't really try to neutrally present a topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, if we will need to advertise all discussions (and that seems to be what you are proposing), the Law of diminishing returns will be demonstrated rather soon. We might as well advertise none of them.
 * Second, consensus can be judged by "vote counting", "strength of arguments" or some mixture of those two approaches. But if you leave nothing from WP:NOR and WP:V (as such large exceptions do), there will be nothing left to measure the "strength of arguments" with. Thus we end up with "vote counting" - and almost inevitable "canvassing" or suspicions of it.
 * Third, before the consensus can be judged, "negotiation" must happen. But without any basis for the agreement (policies without such large and arbitrary exceptions), short of "brute force", what is the point of the "negotiation"?
 * Fourth, this method simply doesn't work in practice. I already mentioned Articles for deletion/Life Before Life and Articles for deletion/Old Souls. Well, how would you (Blueboar) close these discussions..? With different formulations of this guideline and with WP:IAR?
 * Fifth... Well, maybe four points will be enough for now. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are both overstating the situation... no one is talking bout advetizing all discussions... because in most cases if something is a fringe theory, there will be a solid (if not overwhelming) consensus to call it a fringe theory. Yes there are always a few cases where some idiot wikilawyers about WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in an attempt to block people from calling a fringe theory a fringe theory, we can call for help (this one reason we created the WP:NPOV noticeboard.)  And WP:Ignore all rules is just as much POLICY as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
 * Anyway... we have gotten off track... we are currently discussing things that have nothing to do with AQFK's proposal. We should get back to that. Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but we won't agree about any text considered here unless we will reach at least something close to agreement about the main content policies. After all, this guideline is a logical consequence of them. Unless, of course, it will be decided to go forward without a full agreement - but I don't think things are that desperate.
 * "because in most cases if something is a fringe theory, there will be a solid (if not overwhelming) consensus to call it a fringe theory." - are you speaking from experience (in such case, what is that experience?) or is that just a conjecture? And furthermore, what makes you think that a contrary consensus can't be formed by enough canvassing and "meatpuppetry"..?
 * "And WP:Ignore all rules is just as much POLICY as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV." - yes, I know. I wrote the Lithuanian version of it. And I already listed one way to use this policy in this discussion (about notability of "Earth" etc.). Thus, if you thought that those objections were based on ignorance of WP:IAR or its rejection, you were wrong.
 * I will note that you (Blueboar) didn't answer arguments about necessity of basis for agreement to get consensus and judge it. By the way, there is one more essay that might be related: Exceptions should leave the rule intact...
 * So, I hope that you will reconsider your position and then we'll be able to look for text that would be acceptable to everyone. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What is covered by other guidelines?
This section was started in answer to (a question from Kooky2). I'll reproduce the question (without signature) for greater readability:
 * In the instance I put to you, by sympathetic (I mean neutral in real life terms) - simply reporting this is what they claim - you make up your own mind up rather than saying it's BS or great. So in this example, editors have no alternative mainstream view. Rather than questioning your personal actions, I was asking what guidelines would be available to close down this type of article. I think your answer - WP:N (I would think WP:GEVAL, WP:UNDUE & WP:PSCI in particular) and WP:FRINGE covers it and I would add WP:REDFLAG. If such an eventuality is well covered by the guidelines, is there any necessity to add anything to this notability proposal? Can you imagine any article that would result in problems with these proposals and if so, how and why?

First of all, most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are logical consequences of other policies and guidelines. In principle, with some creativity one could recreate much of Wikipedia's order from just three statements: For example, second and third statements imply that articles should include only things that can be agreed by (almost) everyone - and this idea can be developed into WP:NPOV - and so on.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * Wikipedia can be edited by anyone (at least to some extent).
 * Edit warring is to be discouraged.

Still, it is better to have such things written down so that we wouldn't have to recheck the reasoning in the "heat" of dispute. Thus Wikipedia's policies tend to repeat the same (or similar things), include long explanations and are rather fragmented.

An example of that is the group of policies and guidelines that, as you mention, together could be used instead of this one (WP:FRINGE) to some extent. But I'd say that there is nothing wrong with having this guideline as well, to summarise the main things to be considered when writing about fringe theories. Now the addition... Actually, it is arguably meant to be less of an addition and more of a clarification. It can be seen by one fact: there are some misunderstandings, but almost all of us agree about almost everything, we just haven't found a very good way to formulate what we agree about (actually, the position of Blueboar seems to be the least close to the other positions - and it is not that extreme as such).

Now, about the source (though maybe we would need a different section for that). It is hard to work with such questions in abstract, without an example. For example, if the source repeats what is said by a fringe theorist without comment other than "Believe or not.", the source can be seen as non-secondary (we do not have any real commentary about a primary source - words of fringe theorist), non-reliable (well, non-authoritative; in a sense, the source acknowledges that by remark "Believe or not."), or non-independent.

Does that answer the question? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Martynas. I agree with most of your points. A minor clarification for anyone who has not followed the thread first, I  never suggested (or intended to suggest) that the guidelines such as NPOV could be used instead WP:FRINGE.


 * This discussion is about the proposed wording for Notability suggested by A Quest for Knowledge with modifications by Martynas Patasius.


 * My view is that the whole Notability section, which appears to have been created in good faith by IRWolfie, a few weeks ago in September, has turned out to be unclear, superfluous, impractical and misplaced within the article. If it contains any guideline or example that adds clarity and which is not duplicated elsewhere, it should be placed under the long standing Notability versus Acceptance section.


 * Since I doubt I would get consensus for this merger now, I am happy to work towards a compromise. Now the objections to the proposed text are that it is not strong enough to ensure neutrality without WP:OR. From discussions it is evident that neutrality has never been threatened as it is dealt with in great detail in WP:NPOV in particular WP:GEVAL, WP:UNDUE & WP:PSCI, in WP:REDFLAG and in other sections of WP:FRINGE.  Why do we need to complicate Notability here in a way that does not reflect or even do justice to the complexities of NPOV?  The results so far have been confusing, unnecessary and impractical.


 * So my proposal is that those who object to the new wording, put up a case why there should be additional wording and put forward wording that they would consider might be an acceptable compromise to other editors. Otherwise, I propose the paragraph is replaced with the new proposed text above and later the possibility of a merger of sections could be considered. Kooky2 (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If I go ahead and make this change, can I count on the support of other editors here? Kooky2 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has my support. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, thanks for your support. Kooky2 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would not support it, because it still significantly lowers the bar for inclusion. WP is primarily an encyclopedia based on sources written by recognized experts. The proposed wording does not give adequate weight to these sources, and fringe porponents and supports will surely take advantage of that. In summary, a fringe theory that has not been addressed by the real-world scholarly community in a serious and substantial matter is truly non-notable, no matter how many fashion magazines, popular newspapers and other low quality sources write about it. We turn to the experts here, and the experts on fringe topics are real-world mainstream scholars, not popular journalists. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dominus Vobisdu, the bar was raised by IRWolfie about 6 weeks ago to a level that exceeds Wikipedia's existing guidelines and turns out to impractical, unnecessary and confusing. This is why we are discussing it. So we can understand your concerns, can you give real examples where fringe proponents will unreasonably take advantage of this proposal which are not already well covered by existing guidelines?  I have provided examples where raising the bar would be a problem.  Kooky2 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, wouldn't "the proposed wording for Notability suggested by A Quest for Knowledge with modifications by Martynas Patasius" be more like this?


 * After all, I proposed more modifications . Or did you mean "with some modifications by Martynas Patasius"..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your version works for me. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and Martynas's version is definitely not OK with me... I especially object to saying that "Sources sympathetic to the fringe theory ... are not considered independent and do not count towards notability." This is not at all true.  Independent sources can certainly be sympathetic (or unsympathetic) to the subject they cover. When it comes to Notability Wikipedia does not care whether a source is sympathetic to its subject/topic or unsympathetic to its subject/topic... only that it be independent of it. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, given that you do not seem to be extremely enthusiastic about WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:NOR, that is not surprising. I doubt that a compromise is possible on this point. Yet you said "I especially object [...]". Does it mean that there is something else..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You misstate my views... I am extremely enthusiastic about UNDUE, V and NOR... when it comes to determining article content. I simply do not think they affect Notability. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess in such case I misunderstood your views. Thankfully, such problems are correctable. But it doesn't look like your own description of your views is perfectly accurate - unless, of course, they changed a little recently. You say that you are "extremely enthusiastic about UNDUE, V and NOR... when it comes to determining article content", but recently you praised neutrality of an article that doesn't follow WP:UNDUE and claim that it is acceptable to write that a theory is fringe even if WP:V and WP:NOR would indicate otherwise . As far as I can see, neither case has anything to do with notability, just with content.
 * Also, if you "do not think they affect Notability.", what principles is that guideline (WP:N) based on, in your opinion? Its current version says (in section "Why we have these requirements"): "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.", "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and so on. Do you disagree with such statements, or do you interpret them differently? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Martynas, while the WP guidelines you list are workable and realistic, Blueboar is correct: your additional wording is hugely problematical. It is NPOV on steroids and should not be muddled into a section on Notability.  The point is that Notability is presumed to satisfy inclusion and not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion.  Therefore even if notability is satisfied the full WP shield of rules which govern neutrality remain in force.  As you have already agreed there is no risk of inclusion of a rule-breaking article.


 * So why are we trying to rewrite the guidelines here? What we would all like to know is - Is the intention to make the terms stricter than the existing guidelines or just an attempt to try to repeat the existing guidelines?


 * I have already put forward a number of examples that demonstrate why this attempt is not viable so I won't rehash them all in full. However, I will give one example. Though it is still not clear from the wording, I believe IRWolfie and Dominus Vobisdu will argue that all "fringe-related topics" applies to biographies.  Therefore according to their interpretation, they can successfully AfD any bestselling author or international TV presenter on a fringe topic simply because he or she has not been debunked.  Yet anyone with some obscure fringe belief who volunteers to do the Randi million dollar challenge immediately becomes notable and makes an ideal straw man.  Just like fringe theories, the self-styled skeptical world (Randi, Skeptical Inquirer etc) is a self-confirming in-universe.  Since many fringe-related topics are not addressed by genuine academic sources with good reason, this vigilante group are simply inappropriate arbiters of notability for Wikipedia and not representative of mainstream critical thinking.   Kooky2 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, once again I can't think of a way to discuss the notability of "any bestselling author or international TV presenter" in abstract. Please, give me some examples, with names and sources I could look at. Don't be afraid: I gave several examples here myself (a member of Constituent Seimas and all main voice actors of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic") and it didn't "derail" the discussion.
 * "Yet anyone with some obscure fringe belief who volunteers to do the Randi million dollar challenge immediately becomes notable and makes an ideal straw man." - perhaps, if it generates sufficient coverage. Well, this life isn't fair and Wikipedia must do nothing to make it any fairer (it is likely to cause more harm than good anyway). It's not fair that I can find no good sources about Tara Strong, but it doesn't mean that I must pretend that the sources I found are good enough.
 * "Since many fringe-related topics are not addressed by genuine academic sources with good reason, this vigilante group are simply inappropriate arbiters of notability for Wikipedia and not representative of mainstream critical thinking." - so, I guess it is safe to say that you would not consider yourself a major fan of those groups..? Good, making such things explicit does help the discussion. Anyway, if you think they do not count, what, in your opinion, is "representative of mainstream critical thinking" and good for judging notability?
 * "So why are we trying to rewrite the guidelines here? What we would all like to know is - Is the intention to make the terms stricter than the existing guidelines or just an attempt to try to repeat the existing guidelines?" - OK, so what did the previous versions of this guideline say, in your opinion? What is the "lawgiver's intent"? I believe that they say the same thing. For example, some "random" versions:  (the current one),  (18 February 2011),  (15 July 2010),  (1 October 2009),  (8 April 2008). The last of them still has the text "In order to be notable, a fringe theory 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.". Similar, isn't it? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, a quick clarification. Are you saying by your examples (e.g. Feb 2011) that you are seeking to follow the existing guidelines or is your intent to make the guidelines stricter than before? Kooky2 (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is my intent to keep the guideline as strict as it is, or to make it stricter? Well, neither answer sounds perfectly correct... I think that the things I propose keep it as strict as it is (and was long ago), only clearer. But it doesn't mean that it is my objective to keep status quo - whatever it is - at all costs. I want the guideline to be logical (logically consistent with other guidelines) and clear. I think that currently it is logical, but is not as clear as it could - or else we were not discussing what changes make it more strict and what changes make it less strict. Does that answer your question? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am not entirely clear, but maybe it will become clear.  The point is that in all the earlier examples you cited the statement was for fringe theories only and not for fringe-related topics as well.  This extension was only added a few weeks ago.  It was and is an attempt to make the WP rules stricter i.e. to raise the bar.  Whether you believe this extension is consistent with other rules (which it is not), whether you think that the statement also works for fringe-related topics (which it evidently does not and you have not disagreed), whether it leaves WP pages exposed to an invasion of fringe theorists (which you have accepted that it does not), it is going beyond the scope of some well thought-out WP rules such as WP:NPOV that have been shown to work well over time.  Kooky2 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You ask about my position. I saw this comment yesterday from Phil Bridger on a current AFD proposed by IRWolfie to remove another notable astrologer:
 * "I'm all in favour of ensuring that pseudoscience and fringe theories aren't presented as fact in Wikipedia, but we don't do that by eliminating coverage of people who support such nonsense or by imitating the way that pseudoscientists and fringe theorists ignore evidence that doesn't support their prejudices."
 * I agree with his impartiality and I think it is something that we should keep in mind in this discussion. Kooky2 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought that you objected to the part "On the other hand, references that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." - that's why I tried to demonstrate that the same thing was in the guideline long ago. Now, as it looks, you object to the part "fringe and fringe-related topics" as opposed to "fringe theories"? Could you, please, list all your objections? Or, at least, as many, as you can think of at the moment?
 * Also, when I wrote that I think my formulation keeps things about as strict, as they are, first of all I meant the current version . After all, it's the version (with minor differences) that "Logical 1" kept reverting to (, etc.). Also, no one objected to the "expansion" of the guideline during the discussion of the change  - by the way, Blueboar also participated in that discussion. And it was affirmed that whatever formulation was used in the guideline, the guideline was used as applicable to related topics anyway, so the change was essentially a clarification.
 * "Whether you believe this extension is consistent with other rules (which it is not), whether you think that the statement also works for fringe-related topics (which it evidently does not and you have not disagreed), whether it leaves WP pages exposed to an invasion of fringe theorists (which you have accepted that it does not), it is going beyond the scope of some well thought-out WP rules such as WP:NPOV that have been shown to work well over time."... Er, sorry, but I don't think I understand this sentence... It is a little too long... And what is "the statement" you are talking about?
 * "I agree with his impartiality and I think it is something that we should keep in mind in this discussion." - sorry, but I don't think anyone proposes to delete articles about all fringe theorists. No one is going to delete the articles about Nostradamus or Lysenko. And we all (well, with exception of radical inclusionists and the like) want to delete the articles about non-notable topics while leaving the articles about notable topics. We simply disagree which topics are notable. So, please, assume good faith, just like we assume you're editing in good faith. Try to avoid declarations like "proposed by IRWolfie to remove another notable astrologer" - as if IRWolfie thought that this astrologer is notable, yet tried to get the article deleted anyway. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * as an aside, the claims to notability where rather minor considering the lack of sources that actually exist about him. I'm not sure why Kooky feels the need to bring me up. I personally dislike it when editors insult others by implying what they did was because of some hatred of having articles about fringe people, whether that be at an AfD or elsewhere. It's a cheap shot. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will respond to other points made later. But for now, I did not assume that IRWolfie was aware that the subject was notable when he put him up for AfD and I am sorry if that was inferred.  The reason that I stated that he was notable was because this was the view of six editors and the decision of the closer and no other editor disagreed. Also, I cannot think of anything that I wrote that implied that you, IRWolfie should have a hatred of articles about fringe people as I have assumed good faith as to your motives. Nor do I consider that  Bridger's quote is suggesting that you or anyone here is seeking the deletion of all fringe theorists - I think a cull would not be an unreasonable term.  I do consider the decisions and comments at the recent AfD to be relevant to this discussion.  Another editor commented "Keep per Bridger et al.; meets the established notability thresholds, but lately I'm seeing many articles being nominated as part of a wider trend of trying to exclude even any mention of certain whole schools of thought from this website. With arguments in magisterial tones, and hectoring of all dissent to be expected."  I don't think these editors' comments are questioning any editor's good faith, but that the sincerely held and well motivated beliefs of editors can be misguided and sometimes out of touch with the aims of the Wikipedia project. Kooky2 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was an editor who followed me from another discussion because I put up an article he supports for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I trust you realize the irony of your comment in this context as the implication is that this editor was not acting in good faith.;) However I can sympathize with that type of situation. Kooky2 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we work towards a compromise on this?
I have checked the history of the article back to January 2, 2007 and the paragraph on notability has remained fairly stable for over five years. Here is the version as at the end of July 2012: All modifications from early August including the addition of fringe-subjects, organizations or fringe-related topics have resulted in unforeseen problems: Kooky2 (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Raised the Bar above well-established WP:FRINGE guidelines: It has raised the bar to include subjects related to fringe theory going well beyond a guideline that has been tried and tested over 5 years. It has probably extended the scope to include three times the number of articles.
 * 2) Beyond the scope of existing WP Rules: As far as I know, there are no WP rules that justify this extension - if this article was not a guideline, I would say this extension was Original Research.  The guidelines specifically address the presentation of fringe theories.
 * 3) Lack of Clarity: The term "aspect of a fringe theory" or fringe subjects or fringe-related subjects are widely agreed by all parties to be unclear.
 * 4) Not Necessary or Required: One argument presented for tightening the rules is that fringe theorists 'might take advantage'.  However, this is about Notability which is not presumed i.e. Notability in itself does not guarantee inclusion.  There are many other solid rules that govern inclusion of controversial topics:  WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG.  No one has explained how or provided examples to show how these existing rules will fail Wikipedia.  Unlike the recent additions here, these rules have been well-thought out over many years.
 * 5) Strict Rules designed for controversial theories are unworkable for related subjects. These strict fringe theory guidelines were written to regulate presentation of the controversial claims of fringe theories and are inappropriate and unworkable for less controversial issues relating to subjects outside the theory.  For example, if the term like an aspect of a fringe theory is thought to include biographies of proponents of fringe theories, individuals who showcase notability by any other WP guidelines will be excluded. I have demonstrated this problem with examples to which no one has provided a counter argument.  &
 * 6) These are the main issues as I see them, there are also a number of smaller practical considerations and other editors may see other objections.
 * Your next-to-last point is important. Wilhelm Reich is a great example.  As a scientist, he was a loonie crank.  As a political theorist, many would consider him masterful and important. If he were only and entirely associated just with "orgone", I would argue that he shouldn't have an independent article, and instead be merged into that topic.  But he's clearly notable outside of his pseudo-scientific promulgations. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  00:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... so where is the compromise position?   Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No change? We can't reach an agreement and the conversation loses track often it seems. Perhaps now is not the time to try and clarify what's already there. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And which version represents "no change"? Kooky seems to be making the argument that it was the changes that took place in August that sparked the current debates... so do we roll back to July?  Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No? It was my change afterwards which sparked the debate when the astrologer reverted it. the other piece had consensus earlier and there is nothing new there. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is how the current version compares with the July version:
 * 10 Nov 2012 (modified for comparison with July version)


 * 30 July 2012


 * I calculate that there are seven (or possibly five merged) contentious points and all in the first sentence. IRWolfie, you are the main author of these changes.  If you are prepared to work towards a real compromise between the two versions, I will support it.  If not, I will push hard for a full reversion to what I consider the superior original version that has worked for over five years.   So given the many issues raised, do you think there is a way we can compromise on these two versions and if so how? Kooky2 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Worked for 5 years? About a quarter of your edits are to this very page, outside of that you have made 113 edits to articles, so I am intrigued about how you know what worked in this area? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is possible to scroll through the edit history showing the differences between each edit. Edits were rarely big here so it didn't take that long.  Any guideline paragraph that has remained intact over 5 years must be working for editors.  It has moved around different sections.  I didn't recall seeing any edits before 2012 by you either.  Were you editing this page between 2007 and 2011? Kooky2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Check again. I started editing fully at the beginning of 2011, but I made about 300 edits before that going back to 2006. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but almost all changes that you show are so minor that I have no idea how you (Kooky2) could find even two "contentious points", not just seven or five. The only change that can be seen as substantial was addition of other subjects. And that was not done by IRWolfie-, but by Saedon . The change was discussed (Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 16) and, as far, as I can see, was universally supported. You seem to be the first and (so far) the only to object. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you only see two contentious points - that could make a lot of progress as we could use the July version as the basis and we need only address the two points. Re the August edit discussion - it turns out that there were flaws in the wording and this was discovered when the modified rule was applied. Kooky2 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only agree that stating one's position, while vital for negotiations, is not a compromise. Still, let's look at the objections:
 * "Raised the Bar above well-established WP:FRINGE guidelines" - not a legitimate objection. I am probably one of the most conservative Wikipedians, but even I cannot say that a claim that something is a change is a good objection as it stands. One can make something better by adding "It will result in short-term confusion." or something, but at the moment it doesn't seem to be a legitimate objection.
 * "Beyond the scope of existing WP Rules" - also not a legitimate objection, for the same reasons. Also, this objection seems to be contrary to the 4th one.
 * "As far as I know, there are no WP rules that justify this extension - if this article was not a guideline, I would say this extension was Original Research." - this is not an article. No original research applies to articles, not guidelines.
 * "The guidelines specifically address the presentation of fringe theories." - well, that has been changed recently. And they were understood to concern related subjects too anyway.
 * "Lack of Clarity" - a more legitimate objection. But if the version you are talking about is not clear enough, I have proposed one that might be clearer.
 * "Not Necessary or Required" - very unclear objection...
 * "However, this is about Notability which is not presumed i.e. Notability in itself does not guarantee inclusion." - inclusion of what? Article itself? Some text in the article? Something else?
 * "There are many other solid rules that govern inclusion of controversial topics: WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG." - "WP:FRINGE" is this guideline. We are discussing it. The other guidelines only affect existence or absence of an article indirectly.
 * "No one has explained how or provided examples to show how these existing rules will fail Wikipedia." - are we supposed to show that other policies and guidelines are flawed or something? They have their place - so does this one.
 * "Strict Rules designed for controversial theories are unworkable for related subjects." - also not a very clear objection.
 * "For example, if the term like an aspect of a fringe theory is thought to include biographies of proponents of fringe theories, individuals who showcase notability by any other WP guidelines will be excluded." - once again, I have proposed a text that avoids this specific problem (non-notability of "part-time" fringe theorists who are clearly notable because of something unrelated to the theory).
 * "I have demonstrated this problem with examples to which no one has provided a counter argument. [3] &[4]" - no, you haven't. First, both links show the same diff. Second, those are not "examples". An example will have to be a real identifiable person with a name. Only then we will be able to look and see if some changes are necessary or if you are mistaken.
 * "there are also a number of smaller practical considerations and other editors may see other objections" - well, I don't think that has to be answered.
 * So, sorry, but I'm afraid that you will have to restate many of those objections or drop them. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with your analysis of the points. The current wording doesn't change anything in practice, and the objections listed don't make a lot of sense. The guidelines are meant to reflect what wikipedians currently do, and I think it currently does. That is why there was consensus for the original change. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, Martynas.
 * "Raised the Bar above well-established WP:FRINGE guidelines" If you feel that this is not a legitimate objection, it would have helped if you made this point when the main stated objection to earlier proposed changes from editors was that it would be lowering the bar or watering down the content.  You have already stated that "I think that the things I propose keep it as strict as it is (and was long ago)".  Now that I am proposing to revert to what it was recently and long ago,  you are less enthusiastic.   If you are a conservative Wikipedian, you must agree that if a guideline has worked without much change for five years, we need strong reasons to make a change and we must be sure that it is a clear improvement.
 * "Beyond the scope of existing WP Rules" You have made the point that you want the guideline to be logically consistent with other guidelines and that most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are logical consequences of other policies and guidelines and tend to repeat the same (or similar things). Would you support any proposal that is inconsistent with other guidelines?
 * "The guidelines specifically address the presentation of fringe theories." - "well, that has been changed recently." This is circular logic.
 * "Lack of Clarity" We can agree here.
 * "Not Necessary or Required" Are the stricter rules required to fill a gap through which fringe theorists are taking advantage? No. There is no justification.
 * "... Notability in itself does not guarantee inclusion." I thought you would recognize this from WP:GNG it refers to "inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
 * "Strict Rules designed for controversial theories are unworkable for related subjects." "- also not a very clear objection." Rules that work for theories don't work for other things like people. Is that clear enough?
 * "I have demonstrated this problem with examples ..." I apologize - here is the correct second diff.  These are not "part-time" fringe theorists and are not notable because of something unrelated to the theory.  (I think we can agree that what is related to a theory is a gray area).


 * Ok - we can agree that raising or lowering the bar is no longer an argument (and I note IRWolfie agrees with your points) and that the final sentence must be an improvement while remaining consistent with Wikipedia's other rules. Then we can focus on my remaining three objections to the stricter extension that it is unnecessary, unclear and impractical.
 * Kooky2 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How on Earth did I miss you giving those names?! Sorry about that... So, I'll probably comment on other points later (this matter has waited long enough).
 * The first example you list is Linda Goodman. However, some sources have been found . For example, Cynthia Sanz, "Lost in the Stars", "People", November 27, 1995, Vol. 44, No. 22 looks reliable, extensive and not "pro-fringe". Other two sources do not seem to be "pro-fringe" either. Thus she's notable under all considered variants of this guideline. See, the requirements are not that hard to meet.
 * The second example is David Wells (medium). But in this case the article doesn't list a single source that would count as sufficient to demonstrate notability even if this guideline didn't apply (we only have something written by him and his employer). The current version also demonstrates some problems that happen when we do not have enough sources. "Wells predominately seems to be clairvoyant.", "He occasionally employs the use of tarot cards and scrying mirrors as aids to communicating with the spirit world.", "He only rarely channels spirits." - how do those "predominately", "occasionally" and "rarely" differ from each other? Adding those words without a secondary source that actually says so constitutes original research. And without them the statements are likely to be useless. Thus, unless there are more sources, I would conclude that he is non-notable, but would be non-notable even without considering this guideline.
 * So, it doesn't look like your examples demonstrate anything wrong with any version of this guideline that we are considering here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we work towards a compromise on this? - arbitrary break

 * Just a note regarding David Wells (medium)... I agree that the article would benefit from better sources, but as far a notability goes, doesn't he pass WP:ENTERTAINER (due to his multiple appearances on TV shows)? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping not to get too off topic with the details of these bios and I agree that the second needs severe editing. Maybe there is nothing left after editing, but if he is a leading 'expert' in two tv series shown around the world, there should be some reliable independent material to support his notability, but it may not be serious if that word is taken to mean only  academic or critical.  Maybe Blueboar's suggestion of WP:ENTERTAINER is correct - most fringe theorists fall into WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE or a mixture - would this supersede the guideline here?  Also, what do think of this bio which IRWolfie does not consider sufficiently notable under his interpretation of this guideline for an article?  Kooky2 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not say most fringe theorists fall into the category of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE... but certainly some do. Indeed this is a factor in my hesitation to accept the hard line stance taken by IRWolfie and Martynas ... They are looking at the issue of the notability of Fringe theories (and their proponents) purely from the POV of accademia.  But we also need to look at the issue from the POV of pop-culture and entertainment.  I think we need a compromise to deal with situations where academia ignores a fringe theory, but pop culture does not. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess it is now my turn to complain that you are wrong in stating my position. "They are looking at the issue of the notability of Fringe theories (and their proponents) purely from the POV of accademia." - well, the source from "People" magazine (it's a magazine, right?) does not seem to be "academic", but I did count it as sufficiently good. "I think we need a compromise to deal with situations where academia ignores a fringe theory, but pop culture does not." - it depends on the meaning of "pop culture". We can write an article if we have, let's say, critics who discuss the quality of acting of the fringe theorist. We cannot write the article if all we have is acting itself, advertisements and the like. Thus my proposal is meant to rule out the "pro-fringe" sources, but not the sources that concentrate on something else, for example, acting, finance etc. Is that clear? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misunderstanding your position. If you have not done so, please read WP:ENTERTAINER... to show that someone is notable as an entertainer, we don't need to cite critics who discuss the quality of an entertainers acting (although doing so would make for a better article).  All we need are sources that verify that the person "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."  Once that is established, we can have at least a stub article.  We can then expand the article based on the acting itself... by descriptively summarizing his role in the program (per WP:PLOT). Similarly, if he is notable under WP:CREATIVE we can neutrally describe the contents of his work (again per WP:PLOT) once we have established that he meets WP:CREATIVE.  That said... What we can not do is present analysis of his work without sources (positive and negative). Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what PLOT says, per WP:PLOT we shouldn't have the article if there is no analysis: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already clarified that this is not my position above, can you stop please repeating that this is my position. If someone is an entertainer, even if a fringe belief entertainer, and also incidentally say an astrologer, there notability stems from them being an entertainer, not a fringe proponent and it is highly likely a neutral article can be written. i.e I think Marcia Moore is notable for ketamine advocacy and her disappearance while incidentally being an astrologer and interested in the occult. There are no academic sources that I can see, and I still think she is notable and an article can be written neutrally. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, my apologies if I have misunderstood anyone's position.
 * Given what you say, I think we can reach a compromise... it sounds like what need to iron out is not whether we can have an article on a fringe topic that pass a pop-culture notability criteria (you are agreeing that we can), but clearer instruction on what to do when a Fringe topic passes such criteria, (ie how to write such an article... Something to guide article writers to understand what type of material should, and should not, be included in such an article). Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that those issues of content are effectively covered by the rest of FRINGE and NPOV, and outside the scope of the notability section. i.e it should be discussed in a separate section otherwise we will lose track again. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with IRWolfie here, and have to say that I'm a bit fed up with seeing my position and that of other editors repeatedly be mischaracterized. That being said, I would be against using any such article as a coatrack to present or promote otherwise non-notable fringe topics that the subject may have been associated with. And yes, I certainly do believe that real academic sources are far superior to pop-cultural sources, and that the latter have to be used with considerable caution, most especially with regard to topics related to science, medicine and serious academic fields. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to explain, my misunderstanding stemmed from statements like: "Well, if the theory is not notable enough to be worth debunking in a serious source, is it notable enough to be worth describing here" and "there must be some source that describes the subject in a way that is not sympathetic to the fringe theory and does it in a sufficiently extensive way. (both made by Martynas) and "Mainstream perspective on a fringe topic will always be required to ensure NPOV is satisfied. If the sourcing doesn't exist, then we can not have an article on the fringe topic." (made by IRW) I took these statements as indicating they were both saying that pop-culture sources were not enough to demonstrate notability.  I again apologize for my misunderstanding of their view, and I am glad that they agree that pop-culture sources can (sometimes) be enough to demonstrate notability of a fringe related topic.  Given that, I now think our respective views are not as far apart as I initially thought.
 * I completely agree that academic sources are far superior to pop-culture sources, and should they exist we should use them. However, the absence of academic sources does not mean we should not have an article,,, because (sometimes) an acceptable article can be based on pop-culture sources (which may be neither sympathetic nor antagonistic towards the topic). We seem to agree on that. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I still believe that the original July wording is superior for reasons explained, but if reversion is not widely supported at this time, I won't object as recent comments suggest that there is still scope for editors to use common-sense in judging unique borderline cases. Kooky2 (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (unindent) Yes, Kooky2, Ignore all rules can still be applied, should a need arise. Anyway, may I ask one more question? Would you prefer the current version or the one that was proposed by "A Quest for Knowledge" with my modifications ..? I know that you do not really like any of those, but which one looks "less bad" to you? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Martynas, this is always a tough question - the lesser of two evils. (This comment is intended light-heartedly). I don't have an answer yet, but I do share Blueboar's opinion (below) about the use of the word 'sympathetic' as it can be interpreted to be 'anti' rather than neutral. If a secondary source is reliable and clearly independent and it is not supporting a fringe-theory claim or an article dedicated to a fringe-theory, then this should count towards notability.  If you can find wording that reflects this without compromising the stricter guidelines for fringe theories, then I will support a switch to your proposal. Kooky2 (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, when I wrote about scope for editors to use common-sense in their judgement, I was not referring to ignoring all rules. What I meant was that we have to trust that editors will continue to interpret the evidence according to the claim, the subject and the context balanced by their interpretation of the underlying principles and spirit expressed in the guidelines. Kooky2 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not trying to answer for Kooky... for myself, I prefer the current version over your modifications of AOFK's proposal (however, I prefer AQFK's unmodified proposal over the current version)... I especially have a real problem with one sentence in your modified version, where you say: "Sources sympathetic to the fringe theory or written by its supporters are not considered independent" ... The word "sympathetic" is problematic. This could be construed as saying that a source must be antagonistic to to the theory to be considered independent, and that simply is incorrect.  Are you perhaps trying to say that "Source that actively promote a fringe theory are not considered independent."?  Blueboar (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a false dichotomy, and no, it can't be construed as saying that a source must be antagonistic to to the theory to be considered independent. Also, sympathetic sources need not "actively promote" a fringe theory. They may also do so by providing a platform so that fringe proponents can promote themselves, or by ignoring or minimalizing mainstream views, thus creating a walled garden or mutual adoration society type environment where only in-universe views count. I would strongly object to your restriction of non-independent sources to sources that actively promote a fringe theory. In-universe sourcing is a major problem with fringe articles, and I would be strongly against any wording that would lower the bar even the slightest bit for such sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, you asked me where the main difference lies in our positions. It is precisely with sourcing. I appear to be much more fastidious with regard to sourcing on articles related to scholarship, including fringe and pseudoscholarly topics. When real-world scholarly sources can't be found, I stop and think whether it's worth mentioning the topic at all before even considering using non-scholarly sources like pop-lit or popular journalism. And in-universe sources are flat out as far as I'm concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... we obviously have a very different definition of "sympathetic"... Question, so that we can better understand each other's views: would you consider an academic journal that agreed with parts of a fringe theory (but dismissed the theory as a whole) to be "sympathetic" to the theory... I would. Would you consider an in depth newspaper article that outlines a fringe theory without comment as to its validity or lack of validity to be "sympathetic"?  I would not. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first question is too vague, as many fringe theories incorporate non-fringe ideas. As for the second, it might be independent (i.e. not sympathetic), but it would probably not be reliable. Popular journalists rarely have the expertise necessary to report reliably on such topics, often base their reporting on material supplied by fringe proponents, on in-universe sources and extremely low-quality sources culled from the internet (including Wikipedia!), and rarely bother to consult with truly qualified experts in the field, usually relying on some local junior college science teacher. Frankly, science reporting in the popular press is deplorable and at best for entertainment purposes only. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking Coast to Coast AM as a source which is poor for showing notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... but reliability is a distinct issue from independence. Lets explore another example... suppose the Discovery Channel runs a half hour documentary about how someone is searching for the Lake Kumquat Monster (resoundingly considered a fringe topic), and concluded with "Is there really a Monster in Lake Kumquat? Perhaps, perhaps not... but Dave Smith thinks so, and plans to continue his search next year." ... I would call that "sympathetic"... but I would also say that the Discovery Channel is an independent source.  Furthermore if the Discovery Channel thinks Dave Smith's search is worth devoting an entire half hour of its programming to, I think most people would consider the Lake Kumquat Monster notable. Blueboar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Independent, but so far below our reliablility requirements that it's a moot question. Doesn't contribute much, if anything, to the notability of the fringe theory or its spokesman as notability is determined on the basis of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense, Blueboar, but I think you had better read and re-read our sourcing and notability guidelines over again. You seem to be conflating notability with some vague idea of popular appeal or reknown. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did re-read notability and in a nutshell, it states "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time,".  Clearly this is not limited to elite intellectual groups - even though we as editors (who are essentially nerdy types including myself) mostly ;) aspire to that group. So it may be that you DV are conflating reliability with notability.  Reliability depends on context and should be appropriate to the claims made.  Reliability in connection with a mainstream counter to a fringe theory claim should be of the highest order (scholarly or critical material) while reliability of a source that supports notability of a fringe proponent should be independent and reliable but not necessarily scholarly or critical. If the guideline here is  going to mix theories with theorists and notability with reliability as editors appear to wish, this important difference should also be made clear in the guidelines. Kooky2 (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strawman. You're countering an argument that I did not make. And notability is absolutley dependent on and inseparable from source reliability per WP:GNG. Without reliable sources, there is ZERO notability. Your "world at large" quote is not license to use unreliable sources to establish notability for theories, proponents, or any other subject here on WP. Nor is "not necessarily scholarly or critical". Your distinction between fringe theories and their proponents is artificial and arbitrary, and is inconsistent with our policies.
 * I'm guessing, but you apparently think that the Discovery Channel in Blueboar's example above is in some way a reliable source that can be used to establish notability. On what basis? They have no expertise, competence or reputation for fact checking at all. There is no conceivable reason to believe that anything they find worthy of coverage accurately reflects significant attention by the world at large. Their sole purpose is providing entertainment. Why should their opinion on a topics notability be accorded any weight at all? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The straw man here is your argument that I advocated unreliable sources or 'without reliable sources'. You have ducked the argument. I request that you address my comments "Reliability depends on context and should be appropriate to the claims made." Do you agree or disagree and if so why? Kooky2 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's what is called "wikilawyering" - taking a sentence out of a guideline and using it against the principles behind the guideline itself. In the current version the words you (Kooky2) were citing are actually followed by "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention.". It clearly contradicts your conclusions. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, every rule has to be applied within the general framework of the rules according to the context. However, the underlying principle of WP:N is "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...".  How this is done is by WP:N considering "evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." And this is qualified by WP:RS which among other guidelines including the following:


 * This guideline seems sensible and well considered. I would like to ask you (Martynas) the question that Dominus Vobisdu has not yet answered.  What I want to know is whether you accept the basic principle that reliability depends on context and that the sources should be appropriate to the claims made and if not why not? Kooky2 (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason I have not bothered to respond to your question is that I don't consider it germane to the discussion at hand, and I haven't the faintest clue what you are trying to get at. Please elaborate, but concisely and on topic. Also, I agree with Martynas that you are wikilawyering and cherrypicking. Stunts like that reduce your credibility. Another problem is that a lot of the things you say seem to be tangential to the matter at hand, and can give the impression that you are looking for loopholes rather than working toward a formulation that would ensure the highest quality of the material here on WP. I hope that's not the case, and a more forthright, transparent, concise a to-the-point formulation of your arguments and questions would go a long way in alleviating such concerns. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep calm - sometimes when editors think they are in a hole, they resort to accusing other editors of doing what they do themselves - in this case: wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking, not being transparent and seeking loopholes.  I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels.  If you have trouble putting your cards on the table, don't complain that your views are being mischaracterized.


 * However, I think I can safely assume that you do accept the principle that reliability depends on the context and that sources should be appropriate to the claims made as it is embeded in WP:RS. Or put it another way, like every editor here, you would demand that any claim that contradicts mainstream science would require the most strict levels of reliability.  But do you demand the same high level of reliability from sources for a less controversial claim such as a fringe proponent was a keynote speaker at a conference or presented a TV series or married someone?  If not please explain why as I have trouble understanding this.  I trust that question is clear enough and clarification from you would help me understand your viewpoint. Please keep in mind that I (or any other editor) don't want to have to make any assumptions about your position on this. Kooky2 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, different sources count as reliable for different claims. But that mostly comes into play when the article content is being written. When we judge notability, the source only reliable for a claim that someone married someone is useless. If that's all it is reliable for, we don't have significant coverage. Thus, to make things shorter, sources reliable for next to nothing are generally called "unreliable".
 * "Keep calm - sometimes when editors think they are in a hole, they resort to accusing other editors of doing what they do themselves - in this case: wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking, not being transparent and seeking loopholes.  I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels." - well, if you will not elaborate and show us some evidence, this part might even count as a "personal attack"... You might note that when I told you that you were taking a sentence out of context, I have shown which sentence it was and demonstrated that it was misinterpreted (by adding a following sentence). Also, I did my best not to say or imply that you misinterpreted the guideline on purpose. Now, if you think that someone else does something like that, please, give some evidence as well. Otherwise an apology to "Dominus Vobisdu" might be in order... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I agree that context is important, which is why I set out the 'Context Matters' guideline paragraph in full.  If I felt that a guideline quote was out of context, I would not be unwise enough to use it knowingly as it would undermine my point. Kooky2 (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kooky2: No, you absolutely may not assume that I agree with you, and stating that I do was exceedingly uncivil of you. Also, you asked me repeatedly to take the time to answer your question, and when I told you that it was vague and asked you for a clarification, you said "I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels". That is not only uncivil, but downright insulting, as if your time is valuable and mine is not. If you are not going to be concise and on-topic, further discussion with you on this topic is a waste of my time, which I do value far to much to engage in vague, general and philosophical discussions on the subject of the article with no apprarent purpose, rather than concrete proposals to improve the policy in question. As for the rest of your answer, yes, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, that is, "multiple high-quality sources". That is what WP:EXCEPTIONAL is all about. If your want to be taken seriously in a discussion about our policies, it would help if you spent some of your precious time to read and understand them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I humbly apologize to you or any editor if you have taken offence by anything that I have written. When I wrote "I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels" I meant that I was not going to elaborate on what I see as a diversion - which is arguing about your accusations - which I felt were out of line, inappropriate and off-topic. I only want to discuss the guidelines and not get into a side argument which serves no one.  I am sorry if my questions make you feel uncomfortable, but I don't believe they were unreasonable. Kooky2 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I'm impressed by your sincerity, and look forward to working productively with you. Two thumbs up! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Entertainment topics can be notable. That's the problem.  A fringe theory can be covered for its entertainment value and that coverage can make the theory notable.  The discovery channel may not be a reliable source on zoology, but it is a reliable source for determining whether something is notable for its entertainment (pop-culture) value. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense to me. There is no "it's reliable for saying what is notable" quality to a source if it is not reliable as a source for what it covers. A reliable source is defined as one with a reputation for fact checking, if you think something does not have a reputation for fact checking for the information you are interested in, then why would it contribute to notability claims? I would consider a newspaper which reliably covers an entertainer in significant detail to be an indicator of notability, not a newspapers that unreliably covers someone. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "suppose the Discovery Channel runs a half hour documentary about how someone is searching for the Lake Kumquat Monster (resoundingly considered a fringe topic), and concluded with "Is there really a Monster in Lake Kumquat? Perhaps, perhaps not... but Dave Smith thinks so, and plans to continue his search next year." ..." - yes, such sources do exist. "I would call that "sympathetic"..." - yes, so would I. "but I would also say that the Discovery Channel is an independent source." - and the Communist side in the Korean war said that Soviet satellites like People's Republic of Poland were neutral (it was sent to Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission). Yet would you (Blueboar) really count such states as "independent" of the Communist side..?
 * Likewise, we should look at the source. The source as such is not "Discovery Channel", but the documentary. Is the documentary like that independent of the fringe theory? Well, how could it be, if it is little more than supporters of the theory speaking, with "Discovery Channel" adding the introduction and "Perhaps, perhaps not..."? It even seems arguable that it is not a secondary source.
 * "Furthermore if the Discovery Channel thinks Dave Smith's search is worth devoting an entire half hour of its programming to, I think most people would consider the Lake Kumquat Monster notable." - and "if the Discovery Channel thinks Dave Smith's search is not worth of a serious discussion (even in a documentary that is supposed to talk about it), I think Wikipedia would not consider the Lake Kumquat Monster notable because of that". Anyway, do you agree that such a source is worthless to us? I'd say that it is not even good enough for opinions of fringe theorists - it might be better to take their own writings.
 * And, of course, the word "sympathetic" was meant to exclude such sources.
 * Now, "The discovery channel may not be a reliable source on zoology, but it is a reliable source for determining whether something is notable for its entertainment (pop-culture) value." - well, does the documentary include the actual sentence "This theory is good entertainment."? No? Then it's not a source for it (certainly not a reliable one). If you want to discuss a fringe theory as entertainment, you need a source that actually discusses it as entertainment - some sort of a writing by art critic or someone like that. A source that simply uses it for entertainment is not enough. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I have to agree with Martynas. If a fringe proponent is an entertainer in their own right, then we have notability guidelines that apply for that, and the Discovery Channel episode you mention does little to satisfy those. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had drifted away from talking about proponents in my Discovery Channel example... my point was that a fringe theory can gain mainstream media coverage due to the fact that the executives think it has entertainment value. That mainstream coverage goes towards establishing that the theory is notable enough for an article.  When it comes to establishing notability, it does not matter what a mainstream media sources says about a fringe theory (whether sympathetic, neutral or antagonistic)... what matters for notability  is the fact that the media source has no connection to the theory (or theorist) and that the source covered the theory in depth.
 * Suppose there was a fringe theory saying that a mysterious creature (known as "Kumpie") exists in the depths of Lake Kumquat, and that I wanted to write an article about it. Before I even write a word, I need to determine whether this "monster" (or at least the theory that this monster exists) is notable.  To do this, I go out and look for mainstream sources that have discussed the monster (or the theory that it exists).  At this point, it does not matter what these sources say about the monster ... all that matters at this point is: are there mainstream sources that have discussed it (beyond a passing reference).  We are not (at this point) sourcing any statements or verifying any facts... we are simply looking to see whether the topic has enough coverage in mainstream sources for the topic to be deemed notable.
 * Now... suppose I discover that the Discovery Channel devoted a half-hour program to the search for the "Lake Kumquat Monster". The Discovery Channel qualifies as a mainstream source.  It is completely unconnected to the theory (and thus independent).  The coverage level is more than just "slow news day" or "news of the weird" level coverage... they talk about the theory in depth and in a serious manner... all of which goes towards establishing notability.
 * We now get to the issue of reliability... reliability depends on context. The same source can be reliable for verifying one statement, and completely unreliable for verifying another.  While the Discovery Channel would NOT be reliable for a statement such as: "The lake Kumquat Monster exists and lives in the depths of Lake Kumquat", it IS reliable for a statement such as: "Some people believe that the lake Kumquat Monster exists and lives in the depths of Lake Kumquat", or "The Lake Kumquat Monster is purported to live in the depths of Lake Kumquat"
 * As long as I keep this distinction firmly in mind, I can now write a stub article... perhaps:
 * The Lake Kumquat Monster refers to a theory that purports the existence of a sea monster living in the depths of Lake Kumquat. This theory was the subject of the Discovery Channel's 2012 program "Kumpie - The search for the Lake Kumquat Monster" .
 * Now, I admit, that isn't much of an article... but as a stub, it is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We look for the coverage in reliable sources, not just any source. If the source isn't reliable for the coverage, I don't see how it could be considered a reliable source for notability purposes. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But it is reliable for the coverage.... pay attention to the context... the claim is that the Discovery Channel covered the topic, and a citation to the Discovery Channel doing so reliably verifies that claim. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And why would the fact that the Discovery Channel cover the topic make the topic itself notable, or be signifcant at all in and of itself? Why would their opinion that the topic is notable carry any weight? Do they have any demonstrable expertise in the topic so that we should pay attention to what they say? Do they have a solid reputation for fact-checking and editorial review in regards to the topic so that we can trust what they say? Did qualified experts in reliable secondary sources review this broadcast and conclude that it represented coverage of a notable topic? Just because they thought that their target audience might think that the topic was amusing has no bearing on whether it is notable or not? How is this any different from a silly news of the weird type story? What evidence do you have that the topic was notable to anyone except those of the Discovery Channel staff that decided to produce the broadcast and the otherwise insignificant wanker who they got to "star" in it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage by the Discovery Channel does not make it notable... it demonstrates that it already is notable. The Discovery Channel is not going to go through the time and expense of producing a program on a topic that isn't going to be of interest to its viewers.  It's that interest that makes the topic notable...  indeed a topic can be notable because people find it so interesting (just as a sitcom can be notable because it is humor, or an action drama can be notable because people find it thrilling. etc.)  As for the distinction between my hypothetical Discovery Channel program and a "news of the weird" story in a news paper... the difference is in the depth of coverage.  The typical "news of the weird" story will not cover the topic in much depth.  The program I propose in my hypothetical does. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you a related question... I hope we would agree that if a topic is the subject of an article in an academic journal, we can call the topic notable... Why? Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably it's a reliable source for the topic and it is presumably well cited for the topic it covers. I presume the journal has a reputation for fact checking. Ideally multiple articles should exist. Unlike what was said here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability I think we do require sources to exist to write stuff to pass WP:NOTE. Let me quote WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is what makes the journal a reliable source for article content ... what I am asking is a different question... why do we say coverage in an academic journal is a valid indication indicates of notablity?
 * Here's a more specific (and real life) example... take a look at our article Champ (cryptozoology)... and look at the sources used in that article. Would you say that this fringe topic is not notable? Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... so how did you come to that conclusion? Every single source in that article is either a media source, or "sympathetic" of the theory. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with IRWoflie, here. Based on the sources provided in the article, I would have to vote to delete this at AfD, if, based on my own search, I had no reasonable expection that multiple reliable independent sources could be found. The only sources here that are reliable for establishing notability here are the two CSI sources, and even then, they are really only one source. The ABC Morning Edition source is a news of the weird slow news day type of story, and the VOA source is for entertainment as well. Neither represents serious journalism, and neither does very much for establishing notability. The article needs a major reworking, most of the sources are completely unreliable and need to be deleted, most of the content has to be shitcanned as unsourced and unsourceable, and additional reliable sources need to be found, both to establish notability and supply content. A possibility is the Bartholemew book linked to in the external links. From what I see on the page, that would be the only thing holding me back from voting "Delete" on AfD, and then only by a hair. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that most of the sources are poor: mostly just quoting people, no analysis. [paranormal-encyclopedia.com] accept contributions from the public, seemingly with some editorial oversight; I don't consider that a reliable source (but don't give credit, very strange). I don't trust the visitors center  for history. This website is also trying to create an air of mystery: . "The Search for Champ", more creating an air of mystery tourist information. , seriously? I notice it links to  for more info. I think the CSI source is good, there is also  (university press). There's coverage in "Adventures in Paranormal Investigation", by Nickell as well. So yes, all the same person, but good sources none the less. Enough for a strong foundation to an article. I'm fairly inclusionist when good sources can be unearthed to directly write about the topic, more than my AfD voting record makes it look. I might rewrite it from scratch myself. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I was restricting my evaluation to the sources currently in the article, as requested by Blueboar, and assumed you had, too. My bad. My actual decision would, as I said, on whether my search turned up any promising new sources, and I even pointed out one possibility in the ELs. Good luck with the rewrite! You'll probably stir up some deep water, though, and I expect the Champ fans to chomp down on you. Watchlisting and waiting for the fireworks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the article references alone it would be probably a close AfD. Whether one CSI ref is adequate for showing notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I'm in agreement with most of the points made by Blueboar, though I wonder what is being achieved by this now very prolonged discussion, which appears to be going round in circles. What I liked about the proposal made by A Quest For Knowledge was its clarification that the notability guidelines cover the issues related to notability in depth, and that these are not subject to amendment according to whether someone works in mainstream fields or fringe fields. Notability is established in its own terms and can be qualified by sources that are deemed reliable for what is being reported. It is not necessary that they have a reputation for establishing mainstream fact, unless we are presenting information that touches upon what mainstream or fringe theories claim. So yes, Blueboar is right, coverage by the Discovery Channel may not be adequate for verification purposes but it does demonstrate notability. We should keep WP:NNC in mind – the criteria that determines notability does not apply to article content. Equally, the guidelines that govern the treatment and explanation of fringe views are not expected to be applied to the determination of notability. In my opinion the most useful edit that could be made to this page is the statement proposed by A Quest For Knowledge that: "The notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are no different than any other topic". His proposal seemed to get a lot of support – I'm not sure why it was so quickly dismissed. Logical 1 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for getting us off track with the discussion. Thanks for reminding us of the purpose of this page... discussing potential edits to this guideline.  I will repeat what I have said earlier... I have no problem with AQFK's proposed edit. I do have a problem with the suggested amendments to it.  Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar: Wrong on all counts. The Discovery channel selects topics for their programs based solely on their (sometimes erroneous) judgement about whether the topic might be entertaining to their target audience, not on whether the topic is notable or not. And their target audience bases their judgement of the level of entertainment the program delivers on it, well, its "entertainment value", whatever that is, and not on the topics notability (although notability may, or may not, be among their criteria for what is entertaining). Depth of coverage doesn't even enter into it.
 * And you're wrong about the second example, too. The fact that a topic is covered in a peer-reviewed source does nothing to establish notability. It is only when, as IRWolfie rightly points out, multiple reliable sources provide substantial (there's your "depth") coverage of the topic that we can conclude that the topic is notable. One sparrow does not a spring make. And the reason for that is that that is evidence that demonstrably qualified experts in the relevant field consider the topic significant enough to examine and report about, regardless of whether they accept or reject it. It matters very little whether other people discuss it or not, because their opinions do not matter in the slightest.
 * And that's just the minimum. I've written, translated or edited over 500 peer reviewed articles, and 10 peer reviewed books, but few of the topics covered in them would qualify as notable except among scientists interested in those topics, and certainly not to the "world at large". For example, one series of articles dealt with how infection by tapeworms causes cell death in the intestinal lining in pigs. Relaible? No question. Interesting? Hell, yes. If you are a microbiologist or veterinarian. Notable? Yes. Much so, as the articles were widely cited and reviewed, and even brought in enough funding to add two academic professors to the university staff. Notable to the word at large? Bwaa haaa haaa, you've gotta be kidding me!
 * On top of that, some topics are only notable for a short time, after which they become not-notable again, or are notable only in a limited geographical area. There has to be evidence of sustained and persistent coverage, which is what NOT and BLP1E are about. And it has to me more than trivial, routine, tangential or local coverage. The pothole problem in Syracuse, NY, may generated tons of in-depth news coverage by reliable, but this is not evidence that it is notable to the world at large, or that anyone will even remember it ten years from now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And as for AQFK's edit, I oppose it, because it invites cherry-picking by fringe proponents. It's not exactly true, either, because our requirements for sources to establish notability for fringe topics are stricter, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and also because we have a major problem with promotion by fringe proponents and supporters here on WP, a large part of which consists of spurious claims of notability, which we are well within are rights to evaluate with heightened scrutiny. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the proposal you (Logical 1) noted doesn't seem to be very useful, because (ironically?) during the discussion we found out that we do not seem to agree about the meaning of "notability" in general as well... Now, of course, I think that you, Blueboar and Kooky2 are completely wrong when you say that notability has nothing to do with content. The section itself is called "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article", not "Content has no impact on notability". The main part of the guideline is the explanation "Why we have these requirements", and it clearly says that it is because of content. There are cases when we cannot meet all main "content" policies at the same time - causing paradoxes, if you wish. In such case we say (paraphrasing Stalin): "No article - no problem.". That's more-or-less the idea behind the notability guideline.
 * But anyway, I don't think that any of us is going to change his mind any time soon. Thus it might be that we will have an RFC - or something like that. Before that, it would be nice to get two proposals - one from each side (with additional notability requirements and without them). But there are many proposals - and the current text of the guideline as well. Thus, maybe we could decide which two proposals are we going to choose? For example, from the opposing side (that supports wider notability for the fringe topics) I would choose the proposal given in and for the side that I support I would choose the text given in . Would it be reasonable if everyone else made choices of such kind as well..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I haven't discussed content at all, never mind claimed that notability has nothing to do with content. I agree with you on that, and am an ardent "Stalinist": "No article - No problem". I was also thinking of bringing in some other opinions. Don't know whether an RfC is the best move, though. I'll have to think about that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a quick point of clarification: WP:EXCEPTIONAL has nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is policy provision about article content, not article existence.  In other words, WP:NOTABILITY determines whether Wikipedia should have an article about a given topic.  It does not determine what that article says.  Article content is determined by our content policies, of which WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV are the most predominant.  The only overlap that I can think of off the top of my head is the definition of a reliable source.  HTH.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where you got that, because it's not in the policy. Notability is based on substantial coverage in multiple RELIABLE independent sources. If a source does not qualify as reliable per WP:EXCEPTIONAL or any other criteria, it cannot be used to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's in WP:NOTABILITY: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article...These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And how does any of that contradict what I said above? Or support your claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL has nothing to do with notability? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification about notability: Multiple sources are generally expected WP:NOTABILITY, but at least one is required (this project#Notability), so multiple sources are not required? Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that discrepancy, too. "At least one" should be changed to "multiple" to be consistent with WP:NOTABILITY, to close that loophole. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dominus Vobisdu: The part where you said that "requirements for sources to establish notability for fringe topics are stricter, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL". WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about article content, not notability.  You're conflating two different concepts (content and notability).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No I'm not. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about the reliability of sources, for any purpose. I see nothing in the whole policy that could possibly be construed as indicating that the policy limits source reliability to content. WP:NOTABILITY Specifically mentions source reliability as a criterion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Dominus Vobisdu: No, WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not about "any purpose".  It's only about claims within an article: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.
 * It says nothing about notability. In fact, there is only one sentence in all of WP:V about notability and it says: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
 * That's it. That's the entire section about notability in WP:V.  See the sections V and V if you don't believe me.
 * @Aarghdvaark: Our policies and guidelines aren't entirely consistent with each other or even with themselves. WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple reliable sources.  The sentence to which you refer in WP:FRINGE indicates that only one source is required.  This is one of the issues that I attempted to fix by requiring multiple reliable sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and I've explained why several times. I've considered your reasoning carefully, and I still can't see anything in the policy which supports your position. This is obviously getting nowhere, so I'll bow out for now and let others comment.
 * As for the wording issue, I would strongly support changing the wording of the article to reflect the wording in the notability policy, namely change "at least one" to "multiple". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as numbers go... a lot depends on what the sources are. One source can sometimes be enough to demonstrate notability... but most of the time you need more than one. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so, in your (A Quest For Knowledge) opinion, when the notability guideline speaks about coverage in reliable sources, what exactly does it mean? After all, any source is reliable for something - at least for statements of form "Source says X.". But then, what is the point of adding the word "reliable" to the guideline? Could it be that, for example, only statements that the source is reliable for are to be "counted" when deciding if the coverage is "significant"? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Martynas Patasius: Wikipedia defines a reliable source as a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While it's true that most sources are reliable for their own claims, (i.e. 'Source A claims B' (which is entirely different than 'Claim B' )), that's not what WP:N means by 'reliable' in this context.  So, if "Crank A" posts an entry on "Fringe Theory X" on their personal blog, that's not evidence of notability.  If BBC News publishes an article about "Fringe Theory X", that's evidence of notability.  Does that answer your question?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree, with the added note that we are really talking about two distinct things here... reliably sourcing content (facts and opinions) is distinct from reliably sourcing notability.  We use slightly different reliability criteria when verifying facts and opinions than we do when demonstrating notability. For example, if the claim of reliability is that a fringe topic has become a TV trope... then TV industry sources that discuss the topic in terms of it's "tropiness" are reliable.  Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of a paradox. You have reliable sources that say that a topic that is notable enough to have its own article but no reliable sources for any content. There isn't much use for a blank article. The only fact you could put in it is that the source says that the topic of the article is "tropy", and why, which isn't of any encyclopedic value, as things that are "tropy" today might be completely forgotten by the time we write the article.

The error I see here is that you are conflating newsworthy with notable. Newsworthiness is a lot more transitory. Not everything that is newsworthy is notable. In fact, the vast majority is not. And not everything notable is newsworthy. There is a fundamental difference in the aims of a new source and an encyclopedia. That's why we have WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E.

Then there's also the matter of who says that the article is notable. A report about a fringe topic in Science or Nature is far better evidence than a report in a newspaper, as it demonstrates that it is part of the discussion among qualified experts in the field. A newspaper ability to gauge this is far less reliable for establishing notability. First of all, it's gotta get that story out in a couple of days, so they often do a slapdash job. A submission to Science or Nature takes about six months or more from submission to publication. One Nature paper I helped prepare for publication took more than a year, during which time multiple experts from several countries worked on draft after draft after draft to satisfy the reviewers. That greatly affect the depth of coverage.

Let's put it this way: when we got the word that the Nature paper was accepted, we broke out the champagne, as does just about everyone involved when an article is published in Nature. Do you think that happens with many stories reported in news sources? Occasionally, perhaps, but I'd find that hard to believe that was the case for the "tropiness" article.

Not everyone's estimation of notability carries the same weight. Nor does the same person's estimation carry the same weight in all places. For scholarly topics, including fringe and pseudo-scholarly topics, the opinion of the editorial staff of a peer-reviewed journal carries a lot more weight then the a single expert when he writes in a self-published book or sham journal. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, such "paradoxes" where Wikipedia's policies do not work well (and contradict each other) are exactly why we have the various notability guidelines (and exceptions for cases where we have no "paradoxes"). And that is the main part of the guideline - not the "nutshell". It explains the "lawgiver's intent".
 * Thus the Blueboar's assertion that "We use slightly different reliability criteria when verifying facts and opinions than we do when demonstrating notability." is wrong. And the example given doesn't support that assertion. "For example, if the claim of reliability is that a fringe topic has become a TV trope... then TV industry sources that discuss the topic in terms of it's "tropiness" are reliable." - if such sources are reliable for sufficient coverage, then they are good enough to demonstrate notability. But, of course, we need the secondary sources that actually discuss the fringe theory in the context of popular culture and not just examples of the theory's use. By the way, it has little to do with "fringeness" - it is simply avoidance of "Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing" and applies to non-fringe topics as well. So, the documentary about some "monster" by "Discovery Channel" (that we were talking about) doesn't count - unless it is really about art (yet, is "Discovery Channel" a reliable source for topics related to art?).
 * And, of course, if someone will get really good sources about "tropiness" of fringe theory, those sources are not going to discuss the theory itself sympathetically (I doubt if they would discuss it - as such - at all) - thus, at least "my" variant of this guideline will not prevent it (the trope) from being considered notable. It still leaves the question if the trope and the theory are the same thing.
 * That should also answer "A Quest For Knowledge" (by the way, thanks for taking your time to answer - !). "Wikipedia defines a reliable source as a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - good. "So, if "Crank A" posts an entry on "Fringe Theory X" on their personal blog, that's not evidence of notability. If BBC News publishes an article about "Fringe Theory X", that's evidence of notability." - well, does "BBC News" actually have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when we talk about this topic..? Thus "reliably sourcing content (facts and opinions) is distinct from reliably sourcing notability." sounds strange: if we interpret the notability guideline in this way, it does not help to avoid the "paradoxes"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Discovery Channel is a source publication or an author, it's a publisher (of video productions), so the question 'is "Discovery Channel" a reliable source for topics related to art?' is meaningless; it's like asking if Houghton-Mifflin is a reliable source on physics.  Of course a production on DC about art will be reliable,  the writers/producers of the piece did their research.  Even a DC piece about bigfoot or whatever will usually be reliable for certain things (e.g., who has propounded what bigfoot theories and alleged photos, when, and who has debunked them and when). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  00:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)