Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 19

Better RfC rather than DRN
I would recommend not going to DRN over the above discussion since protracted discussions aren't very suited for it. Instead, how about people highlight what they think the current issues are, and people construct an RfC question together? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis and CoS
The fact that some editors, as SlimVirgin mentioned in the abortive RfC-mess above, want to classify psychoanalysis as "fringe" is not necessarily important, instructive or even interesting. The majority of vocal opponents of pschoanalysis are, in my experience, active members of the Church of Scientology or one of its rebellious little splitoffs. They are themselves the very definition of fringe, despite their bogus claims to being a religion (it's a tax dodge; the organization is in reality simply devoted to pseudo-scientific quackery that liberates suckers from their money). A fringe group calling another group "fringe" is basically just noise and can safely be utterly ignored. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The overarching point is that there are many mainstream adherents that can and do declare minority or less popular positions as "fringe", and many substantial minorities that would declare parts of mainstream science as fringe. Gigs (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that was me who commented the psychoanalysis was fringe. In any case, the Skeptical Inquirer seems to so declare, and it is not fringe, so....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So have articles in Science and Nature, and many others. (see "Review by SlimVirgin" here Editor_review/IRWolfie-). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's being pointed out to me that CoS has attacked psychiatry more generally, and the sources being talked about here are going after psychoanalysis specifically, in the Jungian/Freudian sense, so the red flag I raised here may be a false alarm. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  09:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is well known that Scientology is attacking psychiatry in general. On the other hand, attacks specifically on psychoanalysis do exist and are in no way restricted to fringers. E.g. Karl Popper coined the term pseudoscience for science-like activities which immunise themselves against falsification instead of trying to correct themselves. This was prompted by his attempt to describe what distinguishes astrology and psychoanalysis from relativity theory. He explicitly described psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience, and it's a typical test case for later definitions of pseudoscience by other serious philosophers. Hans Adler 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Co$ angle is not as clear as it seems. Lol.  Hubbard may have been tutored by one of Freud's students as a teenager.  Like most claims about his early life it must be taken with a cosmically large salt crystal, but he obviously thought well enough of Freudian psychoanalysis to plagiarize large swaths of it in Dianetics.  Going Clear contains a long discussion of this.  Excellent book.  Skinwalker (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Any practical reason why we are discussing psychoanalysis in the abstract when at the top of the page we have the ArbCom ruling that it is "questionable science", in a series of distinctions that I for one find very useful? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this Arbcom decision was very reasonable, but ultimately it was a decision on content, and at least one later Arbcom (2011? 2012?) has made it clear that they consider this problematic and the content aspects not binding. I don't know if this counts as a practical reason, though. I have no particular desire to continue discussing this. Hans Adler 22:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that that arbcom decision reflects the thinking of the community at large. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Poison Presses?
So I've noticed that quite a bit of WP:FRINGE material uses sources from what i have occasionally heard termed "poison presses" to provide citations. The one I am most familiar with is Trine Day, though I am sure there are others. I had the intent of writing an article about Trine Day, but unfortunately there doesnt seem to be enough WP:RS coverage of the publisher to justify such an article. Furthermore, the importance of this article would seem to be substantially more important within wikipedia rather than to a general audience. I have searched for articles both in article-space and WP-space for mentions of this publishing house, and it is mentioned a few times on WP:RSN archives but not in any explicit policy. I'm wondering whether it's worth it to have some kind of summation or collection of relevant links for these so-called "poison presses" so as to have a central point of reference for editors, and whether that belongs in userspace or wp-space? if i'm asking in the wrong place I would also appreciate some direction to a more appropriate venue for this concern. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 18:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the term "poison presses" is far to inflammatory. I can see the attraction in creating a "blacklist" but I'm afraid that's just going to cause more problems than it solves.  (Imagine Trine's publicity department finding that list:  "We're Banned by Wikipedia!  See what Wikipedia doesn't want you to read!")  I think your initial impulse was the best:  create an article.  I know this has been helpful for, say, Journal of Cosmology.  But in the absence of WP:RS, I don't know that this approach is feasible.
 * Perhaps a more circumspect list along the lines of: "The following publishers have published material considered to be WP:FRINGE.  Care should be taken when using this material as a reliable source for facts beyond documenting the opinions of the authors."  Garamond Lethe t c  22:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, i just noticed the term in an archived discussion and thought it was amusing. and of course, bans of sources are totally inappropriate, regardless of the kind of any hay a publisher like that would make of one. Just going for the whole "take a great deal of care when using these sources" thing. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some publishers, websites &c which are regularly used to support outlandish claims when an editor wants to add content but cannot find a reliable source which agrees with them. Personally, I've kept a personal list of some of the more egregious ones and occasionally I search for them to see if any new citations of that publisher have appeared, which is a great way of finding articles with neutrality problems. Try globalresearch.ca, for instance, or a publisher dedicated to alt-med. However, keeping an official list of these could be subjective, controversial, and unmanageable... We do effectively have bans on some sources - if a source gets a really bad reputation then it could get put in the blacklist/editfilter/whatever - but that's generally for sources that get spammed &c rather than sources which "merely" say stuff which isn't true. bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad Example
Currently the In-text attribution section of this article says

"while simple facts – "humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor" – are best left stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions."

Surely there is a better example of a simple fact than a statement that millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims disagree with strongly. A large IPSO Reid Survey across 23 countries found that 41 per cent believe in human evolution, 28 per cent believe in creationism and 31 per cent are uncertain of what to believe in. Based on these statistics a minority of people in the world believe in what this policy cites as a simple fact.

I tried to edit it to say something like "Darwin was an early advocate of the theory of evolution" but was reverted immediately. My example text is something that 100% of people would agree with, and so would not need In-text attribution. I'm not saying that anytime WP makes a statement about evolution it needs an In-text attribution, but to use a highly disputed statement that more than half of humanity does not agree with or is unsure about as an example for all of WP editing practice is very strange. This is not an attempt to debate origins, but an attempt to make the policy read in a logical way. Legacypac (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * But it's not disputed by (in Wikipedia terms) any reliable scientific source is it? Surely this example has a certain point in WP:FRINGE guidance, which your edit bypasses? Alexbrn talk 13:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the point of the passage. The fact that large numbers believe in an unscientific view does not act as a counterpoise against a scientific theory; we can state evolution as scientific fact without qualification even though there is controversy, because within the context of the controversy the "science" of creationism is well-established to be incorrect, and while we can refer to an appeal to scripture as a religious dissent, that's obviously outside the context of scientific inquiry. The converse is that the same strictures apply to secularists talking about religion: in that case we generally do have to qualify their "scientific" analyses by noting that there isn't any kind of religious consensus which puts irreligious viewpoints in a position of primacy. (In practice there's so much disagreement between secular viewpoints on religious topics that those opinions almost always have to be qualified anyway.) Getting rid of the baldly evolutionary statement waters down the example. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You correctly call evolution a scientific theory, as does evolution in a few places. There is no scientific proof for macro evolution or proof for monkey's to humans (where is the missing link?). This is why stating a macro evolution concept as an example of a simple fact is so wrong. Why not choose an example that is not controversial to illustrate the point.  Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Macro evolution" does not actually exist as a scientific concept, but only in YEC materials. As far as science is concerned, there is evolution, applied to whatever scale of time (and range of biological development) you like. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there an ArbCom case (or possibly a Jimbo statement) that basically boiled down to "denying evolution makes us look like idiots, and ruins our reputation as an encyclopedia"? Because it does; people will understand if some stub article isn't completely accurate, but if we deny strong scientific consensuses in a very visible way, we've lost all credibility on science. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience IRWolfie- (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are ignorant of the topic and your opinion has lost all credibility. Please read Evidence of common descent and evolution. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the root of the problem with this statement: "Surely there is a better example of a simple fact than a statement that millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims disagree with strongly." - is that even though millions of people do indeed strongly disagree with this fact - they do so as a matter of opinion (or "faith" - which amounts to the same thing). Almost no scientists would agree that this common view fits with the scientific evidence.    Having a large (possibly *vast*) quantity of opinion doesn't turn that opinion into a fact.  Certainly not as "fact" is defined in Wikipedia's science articles.  That makes this an excellent example of what we're talking about.  That humans and chimps have a common ancestor is a fact - and should be stated as such - even though there is this crazily large amount of opinion out there that says otherwise.  Picking a less extreme example would weaken that message considerably.


 * As for the "where is the missing link?" nonsense - you should read Missing_link - we have plenty of intermediate "link" fossils that show the progression from the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans down to our present form...or from monkeys...or from fish or even plants for that matter! This idea that we don't have those links is a bizarre one - I don't understand where it's coming from.  The image to the left up there is Homo erectus (left, above)- from whom we evolved over the past 1.7 million years - who is clearly partway between human and great ape.  Homo habilis (center, above) who is where we were about 2.2 million years ago, and Australopithicus from 4 million years ago (right, above).  Our split with the branch of the tree of life that contains the chimpanzees was about 6 to 7 million years ago - and we have fossils of likely human ancestors from around that period too:


 * We also have fossils ranged in time between those that I showed above. It's quite possible to construct a single chain of fossils that clearly show the very gradual progression from great apes that were around 7 to 8 million years ago down to us - and from that same creature to the modern chimpanzee. SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience - ArbCom clarification request.
Please note that there is a request for clarification/amendment at ArbCom regarding Pseudoscience that editors of this guideline may wish be aware of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification and Possible Reorganization
This article is hard to use as an editor's guideline, because it mixes advice on what can be included in a mainstream article and in a fringe article. As a first step to clarifying this, I propose either splitting some sections into subsections -- eg

and moving some of the existing text into those subcategories,
 * General Guidelines
 * In Mainstream Articles
 * In Fringe Articles

or in case of minor differences, just inserting a short phrase in mainstream articles or in fringe articles to clarify a point. Alanf777 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, there is a template Template:Fringe theories which flags an article as fringe, but also requests changes. I suggest a new black-box template which simply says that an article represents minority views, and should be read with caution. Maybe a Minority View template. Alanf777 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On the last point, we definitely don't want to do that for the reasons given in WP:NDA. Fringe views must be plainly contextualized within a mainstream framework and not broken off and allowed to "speak for themselves" - that is a central underlying concept of the fringe guidance, I think, since Wikipedia aims to be a serious piece of work representing quality mainstream material. Alexbrn talk 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK ... I see there's general disagreement on WP:NDA (though I disagree with it!!!!) I'll let that one go. On you second sentence, I read this article differently, which is why I would like to clarify it. It seems to me that the article does in fact allow for a fringe view to "speak for itself" -- and NOT be drowned out by the mainstream. (I fixed some accidental bold-overflow -- I didn't mean to shout). Alanf777 (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignoring that *last* point, about whether or not to templatize articles as Not Suitable For Kiddies, what about the main point, which is that this guideline effectively useless in practice? There are so many if-then-rules and caveats and see-also stuff here, that you end up with 90% of the text being only relevant to Some Other Situation than the one in which you are actually involved, and therefore came here to learn about.


 * Here my paraphrase of the nutshell: "To maintain WP:NPOV, an idea X that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given WP:UNDUE in an article about mainstream idea Y. More extensive treatment of X should be reserved for an article about X, which must be WP:N. Additionally, when the subject of an article is X, the proper contextual relationship between minority X and majority Y viewpoints must be clear."  So already, we have article-Y-mentions-X-only-with-due-weight, article-X-should-not-exist-unless-X-is-notable-enough, and article-X-must-contextually-refer-to-Y.
 * None of which is any use to me! Further reading of the guideline reveals that there are several subtypes of "X" that are not mainstream i.e. currently accepted by the majority of scientists, which makes everything all that much more confusing.  X_AltSci is the alternative theoretical formulation, with a very subtantial following among mainstream scientists, just not as much as the current mainstream idea Y.  X_QueSci is questionable science, with a less substantial following among scientists, and at least one critic who has hurled the gauntlet down and made the pseudoscience allegation in a reliable source.  X_GenPseudo is something the majority of scientists consider to be pseudoscience, but which may have portions that are science-based (astrology talks about stars and planets and their positions for instance).  X_ObPseudo is claimed to be scientific, but directly and specifically conflicts with the mainstream scientific view, and inherently relies entirely on such false claims, which makes the whole shebang bogus.
 * So now, instead of three rules total, we have four rules about the content of article Y, one rule (with four subtle variations) about whether article X should exist, and one rule about the content of article X (regardless of flavor) if it does exist. We have no guidelines whatsoever, about articles *besides* the one about Y, which is the most-relevant-mainstream-theory, nor about articles *besides* the one about X, which is the particular AltSci/QueSci/GenPseudo/ObPseudo idea in question.  What happens in article about mainstream topic Z, which is tangentially related to mainstream idea Y, but *squarely* related to AltSci/QueSci/GenPseudo/ObPseudo X, and in fact may be the *reason* that X was concocted as an alternative to Y in the first place?


 * What happens in article about Founder_of_X, especially when the founder is living and thus a BLP, and doubly-especially if the article about X has been deleted by anti-X folks, and thus we now have a WP:BATTLEGROUND with warring anti-X and pro-X forces doing their level best to WP:RGW and seriously considering WP:9STEPS, smack dab in the middle of the Founder_of_X article, causing vague threats of lawsuits and defamation and libel to appear on Founder's personal website? This guideline is already a minefield of controversy... but we have got to make the guideline starkly and unmistakably clear, about what the policy is, in all these situations.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The current article has an intro section, which covers npov/undue/rs, not/or/npov, npov/or/v/rs/undue, arbcom. It gives no specific guidance AT ALL.


 * 1)  Section#1 attempts to define fringe/conspiracy/altmed/pseudoSci, but with two VERY BROAD caveats, then goes on to *conflate* the QueSci/GenPseudo categories as if they were the same (before detailing the four categories), re-mentions WP:UNDUE, and then immediately once again *returns* to conflating QueSci/GenPseudo/ObPseudo (and is filled with weasel words besides).
 * 2)  Section#2 rehashes WP:RS, for use in article-Y, or in article-X-of-any-flavor, plus gives a respectablity-ordering (peerJournal/upressBook/uTextbook/book/magazine/newspaper), re-mentions WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, mentions "careful" use of primary sources.
 * 3)  Section#3 adds spa/spip/soapbox/selfpub, coi/selfpub/puppet, wp:not/elno, re-mentions npov/undue/rs/article-Y/article-X.
 * 4)  Section#4 is about WP:N, rehashing WP:RS, plus vaguely mentions the Founder_of_X problem (but only w.r.t. WP:SELFPUB and with this cryptic sentence -- Refs employed because of the founder_of_X's notability are given far less weight when deciding on notability of X), and repeats that 'news' is at the bottom of WP:RS.  One of the bright points of sec4 is it provides actual examples where consensus about notability was achieved, creationSci/fakeApollo/deadBeatle vs BoothLives/ReptoidConspiracy.
 * 5)  Section#5 is the *most* important advice, but is totally crippled by being utterly generic, and methinks must be split into subsections on AltSci/QueSci/GenPseudo/ObPseudo or perhaps instead subsections on ArticleX/ArticleY/ArticleZ/FounderOfX.  For my particular problem, the key advice says "in ArticleX" but that makes it useless, for there is no ArticleX yet, and no advice on what to do in such situations.  The latter half of sec#5 covers another crucial concept, which is that plenty of ideas are not intended to be scientific at all (such as some particular Founder_of_X who also publishes books with their views on spirituality), but gives little specific advice on what to do when there are in fact a bunch of semi-related ideas X and X' and X'' and notReallyX and so on.  Everything is conflated, as usual, under 'fringe' or instead 'mainstream'.  Not helpful!
 * 6)  Section#6 covers the difference between WP:N and 'mainstream' (X should not be excluded merely because it is widely held to be wrong... nor should editors synthesize prose to debunk) and alludes to AltSci/QueSci/HistoricalSci ... adding yet another category by the way(!) ... with the new&improved vague terms controversial/disputed/absurd/rejected/scifi/unworthy, to add to the fringe/conspiracy/altmed/genPseudo/obPseudo list.  It also covers WP:NOTEWORTHY, but re-mentions UNDUE/OR/RGW/SPA/HierarchyOfReliability.  For the first time WP:CRYSTAL comes up.  There is also specific guidance here, and nowhere else, that a "peer-reviewed journal" which primarily promotes a particular POV is not at the *top* of the HierarchyOfReliability, but is instead at the *bottom* below even the slowest newsday on WKKK-Boondock.
 * 7)  Section#7 rehashes WP:OR yet again, plus WP:RS and WP:V, and gives specifics about maintaining NPOV w.r.t. careful selection of direct quotations, and the need to add context when required.  Also re-mentions COI, with the useful semi-practical guideline that word-count about specific topics in the article (of course no mention whether X/Y/Z/Founder_of_X is being discussed!) should roughly correspond to word-count about those same specific topics in all reliable sources considered as a whole.  Only semi-practical, because to use the guideline properly, we'd have to read all the sources cover to cover!  We can get close, by doing statistical sampling of sources, but there is great risk of adding bias that way.  It rehashes WP:UNDUE for the tenth time, but with some useful advice about when to name, or not name, who said something.
 * 8) Section#8 tries to set a permanent barrier, one-way valve, or diode which prevents 'fringe' views and 'fringe' proponents and other 'fringe' stuff from spreading out into the rest of wikipedia... but of course, ignores any consideration of the subtle differences between MainSci/HistSci/AltSci/QueSci/OrigSci/SciFi/GenPseudo/ObPseudo/SelfPubOnlySci.  It mentions the always-useful WP:COATRACK, rehashes WP:UNDUE yet again.
 * What I'd like to see in mainspace is a guideline that lays out the spectrum in the intro, MainSci/HistSci/AltSci/QueSci/OrigSci/SciFi/GenPseudo/ObPseudo/SelfPubOnlySci, giving specific articles which embody each type, and then using these subtypes rigorously (zero use of conflating weasel-words like fringe/controversial/disputed/debunked/absurd/rejected/unworthy/fringe/conspiracy/altmed).


 * There are various 'fringe' theories falling specifically into five of my suggested categories, maybe even seven, which makes the conflating term 'fringe' itself totally useless, *especially* when WP:NDA prevents us from actually templating/categorizing articles *as* being fringe. As for 'controversial' it is explicitly a weasel-word, WP:EDITORIALIZING.  Most of the others apply very broadly; 'disputed' is the worst, since *every* category including the mainstream view is 'disputed' in reliable sources by at least one person!  The neutral word 'minority view' is probably preferable to describe this guideline; fringe is WP:NPA.
 * Once we've got the groundwork laid out, we can give one subsection to explaining (once) how each of the Major Policies apply to articles and portions-of-articles on 'minority' topics. These include wp:undue*7, wp:rs*5, wp:npov*4, wp:or*4, wp:coi/selfpub/soapbox/spa*4, wp:n/noteworthy*3, plus a single paragraph covering wp:crystal/elno/coatrack/puppet/rgw.  This will be a goodsized section, and should cover the HierarchyOfReliability including peer-review-that-does-not-count.
 * After that, I'd like to see coverage of specific scenarios that are guaranteed to come up: how much m/h/a/q/o/f/g/p/s content belongs in article-Y about a mainstream scientific topic?  how much m/h/a/q/o/f/g/p/s content belongs in article-X about an AltSci idea?  how much m/h/a/q/o/f/g/p/s content belongs in article-X_HistSci idea?  ditto for article-X_QueSci, ditto for X_SciFi, ditto for X_GenPseudo, ditto for X_ObPseudo.  Then, cover whether non-mainstream topics should be covered *as* articles at all (always yes for mainstream && always no for OrigSci and SelfPubOnlySci), and if the topic is not yet WP:N enough for a dedicated article, whether it might still be WP:NOTEWORTHY of mention in article-Y, or in article-Z, or in article-Founder_of_X, and if so, give the rules about how much m/h/a/q/o/f/g/p/s would be typically acceptable.  There might be repetition in these subsections, but it is *useful* repetition, because people coming here for help with a specific situation will just read the section on that situation, plus the intro-sections that define the terms and give the core-policy-overviews (if they don't already know them).


 * That would be a huge improvement. The way the article is now, I have to read the whole damn thing, including endless repetition of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, but at the end of it all I *still* have no answer to my questions, because nobody bothered to write about my particular problem-situation.  Sorry about the WP:WALLOFTEXT.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Are claims fringe if no WP:RS calls them fringe?
If editors think a view is fringe, but no WP:RS calls them fringe, can we just add statements from other individuals that readers can infer mean those views are fringe? (In other words, does the allegation something is fringe mean that we can overlook WP:RS/WP:OR policy?) ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  18:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review the policy on canvassing and consider rewording the above, including the references to me and your inferences as to my views, which are not relevant to the invitation to comment on the OR Noticeboard. SPECIFICO  talk  19:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OR can't be used to 'debunk' anything, fringe or otherwise - this is elementary Wikipedia policy. Accordingly, this is of no relevance to this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The current "rewording" is even more problematic than the original.  All we need here is "There is a discussion in which one editor has mentioned fringe theories at WP:OR Noticeboard.  Period.  carolmooredc, please change to something minimal and neutral.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just remove the damned link. I'm more curious to get a general policy comment. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 21:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Still too much information. Just an invitation to the party don't recite the menu. It may not be what you think. We just want visitors to look at a mention of fringe that came up on another subject. For my part I don't even know whether the thread belongs on the ORN board to begin with. Please pare it down. SPECIFICO talk  21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you (a) asking an abstract question (which isn't really the purpose of this noticeboard), (b) asking us to give an answer regarding a particular issue here (in which case we'll need more details), or (c) asking people familiar with WP:FRINGE policy to respond elsewhere (in which case, we'll need a link)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At a later date I'll revisit any issue that is unclear after re-reading the policy page more carefully. Hopefully I'll be more careful with my question and I won't have a lot of nitpicking to the point I completely confuse/lose my train of thought. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem stating this invitation, so here goes: There's a discussion at ORN here  and one editor has said that the question relates to articles that intersect with fringe theories. More editors' views on that would be welcome if you'd like to have a look. SPECIFICO talk  22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The specific noticeboard for issues concerning fringe theories is WP:FTN if you wish to post there, this page is for discussing revisions to the guideline, or clarifications. sounds like you need someone from a economics wikiproject though, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, actually I just saw that another editor had mentioned the matter here and assumed that it was within your domain. I'll look at FTN. SPECIFICO  talk  00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a quick answer, as a matter of policy, what are fringe groups/beliefs is spelled out very clearly in WP:FRINGE/PS. Also relevant is WP:ONEWAY, that discusses how minority beliefs should be presented with respect to mainstream beliefs. LK (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Having read the guideline in detail recently, twice (aaarrrrgggh), the real answer is It Depends. But there are several common cases, for which the answer seems clear to me.


 * 1)  Common Case Number One, if the *only* places that mention the potentially-fringe-topic are either WP:SELFPUB or clearly WP:SPIP and WP:COI, then the topic is *not* notable enough to even be WP:NOTEWORTHY in any wikipedia articles, because no reliable source has deigned to even *criticize* it yet.  Definitely WP:FRINGE, and also WP:OR.
 * 2)  Common Case Number Two, same as above, but the self-published-until-now Doctor Frankenstein is *also* now bragging on their website about their recent publication in a peer-reviewed-scientific-journal... yet strangely, no newspapers or magazines or teevee programs or textbooks or mainstream journals have covered this research publication... and in fact, the publication is called PeerReviewedJournalOfProofThatElectricityBringsMonstersToLife, and every single article is about proving Doctor Frankenstein and their friends correct, and no *mainstream* reliable source (journalistic or mainstream-academic) has ever cited the paper by Frankenstein that his buddies reviewed, or indeed in most cases any of the papers published in PRJOPTEBMTL, the topic is definitely NOT ready for wikipedia.  Definitely WP:FRINGE, and also WP:OR despite the tricksy 'peer-review'.
 * 3)  Common Case Three, there are at least two (but less than ~ten) independent non-WP:SELFPUB reliable sources that have given the topic significant coverage, and none of these sources called it specifically 'fringe' but they did call it absurd/controversial/stupid/nonsense/scam/fake/pseudo/similar, or they did say something along the lines of 'no evidence whatsoever', then the topic is Notable in some small way, but is definitely WP:FRINGE.
 * 4)  Common Case Four, there are kinda-roughly-more-than-ten Solid Sources (per above), and the sources are split half and half on whether the work is fringe (see list of synonyms above), or interesting but needs more evidence.  If more than half the sources call something the equivalent of fringe, it is Generally PseudoScience (that might have some redeeming factors), and thus WP:FRINGE.  If significantly less than half the sources call it the equivalent of fringe, but there are still definitely some reliable sources that call it fringe, or say something like no evidence, then we are in the realm of Questionable Science, which maybe (if the evidence turns out to support the hypothesis) will become someday a Respectable Alternative Minority Scientific View... but at the moment is in the borderlands, part fringe, part unclear.
 * 5)  Common Case Five, there are some extremely solid sources, and a small percentage of them (or a small absolute number of authors/publications) call the work derogatory names.  In this case, when the work is not generally dis-respected by the majority of sources, although they may say things like 'need more evidence' or even call the work 'speculative', then you are almost certainly dealing with Questionable Science.
 * 6)  Common Case Six, you have a lot of great sources, they are highly respectable, and some journalist somewhere quotes some firebrand calling the work 'fringe', or perhaps some rival scientist with WP:COI issues criticizes the work rashly once ... in this case, you are almost certainly dealing with an Alternative Scientific View, which is not really subject to WP:FRINGE guidelines at all, despite the name-calling which was reported in the news that one time.  There is a fine line between case six the Respected Minority View and case five the Speculative Might-Be-Fringe Questionable View, but distinguishing cases in the real world is not too hard.
 * There are, no doubt, some mistakes in my explanation. Somebody please correct me, when I goof.  But usually, if you have no sources calling the work fringe-or-similar, you might have case six, work that is clearly minority but definitely science, in which case the wikipedia editors trying to synthesize evidence that the work is fringe are wrong and should go re-read WP:NPOV and WP:OR.  On the other hand, maybe the reason no sources are calling it fringe is because there are no *good* sources, and all your current sources are either WP:SELFPUB, WP:COI, or maybe even PRJOPTEBMTL.  Those are either case two or case one scenarios, and in those cases the wikipedia editors calling the work 'obviously fringe' and citing reliable sources which criticize similar things as fringe, are correct.  However, instead of trying to synthesize the fringe-ness, they would help more by criticizing the sources, and finding out which are self-pub, which are conflict-of-interest, and which are fake-journal-with-fake-peer-review.  HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well written and well said. I suggest that the above be put into a FAQ for this page. Any objections. LK (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I object! :-)         Seriously, I object.  See my complaints above about the current redundancy in the guideline.  It needs slimming and trimming, not additions-without-cuts.  Actually, I figured out why the guideline is so contradictory -- the stuff about ObPseudo/GenPseudo/QueSci/AltMinorityViewSci just came out last month.   Rather than adding my amateur six-common-cases, let's fix the contradictions in the article.  Thanks for the praise, I appreciate it, but  I want a pony to go along with it.  Do you have time to help me fix up this guideline? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hearing no better advice coming forth, I withdraw my objection. Does anybody *else* object, besides me-formerly-against-but-now-okay, to putting my Six Common Cases into the mainspace article?  74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not pseudo if it isn't science
If a pursuit does not claim to be science or scientific (say crystal gazing as an easy example), then it can't be considered a pseudoscience, can it? Kortoso (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The short answer is yes, if it purports to tell you something about the world it can be pseudoscience. The longer answer is complicated since the exact demarcation is complicated. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To me the question isn't whether something can be considered a pseudoscience... the question is whether we should mention that it can be considered such in our article about it. In answering this, you have to look at article context and relevance. For example, you have to ask whether it relevant to mention that crystal gazing is pseudo-science.  Does mentioning this fact help the reader to understand the topic?  A lot depends on context.  For example, if the article is focused on discussing crystal gazing in a religious context, the fact that it can be considered pseudoscience is actually irrelevant. Perhaps a better term for the various forms of divination would be "extra-scientific"  (ie they lie outside of science). Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. Else every article touching on philosophy, psychology, politics or religion would be quickly tarred with that brush.  As we assume such would ill-serve the encyclopedia, it is thus contrary to common sense to try doing it. "If it purports to tell you something about the world" is an exceedingly wide position to take here. Collect (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Antonio "Tony" P. Israel
Dear fringe people: The above old AfC submission is about to be deleted under db-g13 unless someone thinks it's worth keeping. It appears to have some references. I couldn't find a Wikiproject UFO, so I posting the notification here. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Fringe Biographies of Living Persons
(Note I changed the title from "removed addition" since it makes perfect sense and shouldn't be removed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

I think I know what Barney is getting at here, but this kind of addition should be discussed and the syntax cleaned up. At the moment I'm not sure the meaning is clear. More input needed. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

The text was as follows:


 * Thanks - the idea is to present a short summary and make it clear.  IMHO there shouldn't be any conflict between WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP - but in my experience some claim that WP:BLP is an excuse to whitewash the article.  I have phrased it as best I can, maybe there is a problem with the understanding?  Is there anything in this that is specifically wrong? Have I missed anything relevant? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming form. I think the syntax is awkward. Maybe with others we can work through it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC))


 * It's not clear to me what the first sentence is doing for us. Saying "some criticism" is surely license for those who want to remove all criticism, if we can't spell out what is inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
Heading:


 * For starters, perhaps we could retitle this to: Biographies of Living persons and Fringe Theories or something like that.

We don't have "Fringe Biographies" we have Biographies that may include fringe content or Biorgraphies that are about people who may involved in fringe activities of some kind. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd add, we should not add content to guidelines until meaning is clear and with consensus. As soon as content is in the guidleine it will be acted on, so it behooves us to get it right before its added. Further, input form more editors would be good considering that this was added after the highly contentious Sheldrake situation by a highly involved editor. Let's be neutral and get input. I know there are many editors who would be happy to both support and to help rewrite this. I'm removing this content again until it has consensus and is cleaned up. I generally don't revert past one but this is new content in a guideline and needs more input than just the two of us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC))


 * I agree with Littleolive oil here - this clearly needs careful thought, and involvement from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, - I have taken your comments into consideration.  Regarding the whole RS-thing, IMHO it's a classic example.  Yes, I suppose I'm involved in it, but at the same time through such involvement one senses the need for clarification of the guideline mainly to assist various WP:PROFRINGE editors in their understanding of how WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP interact.  Also, IMHO this guideline is a bit of a mess and is a bit rambly, so adding sharp points should be effective, I hope. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also near impossible for people to edit the above if it's removed from the page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Supposed technical difficulties are hardly grounds to retain a proposal that has yet to receive support. The guideline should stay as it is until we can arrive at agreed wording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The content needs consensus rather than just a rewrite. Let's get lots of input, so the content stands up to scrutiny in contentious situations. While I understand your concerns the addition isn't clear about those concerns are.

Maybe we can list the issues and deal with them one by one. I've added one that occurs to me.

Issues and thoughts we must be aware of as we edit
(We have to remember seems to me that a life is multifaceted. A person job is only a part of that life, and what the job entails is part of the part. As an example: While we make a fuss about George Harrison's time with and as one of The Beatles this is only a small p[art of his life. A biography by definition is about a whole life, so a biography should give a good sense of an entire life. A focus on the Beattles period in a biography might be a mistake, although per weight in the press The Beattles period should  carry considerable weight. Just my thoughts on this )(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
 * A major issue has been that BLP is a policy while Fringe Theory is a guideline. Do we need to address the balance each must have per their level of importance in the Wikipedia policy/guideline system? (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
 * How do we protect living persons while attributing fringe theories, ideas, philosophies to them. We cannot harm living persons for any reason., but we must at the same time include content that describes their lives accurately.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
 * How do we describe per WP:Weight the content and sources which describe another human being's life?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
 * At no point should a BLP appear to disparage anyone, even as the connection to fringe content is added to the biography. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
 * Do we have the right to judge the living person or is it our place as editors to be more dispassionate than that, more objective?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
 * As Andy says, this will need a lot of consideration. I have a real aversion to the word "whitewash", as I've been accused more than once of "whitewashing" BLP when I was only applying policy. In reply to your questions Littleolive oil, we try to follow what the sources do. We shouldn't always give equal attention to every stage of a person's life, as their achievements may have been concentrated in one stage. It's not a question of whether we have the right to judge the living person, or even the dead one, we're just describing what they did, what effect their actions had, what was said about them. This is basic to a reading of NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Itsmejudith, and I would judge what content to use in the same way you have described here. I've raised these questions because these are all issues that have come up in my experience, and I think they have to be considered and kept in mind since not all editors see  BLP and fringe content in the way you have described here. Editors do indeed judge the subjects of BLP and to do so, is not in my mind, appropriate nor can the result be neutral. Objectivity in looking for and at sources means we are led by the sourcing and weight per mainstream rather than by an opinion.  I guess what I did here is to list points, some in question form, to keep in mind and to refer to as this section is rewritten. I hope others will add points too, so we have an overview  of the issues, all understand the issues, and have common ground to begin rewriting. If we don't have this commonality, writing this section could go on for avery long time.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand this: " We cannot harm living persons for any reason., but we must at the same time include content that describes their lives accurately." Those are contradictory aims. Telling the truth about someone while adhering to NPOV can still harm them. Critical material is surely often disparaging - depending on one's pov (here I am not talking about our NPOV policy, just that our world view shapes what we see as disparaging) And what are the practical implications you have in mind about judging living persons? Take a pedophile serial killer - if you are simply saying that I shouldn't write an edit saying "this is the most evil person who ever lived", then I agree with you and so would I hope everyone here. So exactly what in practice should we be avoiding? Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As an encyclopedia we have with in our "jurisdiction" the use of information that is published in verifiable, reliable sources. So, we are doing nothing but repeating what has already been published. Doing so in relation to the weight the information has in the sources, the organization of the article, and in relation to the  other aspects of the subject's life does, in terms of Wikipedia, no harm or more accurately no more harm than the sources have done. Add to that a collaborative environment that helps to ensure that our own individual POVs are not intruding into the way we select and write content. My point here was not to dictate anything but to give us reference points as we begin deal with the way in which BLPs contain fringe content. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

I'd suggest that we start writing. As long as we all know what we have to include, deal with, avoid; the writing should be easier. Barney made a start. we could go from there.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC))


 * I think the version below has several problems. It's just silly (and wrong) to state categorically that "ad hominem attacks and assessment of the subject's mental health" should not be included. There are instances where these things are both appropriate for inclusion and consistent with WP:BLP. It all depends on sourcing. Policy explicitly says as much: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article&mdash;even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I also dislike the terms "whitewash" and "ad hominem attack", because, as Itsmejudith points out, they are often misused by Wikipedians with an axe to grind. MastCell Talk 00:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't say it better. We should not be trying to rewrite BLP here or extend it. I'd strongly object to the use of those terms. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell and Dougweller and have no problem with abandoning this. Barney whose addition this is might feel differently.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC))

Most recent version
Close attention should be paid on how to treat people who hold fringe viewpoints especially in light of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Wikipedia has several articles on those who hold unconventional positions on academic subjects. Such biographies must comply with both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE: That is, the level of academic support for the subject's views must be explained, but the article must present this neutrally so as to not unduly disparage the subject. While overly harsh criticism from obscure sources may not be appropriate for inclusion, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography (see WP:PROFRINGE). For people mainly notable for reasons unrelated to this guideline but who nevertheless hold fringe views, that person's fringe views shouldn't be given undue prominence in the article compared to the events that made them notable.

Comments:


 * Remove redundant text in first line:

The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to all articles.

Inclined to go with the most recent version
I read through this discussion and tried to incorporate all of the concerns including some of my own. I'm inclined to go with this version, but will wait for further objections to be made before adding it to the guideline.

jps (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, I support including the most recent version in the guideline. LK (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem this is trying to correct?
I applaud all efforts to reduce chaos and improve process so thanks to all. On the other hand, I am opposed to WP:CREEP and am posting here to invite ya'll to convince me that this new section fills an actual need. Disclaimer: This section came up in an AFD in which I am involved. I've reviewed the evolution of this new section and read thru the talk section. I've read that people are confused by FRINGE vs BLP interaction. OK fine. But as I read the new section all I see is redundancy with NPOV, RS, BLP, and the rest of FRINGE. Please specify, If that's not possible to do succinctly, then that would suggest that either the problem is not clearly understood so as to draft text that fixes the problem, or else the problem is so intractable that the section should be vetted thru the Pump or an RFC. Don't mean to diss on anyone's efforts here, but my motto is "Just say 'no' to WP:CREEP!" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) What precise problem is this intended to fix?
 * (B) Illustrate A with 2-3 examples
 * The precise problems that this paragraph is intended to fix are specifed in the paragraph itself. The fact that it was so directly relevant to the AfD which you and I were involved I think is a good demonstration of the issues. I generally agree with your concerns over WP:CREEP in the sense that overly specifying rules can become arduous. On the other hand, there is obviously a need given the manner in which biographies are being developed. Rupert Sheldrake is a current problem (with which I am also involved) and you can read all about it both on and off wiki. In the past, I have been involved with Eric Lerner. Another famous issue was Rosalind Picard (with which I was not involved). I'll let you nose around those articles and their associated talkpages to see the issues. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Cheers! jps (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have just reinforced my suspicion that this is CREEP. If the precise problem is in the paragraph, all I see is a statement that we have to comply with FRINGE and BLP and UNDUE, etc.   Great, but this is CREEP because......we already knew that.    You still have not explained how our prior text on those various policy/guideline pages is insufficient, or how this new paragraph fixes that alleged deficiency.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you investigate any of the named controversies you will find plenty of instances of people that think we should only comply with FRINGE or only comply with BLP. jps (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah Ha!  A succinct statement of the problem!  (Please try to start with such a statement)
 * People don't know coverage of living people with fringe theories must comply with both FRINGE and BLP.
 * Great, thanks. FYI, I have added a "see also" link at BLP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the Rupert Sheldrake example. For over three decades Sheldrake has been doing experiments pertaining to something he calls "morphic fields", which have never been observed but are somehow involved with telepathic dogs. In the press Sheldrake receives, he is often described as a biologist. That is, he tells the journalists interviewing him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. He prefers to be called a biologist. On the other hand, those qualified to determine whether the topic of dog telepathy properly lies within the field of biology call him a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or some such.


 * What the subject of the article calls himself is part of the fringe view being promoted. Some editors have wanted to ignore FRINGE in order to be more sympathetic to the article subject, allowing the subject to be called what he wants to be called. Some have further claimed that not calling Sheldrake a biologist is an intentional ploy to derogate him, and thus runs afoul of BLP policy. In my view, no such BLP violation exists, and that both FRINGE and BLP should be upheld (and there is no cabal of editors aiming to derogate Sheldrake). vzaak 07:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with vzaak on this one.
 * Personally, I think there's a second problem where FRINGE and BLP meet; apart from the high-profile controversial articles like Sheldrake, we also have many articles on much less notable people (or small organisations or "theories" dominated by a single person &c) where a person active in some FRINGE area is are not high-profile enough to attract coverage from a mainstream view, so all the sources are written from within that area. This makes it difficult or impossible to write a truly neutral article. There is often an element of promotion, too. However, we seem to be OK at dealing with these using existing policy (though it doesn't stop somebody writing the articles in the first place) so I don't think this issue should drive big policy changes. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We all agree that FRINGE and BLP have to be followed. But we knew that before this new text was adopted.   Maybe the real issue is that some have felt a need to explain How FRINGE and BLP interact?
 * Do ya'll think this new paragraph offers a valuable tool for these situations, or is it such a generalized summary that eds will fight over whose opinion the paragraph supports, forcing us to go beyond this paragraph to do what we have always done (by referring to the core of FRINGE and BLP)?
 * Valuable new tool or Creep?  Your thoughts?
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC) PS I posted a tickle at the pump. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that wording is helpful, not because it's a change to the rules, but because it sets out how the rules interact, which helps deal with the problem of editors taking a hard line on one rule but not the other (their choice of rule usually being driven by their position on the content itself). bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go so far as to agree that saying both have to be followed is desirable. Still not persuaded the rest isn't creep. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that wording is helpful, not because it's a change to the rules, but because it sets out how the rules interact, which helps deal with the problem of editors taking a hard line on one rule but not the other (their choice of rule usually being driven by their position on the content itself). bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go so far as to agree that saying both have to be followed is desirable. Still not persuaded the rest isn't creep. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

One reason that editors have been saying that FRINGE can be suspended on a BLP is because FRINGE is a guideline while BLP is a policy. Tweaking FRINGE does nothing to defuse that argument, so in this respect it is creep (and worse, impotent creep).

Making FRINGE a policy would presumably be the simplest solution. Otherwise a short addition to BLP may be appropriate, to the effect of, "Consideration for the subject of the article should not be carried to the point of violating WP:FRINGE."

The WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV essentially embodies the purpose of FRINGE, and when editors have pulled the "FRINGE is just a guideline" card, I have directed them to PSCI. It is a bit awkward that FRINGE has the guideline designation while the NPOV policy has a section that basically summarizes FRINGE. vzaak 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there is a distinction here between rules-creep (which is generally bad) and adding text to clarify a tangled interaction of two or more rules (which is always good). Rather than having some complicated and close reading of two or more guidelines have to be repeatedly explained to different fringe promoters in dozens of article talk pages - it's much easier to have one simple clarification stated clearly in one place.   That reduces the amount of discussion and promotes harmonious editing - and does not add new rules. SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Classifying as a policy
The consensus is that FRINGE should not be suspended for a BLP. Is there any case where FRINGE should be suspended? If not, making FRINGE a policy would be a simple and straightforward resolution to many past arguments with promoters of fringe theories. What is the process for changing a guideline into a policy? vzaak 22:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this move. It's probably best to start an RfC, and advertise it at Village pump (policy). bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... A lot of what this page says is already Policy... in that FRINGE is mostly an expansion on one specific aspect of WP:UNDUE (which itself is part of the WP:NPOV policy)... with a little bit of our Notability guideline tossed in.
 * That said, I am of mixed minds as to whether the WP:FRINGE page itself should be promoted to policy. I would really place it in the same "class" as WP:Reliable Sources. Both pages have the "oomph" of policy behind them, but their purpose is to explain and expand on policy... they are sort of half-way between policy and guidance.  Perhaps we need a new name for this sort of thing. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, the deeper issue may be about the understanding of guidelines. Have you ever heard anyone arguing that the WP:Reliable Sources guideline should be ignored? As a guideline, "occasional exceptions may apply", but what is one exception to WP:RS? The mention of WP:IAR at the top of each guideline makes them seem merely advisory in nature, or worse, suggest a "take it or leave it" status. vzaak 08:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with bear, guidelines explain policy in a specific context. Fringe explains aspects of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS etc in the context of fringe theories. Second Quantization (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is arbitrary
Bad wiki editing rule, Itself is fringe. This has no reason to be upheld. Winnerex (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not at all bad, it is the appropriate application to the area of the policy WP:NPOV, WP:V , WP:OR which apply to all article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A basic problem with this guideline, perhaps structural,is that it discusses legitimate minority views as "fringe"
A basic problem with this guideline, perhaps structural,is that it discusses legitimate monority views as if they are properly regarded as "fringe". There may be a good and sufficient treatment of alternative theories under the corresponding guideline - I have not and need not read it- but the Fringe guidleine standing on its own creates the impression that any minority opinion can be regarded as fringe. That stigmatization flickers in and out throughout the guidelinem and one can point to sections which can be viewed as offesetting the stigma and biasm but nevertheless the flawed presentation of the term "fringe" in an overly broad manner infects the whole body of the guideline so badly that a complete rewrite from scratch would probably be the only way to correct the problem. How sad that WP has painted itself into that kind of corner.

For instance, the reference to psychoanalysis being treated as "pseudoscience" uses the term ":information" where it really means "assertions" or "characgterizations". Subtle, annoying biases like this are so prevalent in this guideline it would be a Herculean labor to try to correct it Alas.  Geo Bard  Semi-retired 16:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "... creates the impression that any minority opinion can be regarded as fringe". No it doesn't, see WP:FRINGE/PS. It depends on how large a support the minority opinion has. Psychoanalysis is not mentioned in this guideline. It is important not to confuse the guideline with ArbCom statements (which are not part of the guidelines). ArbCom is forbidden from setting content policy. Second Quantization (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * non-issue; just follow WP:RS with due regard to WP:WEIGHT and make use of WP:DR NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a demarcation problem - we're aware of it, and have tried to grade it. If you're unsure then contribute on the relevant article's talk page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

quick question, sorry if this is in the wrong place
If I have questions regarding policy specifically - can I address them here in talk or is there a specific board or admin help function for that? Thx in advance. SAS81 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we can try to help here. What's your question? bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis" (Bosnian pyramids)
Move request to "Bosnian pyramid scheme", a phrase used in the lit. Some opponents are saying we shouldn't pass judgements on pseudoscience in the title, though this case is quite clear from RS's. (Another is saying we should move it to "hoax" instead.) The current title makes the topic seem scientific – it "obfuscates mainstream views", as our guidelines put it. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe vs independence
I keep seeing an editor saying things like, "FRINGE says that we can't use fringe journals because they're not independent". WP:INDY sources really have nothing to do with their viewpoint. You can have a non-independent, non-fringe source (e.g., any major newspaper writing about the award that it just won) and you can have an independent, fringe-y source (e.g., any magazine that frequently publishes uncritical accounts of alien abductions).

It's easy enough to read a paragraph or two out of this guideline and conclude that any source that an editor believes is "wrong" or "not mainstream" is automatically both "fringe" and "not independent".

I don't have time for this myself right now, think it would be good to better define what a "fringe journal" is, and what an "independent source" is, and in particular, to deal with the misguided-sucker problem: you can have a perfectly independent author come to really stupid conclusions, and you can have a perfectly independent publication print a wildly unreliable story. Properly speaking, that gives you a minority viewpoint (possibly one so tiny that it shouldn't be mentioned), not a fringe source.

What do you think? Is this something that could be addressed in a practical way? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose a classic example of the kind of journal covered by this guidance would be this. How could we better define the characteristics that define a source as not "independent"? I think it could be tricky. I see the guidance in WP:FRINGE as being closely related to WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn talk 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing reliability with weight perhaps? WP:FRIND is about weight, not about reliability. Being independent here means with regards to the mainstream. The issue is that while fringe sources often go into inordinate detail about most aspects of the fringe theory, there isn't necessarily the weight to mention those details. The details to be mentioned should be those that have received mainstream attention, not those fringe viewpoints that the editor selects as being important. Second Quantization (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Being independent means being independent, which is a pretty well-understood concept on Wikipedia. "Independent" does not mean "holding a mainstream POV", and never has.  An animal-rights activist who gets no personal benefit from protesting drug testing in animals is independent on the subject of drug testing, no matter how minority the POV.  The mainstream drug manufacturer defending the drugs they're selling is not independent, no matter how mainstream the POV.
 * If you want FRIND to be about POV instead of independence, then you need to pick a different word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fringe as a means of labelling an entire intervention (and in some cases a profession)
User WAID made a good point that some CAM is fringe (crystal healing) and some aspects are not manipulative medicine primarily for MSK disorders. Can we have a talk about delineating between the two since there is a lot of false equivalence going at some alt-med articles (acupuncture is like homeopathy, chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation is like faith healing). DVMt (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I probably won't participate regardless, but I observe your comment is mighty abstract. Sure, we could have a discussion about anything.  If there's a common problematic theme on some group of articles, it's up to the initiator to demonstrate this, via diffs and references to RSs.  You are more likely to get attention of interested eds if you try again, but include both of those things to tell your story  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * While I agree that it's dangerous to label all of CAM as "fringe" - I have to disagree with your conclusions about our articles. The article on acupuncture is pretty clear and seems to be unbiassed - it discusses the fact that real acupuncture is no better than "sham" acupuncture and that the placebo effect is clearly at work.  It also states that all of the bs about median lines, energy flows and such is pseudoscience.  We have solid references for all of those things, so in WIkipedia terms, we should consider them to be "The Truth" and to treat that field as a fringe theory.  The second paragraph of the lede of chiropractic is similarly clear about where the science points (and mostly it says that it's more bullshit/placebo stuff).   Osteopathic fares a little better - but even so, the evidence of scientific studies doesn't show anything like the results that the practictioners claim.  I'd have no hesitation in awarding all three of those subjects the "FRINGE" and "PSEUDOSCIENCE" labels.  Someone who does chiropractic manipulation in order to elicit a placebo effect is doing nothing any different from someone who puts their hand on your head and commands Satan to be gone.  Neither approach is doing anything other than placebo...so why should we label them differently?


 * The unfortunate fact here is that the "Complementary" and "Alternative" in "CAM" is there because if these practices actually worked, they would become mainstream. Anything that really does work ceases to be complementary or alternative - so everything left under that umberella tends to be fringe pseudosciences.  A great example of that is Herbalism - which is undoubtedly CAM - but which sometimes produces treatments that actually work.  However, just as fast as working herbal medicines are found to pass scrutiny, they become a part of 'modern' Phytotherapy - which produces real drugs, commonly used in mainstream medicine.  The problem is that as soon as you stop treating people with viral infections using "St John's wort" and instead prescribe the active ingredient "Hypericin" - you're no longer talking about CAM but mainstream pharmacuticals.  That progress means that giving someone a poorly controlled amount of hypericin in a sprig of St John's wort instead of a carefully dosed amount of hypericin in a little white pill is now a fringe theory that somehow it's better to take the entire plant at ill-controlled dose levels than it is to get a mainstream prescription.  Hence, I'd have to say that prescribing St.John's wort has become a fringe, pseudoscientific idea.


 * HOWEVER, that said - I do think it's important not to automatically label everything CAM as FRINGE. Each subject should be taken on face value with references to studies and evidence on both sides of the argument fully represented.


 * The situation with practitioners is a little different. Someone who is prepared to lie and cheat and falsify claims in their practice of one of these pseudosciences is going to have a very hard time earning anyone's trust in other fields.  So if I see some kind of exciting new claim for a major breakthrough - and I look at the person's biography and see that they are a practicing homeopathist - then my first assumption has to be that this exciting new claim is also bullshit.  But here we have the WP:BLP rules in play - so we will generally be careful in those cases too.


 * Note that it's not just CAM that comes under this kind of scrutiny. Check out Freudian psychology...a "mainstream" treatment option that is discussed as being in the realms of "pseudoscience" in our article.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, Steve. But you make a critical error, assuming that chiropractic manipulation is a) placebo and b) has no therapeutic benefit whatsoever and c) making a comparison to Satan.  Do you see the use of manipulative therapies to treat MSK disorders, such as low back pain as pseudoscience?  I can make a case that chiropractic care IS mainstream for SPECIFIC conditions (back/neck pain) while not for others (non-MSK).  Also, there is a plethora of research demonstrating evidence-based chiropractic  as well as evidence-based practice guidelines  and a evidence-based databank, evidence based textbooks  yada yada.  Let's do a better job at separating the wheat from the chaff.  DVMt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this is being discussed here, but I think it is informative that you are pointing out that chiropractic is mainstream by citing sources that are authored by, and published in, chiropractors and chiropractic friendly sources (alt med journals, etc). Certainly, if chiropractic/homeopathy/take-your-pick-of-any-of-hundreds-of-alt-med-treatments-or-modalities is mainstream, it will be described as such by sources/authors outside the in-universe echo chamber of alt med literature? Yobol (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making the same basic error, Yobol. All CAM interventions aren't equivalent in professionalization, research or evidence.  I just demonstrated sources that demonstrated there is an evidence-based approach to chiropractic care and cited evidence-based guidelines and yet we're still equating chiropractic on the same level as homeopathy and faith healing.   We have this source which states "Swedish and Norwegian GPs agree that chiropractors are competent to treat musculoskeletal conditions  and the profession is completely integrated in Switzerland "Chiropractic practice in Switzerland is a government-recognized medical profession with significant interprofessional referrals resulting in earlier chiropractic treatment for many patients." and trials involving joint collaboration between DCs and MDs. .  As Bob Dylan said, the times are a changin'  DVMt (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that chiropractors feel they are mainstream, so producing studies authored by chiropractors and published in chiropractic journals that state they are mainstream is not particularly surprising, nor convincing. Coming to the objective conclusion that chiropractic interventions are mainstream, (i.e. that chiropractic is accepted as a mainstream by the relevant medical literature), you will need to provide evidence, again, from outside the in-universe echo chamber of alt med literature. Yobol (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what chiropractors 'feel' this is about the sources that state as much. Are you discriminating against DC/PhDs and their conclusions in reliable journals?  You casually ignored that chiropractors are mainstream in specific European countries and are working increasingly along physicians for LBP management.  You also using a false dichotomy analogy, suggesting they are fringe or mainstream.  Who dictates what is relevant 'medical literature'.  Do you really expect MDs to be the leading source of authority on the development, professionalization and research in the chiropractic profession?   Why do you automatically assume, incorrectly, that everything that comes from CAM is fringe and pseudoscience?  You seem to be out of step with your very own profession that recommends a trial of chiropractic therapy for LBP.  You do realize that chiropractors also use exercise, education, massage and other 'mainstream' means of management, right?  DVMt (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Your very own profession"? Who said I worked in the medical field? Anywho, if the only sources that say chiropractic interventions are mainstream are chiropractors (and no one independent of chiropractors say so) we would seem to have a problem. If it is mainstream, certainly people outside of the profession would acknowledge it as mainstream, right? Yobol (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you're not an MD, nothing but respect for the profession. You mean like the mainstream organizations like theWHO, governments around the world, the olympics, hospitals,  and mainstream status in Switzerland  and Norway  for instance?  DVMt (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am interested that has raised the issue of an editor's "profession". DVMt claims on their userpage to be a member of WikiProject medicine, yet has no corresponding entry at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Participants., please make an entry on that page declaring your interests, and set (at least) my mind at rest there is no COI/advocacy issue with you here. I am sure you can appreciate why, given past events, it is ultra-important for there to be total transparency about interests for editors at work on Wikipedia's medical articles. In particular, what (if any) is your relation to chiropractic - you seem very ... passionate about it. Alexbrn talk 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about we discuss the points being raised, i.e. comment on the content, not the contributor. You're introducing a red-herring this thread isn't about me personally, it's about exchanging ideas on how to best have long-term and stable articles on the holistic side of the fence.  Regards, DVMt (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just passing by to mention that my insurance - Blue Cross - covers chiropractic manipulation (and also covers the 8 min tissue massage under a separate billing code). How do those arguing that chiro is 100% fringe explain that? If your answer is that blue cross is into paying for placebos, then why don't they also pay for ___________ (fill in the blank with placebo of your choice)? RSs to back up your opinion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if we turn this discussion back towards the role of this talk page; are there any specific changes to this guideline being proposed? Yobol (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The guidance currently names Homeopathy as an unreliable journal, but I think we need some wording for altmed journals more generally, since there seems to be a recurrent disagreement happening about these. In my view we need some cautionary wording; the counter-view is that altmed journals should be generally considered reliable & independent for altmed topics (in the same way a surgery journal is okay for surgery content). Either way, more clarity would be good. Alexbrn talk 03:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if the default stance is chiropractic and acupuncture are 100% fringe/pseudoscientific. In fact, the alt-med article itself states in the lede "Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods.  That statement is bogus because it suggests a) it's entirely a belief system that b) is based on placebo and c) cannot be investigated scientifically.  Thus, the narrative is always in the skeptic tone, doubtful without acknowledging of any validity whatsoever and outright denying that there is evidence-based complementary medicine.  Wikipedia is undoubtedly not presenting the body of knowledge in manipulative medicine because the default POV is that it's pseudoscience despite being proven to help with MSK disorders, at a minimum.  Regarding fringe theories: Are manual therapies for musculoskeletal disorders pseudoscientific and fringe and/or controversial?  This is a broad statement because it involves all the health practitioners such as DOs, DCs, PTs, MDs, DVMs, NDs.  We can kill a lot of birds with this stone if done right.  Looking forward to a collaborative engagement.  Regards, DVMt (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @, good point. I was confused and assumed this was the fringe noticeboard, which is probably better suited for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard would likely kick this back here. This is a big topic.  Would arbcom be a better venue?  DVMt (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a more practical way to approach this. What's the opposite of fringe? Is the opposite of fringe mainstream, or is it scientific? Mainstream does not equal science (more's the pity), so in cases where those two diverge, which one is the non-fringe POV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

New inline templates by QuackGuru
Don't seem to have much support, nor did he elaborate the purpose that these new in-line citations are needed. I'm not going to be baited into reverting, even though Quack is again violating the BRD style on WP. DVMt (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than posting specious allegations on my talk page and making bogus accusations, how about you address my point as noted above?  Thank you!  DVMt (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you got links? What's the problem? There's certainly no shortage of articles which use biased sources, and editors willing to revert-war over them (NPOV problems are the biggest magnets for edit wars). bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problems with the template are described at . Blueboar has improved the template's contents.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

New inline template
I added a new inline template for bias sources. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a few problems with that template... non-independent sources are not not always problematic. Yes, their use is very limited, but there are situations in which they can be used appropriately. It would be better if it read "non-independent source used inappropriately", instead of just "non-independent source?".    Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thinking some more on this... the template could be even more concise... perhaps:
 * "inappropriate use of non-independent source?"
 * or even (simply) "inappropriate use of source?" (although that broadens the scope of the template beyond what I think QuackGuru intended).
 * The underlying issue is that the flaw isn't in the independent/non-independent nature of the source... but in how the source is being used in a specific article. I think Quack's amended template is good since it now highlights where the problem actually is... inappropriate usage of the source.  Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to be part of a dispute in which some editors misunderstand "independent" as meaning "holding a mainstream POV", e.g., "Altmed is fringe by definition". Some altmed is definitely fringe (e.g., the woman who said that she could diagnose cancer by checking skin conductance).  Some altmed is definitely not.
 * Overall, this template's contents needs to match its name, and a name like that is going to be a disaster: every POV pusher (whether majority or minority POV) is going to tag every source they dislike with this.
 * Also, we already have a tag for independence: third-party-inline.  User:QuackGuru, I think you should tag the one you just created for deletion, and just use third-party-inline when you encounter a non-independent source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When you click on the third party-inline template it links to Independent sources.
 * When you click on the bias source-inline template it links to Fringe theories.
 * The bias source template is specific for fringes journals whereas the third party-inline is about non-independent sources in general.
 * I think it is better to use a more specific template for certain situations. When I initially created the MEDRS template editors thought it was unnecessary because we already have a regular RS template. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that "bias" and "independence" are not synonymous concepts.... they are distinct concepts that often overlap. Sure, there are biased sources that are non-independent, but bias can occur in reliable independent sources as well (the New York Times for example). And the fact that a source is non-independent does not automatically mean it is biased... a non-independent source can be neutral.
 * Quack... If your concern is limited to fringe journals... perhaps a "fringe journal?" template is what you really want to create. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the name of the template can be changed. User:Blueboar, if you know of a better name for the template you can fix it. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... the template's title should reflect the reason for the tag. So, let me ask... Under what circumstances would you want to use it? Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It will probably be used for unreliable fringe sources. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK... but in that case the text "non-independent source used inappropriately" is no longer what you are concerned about. I've changed the text of the template to match the concern.
 * To be honest, I think you may be creating templates unnecessarily... We already have several existing tags that we can use to tag unreliable fringe sources... for example, in the situations you talk about above (the use of a fringe journal) I would use Template:Verify credibility to question it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)
 * I think the recent change to the template is a significant improvement, but it's still redundant to verify credibility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The original template I created was deleted. The new and different template is very specific for fringe theories. A specific template for this topic is an improvement. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the narrow focus of Unreliable fringe source is helpful, and I expect it to be abused as a badge of shame for any source that an editor disagrees with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Fringe BLP addition
We have a pretty good WP:FRINGEBLP section that was started with the help of talkpage watchers here, but one thing that is not addressed is notability. In particular, when should the biography of a fringe proponent be included and when should it be excluded? My feeling is that a person who is primarily known as a fringe advocate should only have a Wikipedia page if there is an argument that can be made on the basis of WP:BIO that the person is famous and worthy of an article independent of the nature of the claims the person is making. In other words, someone who was a professor who had a quirky idea wouldn't be included in Wikipedia just because they were a fringe proponent but because they passed WP:PROF. A person who was a media celebrity who believed in a fringe theory wouldn't be included on the basis of simply their fringe beliefs but rather on passing either WP:ARTIST or WP:ENTERTAINER. There is a tendency to over-include fringe theorists at Wikipedia that we should explicitly warn against.

jps (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is more suitted for WP:N since this has more to do with how much coverage someone advocating a fringe theory gets that the fring theory itself.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... this policy is (in part) about notability and noteworthiness, so I do think this is worth discussing (note: In my usage, the term "notability" determines whether we should have a bio article about the fringe advocate... while noteworthiness determines whether we should mention the fringe advocate in some other article). There are (a few) fringe advocates who have become notable because of their fringe advocacy (David Icke comes to mind), and these people merit having a Bio article. There are other fringe advocates who are noteworthy (but not notable) for their fringe advocacy, and these might be mentioned in related articles (such as the articles about the theory itself) without having a Bio Article.  Then there are fringe advocates who are neither notable nor noteworthy (even in an article about the fringe theory itself).  The key to determining which is which is to examine the level of coverage the person (as distinguished from his/her theory) gets in reliable independent sources.  Essentially, we are using source coverage to try to determine the level of name recognition beyond the cadre of fellow fringe advocates and their followers. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E: people notable only for their fringe advocacy do not have an article about them as a person, but are only mentioned in the article about the theory? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that stretches BLP1E beyond its intent. I don't think advocating a theory really qualifies as an "event". (And if so... does that mean that when a self-promoting Fringe theorist advocates two nutty theories, BLP1E no longer applies) Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I don't think that is what's meant by a single event. By that logic someone who is only known as a business man could not have an article since being in a business would be also treated as single event. I think BLP1E would apply more to a case where fringe theory proponent only gets brief coverage when they are arrested after crashing a scientific convention in an attempt "expose the cover up" and then is rarely if ever heard from again. Another non fringe theory example of this would be the student who was tased at the University of Florida when John Kerry was speaking there. I personally see a big difference between those examples and a case where someone is known for years for pushing a fringe theory.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that's not what's meant by a single event, but we need to guard against the multiplying of articles that could easily be merged. E.g. if Fringe Theorist writes Fringe Book which inspires Little Fringe Movement, which runs Fringe Website, we may still only need one article. David Icke, by the way, if he had never taken the lizard route, would have been notable as a TV sports commentator and also as a UK Green Party activist. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. I was only disputing the suggestion that someone only known for a fring theory could not have an article per BLP1E. It could very well be possible that most articles of this nature should be merged but not for that reason.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a lot of problems at the intersection of "fringe" and "low notability", because the topic (such as a person advocating fringey things) only has a little coverage by sources, and that coverage is typically "in universe" rather than being truly independent mainstream sources. This makes it difficult or impossible for us to build neutral content. Given the choice between following the sources (not neutral), or trying to compensate for the sources' weaknesses (original research), or having no article at all, I would choose the latter. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I am writing an essay of this subject, which I think that WP:MAINSTREAM editors don't have adequate support from the rest of the community because they haven't considered in depth the problems. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * bobrayner, Barney the barney barney, Itsmejudith, ::User:TheRedPenOfDoom, Blueboar, jps - I'd really appreciate seeing how this applies to the discussion at Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 3. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I know what to do in these situations. This discussion has made it clear to me that it is possible for someone to be notable for fringe beliefs alone, but what is the threshhold of notability? It has to be nontrivial coverage by mainstream sources, but the problem is that there is a muddy line between mainstream and non-mainstream sources when it comes to things like sensationalized newsmedia coverage or cable television networks. My inclination is to say that serious academic attention should be paid, but that would eliminate many internet famous fringe advocates such as Gene Ray, Terrence McKenna, or, yes, Richard Hoagland. Maybe this is the right way to go? But I have a feeling that Wikipedia is not in the state right now to delete so many of these articles. More thoughts on this would be appreciated. jps (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we have a problem that can't be sorted with the application of BLP and verifiability policies. Reduce articles to what can be reliably sourced and at the same time ensure that there is no advocacy of fringe theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In light of this excellent discussion, I offer a proposal below. This subject has confused me enough that I think the below addition (or something similarly worded) would be a useful addition. If this subject is confusing me, I think it's probably confusing others as well. jps (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for an additional paragraph
''There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Such a person can be identified by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.''


 * I suggest this change, which I think might be clearer:

''There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.''
 * (Notice that I also changed the link from FRIND to WP:INDY, which is what the GNG requires.) When I first read this, I thought you were trying to determine when notable proponents should be mentioned in other articles, rather than when they qualified for their own biographies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me. jps (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have entered the proposed text by WhatamIdoing into the guideline. I will continue to monitor for possible WP:BRD scenarios, but I thank all the participants in this discussion for their helpful and enlightening comments. jps (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note

The term "fringe" offensive?
I personally have find the term "fringe" offensive and favor the more descriptive and neutral term "unconventional" like on the MEDRS guideline. I didn't read this page yet, but it was pointed out on my talk page so after reading the summary I did a alt-f search for "unconventional" but didn't find it included at all. Keep in mind that the idea that some/most ulcers were caused by bacteria was labeled as a fringe it's now accepted medical fact. I'm sure there will be a discussion someday in the way of "can you imaging that until 2014 Wikipedia did even acknowledge the existence of (fill in your pet fringe theory here)"? - Technophant (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DNFT applies here (note has now been blocked). I wonder if we need a WP:BOZO for some text which adduces Sagan's words: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Alexbrn talk 04:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) No. "Unconventional" science can be right in the mainstream. The word "fringe" adequately describes what we're talking about here - and this trend to labelling things you don't personally like as "offensive" when they are perfectly acceptable parts of the English language is not widely accepted in Wikipedia.   (Compare arguments for the word "pseudoscience" being claimed to be offensive.)  Sometimes we have to say things that people don't like - that doesn't mean that perfectly normal English words should get blacklisted.


 * As you note, sometimes things labelled as "fringe" turn out not to be incorrect...this should give you confidence that this isn't an offensive term. It's very possible that something that's labelled "fringe" may turn out to be incorrectly labelled in the future too - but we place things in this category as a result of what's said in WP:RS - so any error of this nature won't be our fault - it'll be the fault of whomever made the assessment in WP:RS. SteveBaker (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * According to WP:BALL, we can now know the scientific consensus from 2014, but we have no access to the scientific consensus from 2064 or 2114. That's not a fault, it is simply the way things are. See WP:FLAT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom ruling box at top of page
asked Arbcom to "vacate" the principles they used in their 2006 ruling on pseudoscience. Arbcom responded, and the whole thing is here. They did not agree to vacate the principles they used in 2006, and my read of what they said, is that the principles just provided context for the 2006 decision, and should not be taken as policy or as setting precedent. In light of that, should we perhaps get rid of the box above, which I have noticed is used in several articles? Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * as per the recent statement from Arbcom that principles used in the 2006 decision do not set precedent and are not policy, I removed the box. I will probably start removing them on other talk pages where I find them as well. Happy to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)