Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 21

Does WP:FRINGE establish any unique guidelines?
Since some recent discussions at WP:FT/N have called into question exactly what it means to be fringe, I'm starting to wonder to what extent WP:FRINGE actually operates as an independent guideline. If FRINGE did not exist, I think everything it promulgates would still be in force by way of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE. While its useful to have a single page as a clearinghouse that unifies how disparate policies impact fringe views, I think it has come to be used by editors in ways that are less productive. Particularly, its often treated as a sort of special double-plus WP:UNDUE. Instead it should be treated as an informational page, which points to WP:UNDUE, and content disputes should pitch their arguments directly in the language of WP:NPOV. Likewise, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:FRIND should be regarded as pointers to WP:QS, WP:ITA to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:NFRINGE to WP:NOTE, and so on, and the issues involved should be discussed directly in terms of the higher-level policies. Appealing to doppelgänger policies is a form of instruction creep.

The one place I think WP:FRINGE may be saying something unique is in WP:PARITY, as WP:DUE can't really be extrapolated to the definite assertions PARITY makes about what is due or undue. Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view, the purpose of FRINGE is to flesh out how we implement WP:PSCI. Like how WP:RS and WP:MEDRS flesh out WP:VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support explicitly saying in this guideline that its scope is limited to dealing with pseudoscience and/or pseudoscholarship and/or extremism. Right now, the scope is much broader: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."  Thus, any view that has significant differences from the predominant view is now slapped with the word "fringe" according to this guideline, even though our article on fringe theories says "[t]he term is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship".  If the scope of this guideline is explicitly limited as I've suggested, then the guideline would be much closer to what both Rhoark and Jytdog have said above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE should be narrowed significantly. It should not be construed to include minority views, but should be viewed as has stated. Currently Fringe is used to promote WP:GROUPTHINK.  GregJackP   Boomer!   22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? It's difficult to assess this proposal, and your support for it, without some actual cases to look at it. I'd be willing to bet they can be addressed some other way than by gutting WP:FRINGE, but that's just a suspicion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the guideline is indeed based on logical extrapolation or expansion of other guideline and policy pages, but the relationships are considerably more complicated. For example, WP:PROFRINGE is related to WP:QS but no less related to WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and a few others. This is the place where those policies are discussed in the context of each other and it's described how they interact. Among other things, the purpose of having a separate guideline is precisely so that we don't have to relitigate those extrapolations and interactions every time someone tries to present fringe theories as having more acceptance than they do.
 * As an analogy, WP:POVFORK is a guideline which basically says that all articles need to follow NPOV (the link to a single policy is much stronger in that case). Even though we could argue for merging it to NPOV by similar reasoning to the above, it's still a useful page and a useful concept to refer to in discussions. If there are some examples of the guideline being improperly applied, that's a different question which would probably be better served by clarifying the guideline.
 * I'll also restate from the other discussions that it's merely a perhaps unfortunate coincidence that this page is named with a word that might be interpreted as negative. "Fringe" is used as a term of art on Wikipedia (just like "undue" and "neutral" and everything else). If perceived negative implications of the term of art are the problem, that's something that would seem to be most easily addressed by proposing a different name for the guideline, rather than trying to change its scope. Sunrise (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think it's important for the scope to extend to all minority theories, and not just the wacko or extreme ones, then sure an alternative title would be helpful. How about WP:Minority theories?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue there is that the scope doesn't extend to all minority theories. (The boundary is gray and subject to dispute, but that will be true for other boundaries too, cf. "wacko or extreme"). In a scientific context, which is where I have the most experience, I would say a good rule of thumb is that a position is not fringe if it's recognized by the mainstream as being a reasonable or legitimate point of view. So for example, a discussion in a standard textbook or academic review (minus some reasonable exceptions, like inclusion only for the purposes of refutation) would generally be sufficient for me. In other contexts, like the dispute that led to this discussion, I would ask what the highest-quality RS say. Do they mention the supposed fringe theory? If they do, is it dismissive, or is it treated as an alternative possibility? If they don't, is it because they ignored it, or is there a good reason (such as being too recent for them to have considered it)? What have they previously said about topics related to the theory? And so forth.
 * The TL;DR point would be that classification as "fringe" depends on the precise context and can't be simplified to a single factor like minority status. I'm sure you recognize that you would get the same type of answer if you went to WT:RS and asked how to know whether a source is reliable. :-) Sunrise (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Sunrise, your statement about being "recognized by the mainstream" is similar to what User:Rhoark said elsewhere about "what the mainstream considers to be conceivable". The scope is currently this: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."  Why couldn't we narrow it like this, for example: "We use the term 'fringe theory' to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field, while also departing from what the prevailing or mainstream consensus within that field considers to be noteworthy and conceivable"?  That way, Wikipedia and Wikipedians would stop slapping the "fringe" label on theories and other ideas merely because they are significantly different from the prevailing one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to an edit to clarify this issue. I don't think it would be a narrowing in itself, because the general concept should be captured by the use of the term "significantly" - and so it may also be easier and less controversial to describe it as part of a separate sentence. That said, the phrase "noteworthy and conceivable" would be a narrowing; the general concept is one of significance, so I would probably use that term instead (maybe "significant or relevant"). Of course, the precise wording is something that would require more input from other editors who regularly work in fringe areas. Sunrise (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would object to the addition of "noteworthy and conceivable"... there are lots of fringe theories that are inconceivable and yet are noteworthy. Wikipedia should cover noteworthy things, even if they are considered inconceivable. The mainstream does not have to accept a fringe theory for Wikipedia to cover it, the mainstream simply has to have noticed (ie commented upon) the theory (even to say it's hogwash). In many ways WP:FRINGE is more about how to cover fringe theories than it is about whether to cover fringe theories.  Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I agree that this policy is mainly about how to cover fringe theories, rather than whether to cover them. But either way, we still need to appropriately say what they are.  If a theory is inconceivable and yet noteworthy then it would depart from being "noteworthy and conceivable", and thus it would be within the scope of "fringe theories" that I suggested.  Anyway, the recent comments from you and Sunrise would be addressed by rephrasing: "We use the term 'fringe theory' to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field, while also being insignificant or inconceivable according to that mainstream view."  This is brief and straightforward.
 * Putting this new material in a second sentence would be unwise, because then the two sentences would conflict; the first sentence would label any theory that's significantly different from the predominant theory as fringe, while the second sentence would instead say that "fringe theories" do not include some non-predominant theories. Anyway, if there are no objections, then I'll start an RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

We would need to agree on wording before starting an RfC. A few points: An RfC may not even be necessary. But either way, it would probably take at least a couple of weeks to produce a good draft proposal, so please be patient with this. Sunrise (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would still oppose using "conceivable" - I see the word becoming a source of disputes rather than helping to resolve them, since the meaning of "idea X is conceivable" could be anywhere between "idea X is not logically impossibile" and "idea X is a reasonable possibility." To reflect current practice, we want something closer to the latter.
 * The language needs to be clearer and more concise, e.g. "while also being" should be replaced by "and is."
 * "According to the mainstream view" is not a good formulation, since it is easier to interpret in a way that encourages editors to do OR about what the mainstream view entails. The first proposal is better in that regard, as it encourages editors to check the RS (though that wording should be improved as well).
 * As I described above, a second sentence would not conflict with the first; it would merely be a clarification of what "significantly" means. It could even be mentioned explicitly, e.g. something like "by 'significantly departs' we mean that the idea is not considered by the prevailing or mainstream view to be significant or relevant, as determined by the type and amount of material about the idea found in the highest-quality reliable sources available." I think there's a good chance that this would be a better option.


 * I have to question the need to narrowly define the term "fringe theory" in the first place. As a community, we know what is fringe and what isn't... so, we can label something a "fringe theory" if there is a consensus to call it that.  When in doubt ... we can seek a wider consensus. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Blueboar, this guideline defines what is a fringe theory: "We use the term 'fringe theory' to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field...." Thus, anyone can claim support in this guideline for calling the second-most-accepted theory on virtually any subject "fringe", assuming that that theory has significant differences from the primary theory (which is almost always the case).  I think this status quo is unwise, and would like to fix it.  A local consensus cannot override what this guideline says is "fringe", and what this guideline says is "fringe" is extremely broad.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Sunrise, I don't have any problem with anything you said. Would you like me to try again, or would you be willing to propose a draft?  Thanks to you both for comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, sure, anyone can argue that a "second-most-accepted theory" should be labeled "Fringe"... but it is unlikely that there would be consensus for doing so, unless the theory really is fringe. And I am not talking about a local consensus... as I said, if there is a dispute about it, all you have to do is seek a broader consensus: File an RFC... ask for more opinions at the WP:FTN... etc. There are lots of ways to get a broader (non-local) consensus.  Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to have a correct guideline than an incorrect guideline that we have to override all the time? Consider an example. The theory that the eurozone will survive despite a Greek exit is predominant.  The theory that the eurozone will not survive a Greek exit departs significantly from that predominant theory, and therefore is "fringe" per this guideline.  Why would we want such a definition of "fringe" here?  People who seek to follow this guideline (including me) would !vote that the latter theory about the eurozone  is indeed "fringe" according to this guideline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * that is a hypothetical example - i just looked at the Eurozone article and i see no one actually calling that a fringe idea. You were asked above what prompted this, and you didn't answer.  I am guessing that what prompted your posts here were discussions about re-naming Hillary Clinton email system, where the term "fringe" was used in discussions  a bit. I have reviewed your contribs, anythingyouwant, and you seem to have strong political views that you have carried with you into WP. in politics especially, people's view of the world shapes what sources they pay attention to (in our parlance, consider to WP:RS and worthy of significant WP:WEIGHT) and which ones they ignore, and the sources in turn re-inforce the worldview, and communities form, leading to Communal reinforcement or as you wrote above, Groupthink .... and discussions in Wikipedia of what is "mainstream" and "fringe" become very hard to sort out.  politics and video games are infamously hellish in WP, for just these reasons. tweaking this guideline is not going to change that. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC) (striking distraction Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)) (striking yet more distraction Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC))
 * That's right, the eurozone is a hypothetical example. The non-hypothetical thing that got me here started at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.  I don't see that Hillary Clinton's emails have anything to do with this.  But if you want to insist that they do, please tell me what my position there (I.e. keep the word "controversy" out of the article title per WP:Criticism) tells you about my political views.  You are also mistaken that I wrote anything about "groupthink" at this page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry yes the groupthink thing was another person - my apologies. i have no desire to characterize your political views other than to say they are strong.  and thanks for pointing to BLPN - it appears that the relevant thread is on gamergate - the exact intersection of politics and videogames.  tweaking FRINGE will not fix the issues there. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, you brought up my political views, and you said that they influenced my editing at Hillary Clinton email system. I emphatically deny it, and I ask you to please say if I am pro-Clinton or anti-Clinton in your view, so that I have some clue what you mean.  My presence here at this page has nothing to do with my political views.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * please read my post again. that is not what i wrote. the most recent place i saw that you edited where "fringe" came up was at the email article.  i said i reviewed your contribs and based on that review you seem to have strong political views.  this is all a sideshow in any case so i struck that statement. my apologies for even mentioning it.  The point is that tweaking FRINGE is not going to change the troubles we have on politics, videogames, and the like.  Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We had a BLP subject come to BLPN complaining that his ideas were being referred to as fringe. I immediately came here to find out how we define "fringe", and found here that we define a fringe theory as any theory that has significant differences from the predominant theory.  Because I think this is a very counterproductive definition, I have been trying to get it fixed, and I still haven't gotten around to finding out what "Gamergate" is all about, and I have no idea if it is related to politics or not, or what my position about it is.  Please try to give the benefit of a doubt that I am being sincere here, and please say whether you think we should really define a fringe theory as any theory that has significant differences from the predominant theory.  And please accept that this has not the slightest thing to do with Hillary Clinton, and that my very negative view of her candidacy could not possibly have led me to support keeping the word "controversy" out of that article title.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

do you remember anything about the BLPN case you mention so we can find it? Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand your point of view here. You already said, "thanks for pointing to BLPN - it appears that the relevant thread is on gamergate".  And I confirmed that.  I really don't have anything more to say, and it does not help things that you will not accept that this has not the slightest thing to do with Hillary Clinton, and that my very negative view of her candidacy could not possibly have led me to support keeping the word "controversy" out of that article title you brought up.  It's just absurd — a fringe theory, if you will — and I've asked you several times to acknowledge that it makes no sense.  I cannot continue a conversation like this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! i didn't assume that the thread you referenced with "We had a BLP subject come to BLPN complaining that his ideas were being referred to as fringe." was the same as the gamergate thread - you didn't directly say that and now i see you are confirming they are the same.  (btw for the xth time i have not said anything - not one word - about your views on Clinton. please drop that stick).  So the matter about FRINGE is about gamergate.  thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You said above, "what prompted your posts here were discussions about re-naming Hillary Clinton email system". I've denied it repeatedly, but evidently to no effect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * this is why i stay out of discussions about politics in WP. struck above, so you can drop the stick already (I do not give a rat's ass what you think about anything except editing WP. argh. )  turning to the gamergate thing, i read that whole thread.  what massem wrote there is ~pretty~ good - it is easier to discern FRINGE in science-based topics.  the reason for that is there an accepted body of literature to define mainstream vs not, and accepted methods of working (the scientific method) to even evaluate claims.  such a body of literature and methodology is lacking in politics and videogames.  there are still FRINGE and FRINGEy views on those spaces, so as blueboar wrote above, it just takes community discussion to try to arrive at consensus on whether the categorization fits or not.  tweaking FRINGE isn't going to help with that messy process. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are Wikipedia rules against trying to edit policies and guidelines with impure motives, so I'm glad that particular Clinton thing is now off the table.  As for "community discussion to try to arrive at consensus", then the best thing would be to remove the definition of "fringe theory" in this guideline so that it will not force people like me to !vote for the "fringe" label whenever a theory has a significant difference from the leading theory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now things become a bit clearer... To my mind the entire "gamergate" controversy lives in fringe-land... its a debate between rival groups within a fringe subculture. It has become a notable fringe debate... but its a fringe debate never the less. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it does, I don't even know what it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * AYW, in response to your question to me, I don't have a proposal that I think could achieve consensus. Suppose we consider something like: "Significantly departs" typically means that the idea is not considered to be important, reasonable, or relevant, as determined by the type and amount of material about the idea found in the highest-quality reliable sources available. I think that this is an improvement relative to the previous example I quoted (and I can expand on why if it becomes important). But this still leaves a lot to be desired - for example, it's in tension with WP:PARITY which states that exceptional claims do not need high-quality sources to refute them. I also think it would be open to arguments that creationism is not a fringe belief (e.g. "the NAS has written about it in an academic context, so they clearly take it seriously"). To counteract that, we could add even more criteria beyond importance, reasonableness, and relevance, but these are all vague terms to start with (in part because of the difficulty in codifying what is actually meant), and the more terms we add, the more open to wikilawyering it is. I don't doubt there are other issues with it that I haven't thought of.
 * I'm happy to continue offering criticism of potential wording choices. Another thing to consider is that it might be easier to just add a few more paragraphs discussing what factors can be relevant to determining fringe status. In the meantime, if you think the term "fringe" is not being correctly applied, I encourage you to request the source-based rationale for the classification, and/or to request broader input at FTN. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 06:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sunrise, thanks for your further comments which I'll study some more tomorrow. My fear is that the term "fringe" will be correctly applied according to the definition in this guideline, which will cause every theory having significant difference from the leading theory (i.e. virtually every non-leading theory) to be labelled "fringe", which is widely understood as pejorative. I am not seeking perfect language here, just some modest improvement. A couple hours ago, I tried this: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field, and is insignificant or irrelevant according to that prevailing or mainstream view." The person who reverted has not said yet whether he thinks the added terms would render the scope too narrow or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, do you think the added terms ("and is insignificant or irrelevant according to that prevailing or mainstream view") would render the scope too narrow or not?
 * Do you agree that the current definition in this guideline includes any theory that is significantly different from the leading theory?
 * If so, why would you want the fringe label on all but the leading theories?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The bottom line for me, is that per WP:NOT what we are meant to be doing here, is providing in each article, "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Please think about that. What we are meant to be doing.  That is the target - the bullseye.   Per NPOV the most WEIGHT should go the bullseye - what is widely accepted/consensus "accepted knowledge."   Step out a ring, and you have minority notions that most folks in the middle would say have some validity but are not widely accepted in the field.  That gets some WEIGHT but less.  Then you have the vast ring of FRINGE outside of that.   Which we either don't discuss at all, or discuss as minimally as possible.  No WEIGHT per UNDUE or very little WEIGHT.
 * i am part of WikiProject Medicine, and we bust our butts to get articles about health written and kept that way and MEDRS helps us a great deal in doing that. We look at the sources that our knowledge-producing/summarizing institutions put out, and summarize them.  (concretely for sourcing, that means review articles in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical or scientific bodies).  We treat something as FRINGE if a) it contradicts statements produced by these institutions; or b) it is not discussed at all by these institutions (we use WP:PARITY in those situations).   It is not so much about "irrelevant" or "insignificant" as how reliable sources treat (or don't treat) the idea.
 * this is the kind of analysis that provided in the Gamergate thread at BLPN here. Please note that I'm not endorsing their conclusion - to make this kind of analysis you have to dig in and read widely and deeply so you can see the landscape.  People may come to different conclusions when they do that, which is why at the end of the day it comes down to consensus based on discussion of reliable sources per policies and guidelines.  WP:CIR especially on controversial issues.  Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, thanks for your reply. You write about "minority notions that most folks in the middle would say have some validity but are not widely accepted in the field", but this guideline currently defines those minority notions as "fringe theories".  After all, the current definition in this guideline says, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."  Virtually every minority notion departs significantly from the leading theory in its field.  All I am suggesting here is to reserve the fringe label for the vast ring of FRINGE outside of the minority notions that most folks in the middle would say have some validity but are not widely accepted in the field.
 * I still do not understand why you would think that the added terms I suggested ("and is insignificant or irrelevant according to that prevailing or mainstream view") would remove the "fringe" label from anything in the vast ring of FRINGE outside of the minority notions that most folks in the middle would say have some validity but are not widely accepted in the field.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the guideline discusses minority views in several places. it does make the three level distinction. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, the guideline does mention the word "minority" five times, but none of those five instances includes any discussion of whether the minority view is "fringe" or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * WP:NPOV essentially establishes what fringe views are, which is the policy WP:FRINGE is nested under:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * 3. is what we consider a fringe viewpoint in general. Given that those are just general guidelines, so we need to remember that we stick with the spirit of policies and guidelines instead of wikilawyering, so I don't think we'll have get a hard, perfect definition that it appears you're seeking. At least in science topics, we consider something a significant minority if it gets attention in reliable sources and typically is considered something that might hold some validity, but doesn't really have strong enough evidence to supplant the mainstream view, competing but lesser hypotheses, etc.. Fringe views don't hold validity and don't get serious consideration in scientific discussions aside from maybe pointing out that they aren't taken seriously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay guys, we have a guideline here that very clearly categorizes a viewpoint held by a significant minority as "fringe". You all decline to acknowledge this blatant error, and disparagingly call a sincere attempt to fix it "wikilawyering". So this conversation seems quite futile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you are going with your comments in reply to mine, but I wasn't commenting on whatever the specific content issue was. Wikilawyering was just in reference to how we generally don't write hard definitions in our guidelines and not directed at any editor accusing them of wikilawyering. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, the specific content issue is this definition in the guideline: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." I contend that this definition very clearly categorizes a viewpoint held by a significant minority as "fringe", because such a viewpoint will almost always depart significantly from the majority view.  So, to improve that definition (but not to make it perfect), I suggested to add a few words: "and is insignificant or irrelevant according to that prevailing or mainstream view".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that text adding any additional clarity. I asked about content because it seemed like you had some example that spurred this. If something is a significant minority view, it by definition isn't fringe. As I alluded to above though, you need to establish WP:DUE WEIGHT (i.e., significance) to show it's not a fringe view though, so I'm not seeing what the particular issue is here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please address this question: do significant minority views very often differ significantly from the majority view?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite seeing where this is going in terms of addressing content in the guideline. By definition the views would be different if they are different views. How much they differ doesn't matter so much though, but rather how much overall validity the reliable sources give them in terms of weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a yes or a no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Kingofaces43, it seems incredibly obvious to me that the answer is yes, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that you're misinterpreting the "departs significantly from the mainstream view" aspect of it. If (for example) a view was held by 60% of scientists in a field, and a radically different view was held by 40% of the scientists in the field, the one held by 40% is still clearly part of the "mainstream"; for something to be outside of the mainstream means that it is held only by a small or limited minority (with the extremely important caveat that we are talking about reliable sources for that particular field; ie. opposition to evolution is WP:FRINGE because it has no mainstream support whatsoever in the scientific community, regardless of how many people outside it disagree.  But if we were to go back in time to an era when 40% of biologists didn't believe in evolution, we would say that, in that era, that opposition was not a fringe viewpoint; it was still mainstream, even if it was in the minority.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with "and is insignificant or irrelevant according to that prevailing or mainstream view" is that the most fringe-y of fringe viewpoints are not going to have mainstream discussions explicitly declaring them insignificant or irrelevant; they're just not going to come up at all. It's important that it be enough to show that a fringe viewpoint significantly departs from the mainstream view (and is therefore not broadly supported by scholarship in its field.)  I would strenuously object to any wording to WP:FRINGE that could be implied to require that the topic be explicitly dismissed by mainstream sources, since the furthest out-there fringe theories aren't going to get any discussion among mainstream sources at all.  (Now, there's one important caveat.  WP:FRINGE allows fringe viewpoint to be covered under certain circumstances; there's no clear dividing line between "minority viewpoint" and "fringe viewpoint", yes, but that's not really a problem because all WP:FRINGE says is that such views must be handled according to the degree of coverage they have among reputable sources in the field.  In other words, even if I say that I feel that a theory held by a significant minority of scientists falls under WP:FRINGE, it doesn't really change anything, because WP:FRINGE still says we can cover that as long as we're clear it's the minority view.  WP:FRINGE isn't a magic label that utterly excludes a view from any coverage; it sets rules for an entire continuum of minority views, all the way from the most extreme fringes up to controversial alternative theories that have to be covered.)  --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't see any problem with the current language in this guideline? I never said we can or need to make it perfect, but it is easy to improve. You say the problem with "and is insignificant or irrelevant according to that prevailing or mainstream view" is that the most fringe-y of fringe viewpoints are not going to have mainstream discussions explicitly declaring them insignificant or irrelevant.  But the quoted statement does not require explicitness.  If no mainstream source of authority mentions a theory, then obviously it's deemed insignificant or irrelevant.  What I've suggested seems good but will never be perfect, and (as the saying goes) it's a mistake to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the current language, no, and I feel your suggestion would make it worse. Beyond what I said above, I don't think "insignificant or irrelevant" is a good descriptor; is (for example) global warming denialism "insignificant or irrelevant?"  No, clearly not (it has attracted huge amounts of attention.)  But it is "not broadly supported by scholarship in its field"; it "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."  Therefore it is a WP:FRINGE theory.  To me, the essence of WP:FRINGE are 1. is a view mainstream in its field -- does it have a significant base of support among reliable experts in that field?  Does it contradict the mainstream view? and 2. if it does have support among reliable experts, how broad that base of support is.  If it lacks broad support and departs significantly from the mainstream view, then it might be appropriate to exclude it from the article entirely or give it only minimal coverage under WP:FRINGE.  A minority viewpoint is not necessarily a fringe viewpoint (because if it has broad support, then it is part of the "mainstream" despite being a minority viewpoint); but WP:FRINGE gives us guidelines on how to cover that entire spectrum (see the 'Reporting on the levels of acceptance' section.)  The reason is dismissed (that is, whether it is as "insignificant or irrelevant") has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:FRINGE; all that matters is whether it contradicts the mainstream view and, if it does, how much support it has as a minority viewpoint. --Aquillion (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is global warming denialism "insignificant or irrelevant"? Well, that would be a subject for local consensus-forming.  My own view is that it probably would indeed be insignificant and irrelevant, because data clearly shows warming, and virtually no one that I'm aware of claims that we are not in the middle of a warming trend.  The more controversial points are the degree to which the warming is manmade, and (if so) whether it is urgent to cut carbon dioxide emission immediately.  You say that a theory that has broad support should not be considered as "fringe".  But that conflicts with this guideline: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."  If a theory having broad support is significantly different from the leading theory, then this guideline unambiguously disparages it as a "fringe theory".  Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, the issue is that you're misinterpreting the term "mainstream". If a theory has significant support but is not the theory with the most support, it is still clearly mainstream.  For instance, there are multiple mainstream religions, mainstream political parties, and so on; "mainstream" doesn't just mean "whatever one theory is winning at the moment", it means the theories that have substantial support among reliable sources in the field.  I don't feel that there is any real confusion over this; whereas I feel that your "insignificant and irrelevant" construction is poorly-defined and adds nothing but confusion.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Aquillion, you almost have me convinced except for you're wrong. :-)  This guideline refers to one single mainstream view ("We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."  This could be fixed by inserting the letter "s" so it says "mainstream views".  However, we would still have the problem that an idea not departing from the mainstream views would be a fringe theory according to this guideline if it departs from "the prevailing...view".  So, we could change "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" to "departs significantly from prevailing and mainstream views".  Does that float your boat (or sink your boat)?  It would completely resolve my concern.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How often and where has this ever been an issue? What problem are we attempting to solve for?--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, a BLP subject complained at BLPN about his theory being referred to as fringe. Before examining his situation, I came here to find out how we define the term.  And, I found a definition here that strikes me as completely absurd, and easily improvable.  This guideline currently says: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."  Virtually every theory that is not a leading theory departs significantly from the leading theory, and we are labeling them all as "fringe".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * so there is 1 person making a misdirected complaint? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, it says "mainstream view", not "leading theory." These are not the same thing, as the rest of the article (and WP:UNDUE) make clear.  The mainstream can contain multiple competing perspectives and views; but a theory that has almost no mainstream support (that is, one which virtually no reliable sources in the field endorse) falls under WP:FRINGE.  I don't see any evidence that there's confusion over that; and I feel that your requirement that reliable sources dismiss it, in some vaguely-defined way, as "insignificant and irrelevant" adds nothing but confusion, especially since WP:FRINGE makes a major point of saying that the simple existence of arguments over a theory does not necessarily mean it is not WP:FRINGE.  (I feel that "insignificant or irrelevant" invites people to say "well, they're arguing over it, so it can't be insignificant or irrelevant!")  --Aquillion (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As explained above, we could change "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" to "departs significantly from prevailing and mainstream views". That would completely resolve my concern.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current language. As was pointed out above, 'mainstream' includes multiple viewpoints; various minority viewpoints are in the mainstream as long as other scholars consider that those views may reasonably be correct, and treat seriously with those who hold those views. This is spelled out by WP:FRINGE/PS (it could be further elaborated there, but I don't think it's necessary). Out of mainstream is essentially synonymous with fringe – views held by a limited minority that are not taken seriously by the rest. Anythingyouwant, if you want to change the guideline, point to at least one discussion where this guideline was being incorrectly applied because of the current wording. LK (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Lawrencekhoo, the current language is this: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from prevailing or mainstream views in its particular field." I am happy with this, except that it's unclear why the conjunction "or" is preferable to "and".  It seems to me that a fringe theory will depart from both the prevailing and the mainstream views (even if the prevailing view is some sort of myth).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Departing from the prevailing view in the field is not enough to make something a fringe theory; it typically must also depart from the other mainstream views in that field. So I plan to change "or" back to "and".  We should not define a theory as "fringe" if it is mainstream in the field.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * that change is not an improvement - when writing policy-like documents you often try to name the same thing in various ways to avoid wikilawyering and try to get at the heart of the thing. that is the function of the "or". again, you are trying to solve a problem (to what exactly does "FRINGE" apply?) that can only be addressed via local discussions applying the guideline, not by wikilawyering the language of the guideline. that is the not the right answer. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog, honestly, I am open to reasonable arguments from people who have thought this through. But, really, in what scenario should we consider something fringe if it does not depart from the mainstream views in its field?  Likewise, in what scenario should we consider something fringe if it does not depart from the prevailing theory in the field?  I just don't understand.  This sentence (with "or" instead of "and") says that a theory is fringe if it is the prevailing theory but significantly departs from other mainstream views; it also says a theory is fringe if it departs only from the prevailing view and does not depart from other mainstream views.  That's just wrong, it's nuts, and it does not matter if we contradict it later in the guideline (which we do not currently do).  Usage of the word "or" is not merely ambiguous, it is dead wrong, and I have never in my life seen a more misguided Wikipedia guideline, seriously.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Using "or" is just a recognition that the meanings of "prevailing" and "mainstream" are very similar but not identical, and that in some contexts one of them is more appropriate or natural than the other to describe the viewpoint(s) relative to which fringe status is determined. Using "and" would imply that there are two conditions to be met in any given circumstance, which is incorrect. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Necessity of clarification
These matters need to be clarified because of the overwhelming frequency with which the word "fringe" is used as a rhetorical bludgeon. It's an extremely attractive implement, since it can be used to exclude an opposing viewpoint while offering no bright-line defenses, on account of open-ended wording. Although policies should be flexible, leaving everything up to gut feelings means there's no recourse to anything concrete when consensus fails. Some claims I've seen called fringe within the past month include: MH17 was shot down by Russian hardware; Kosovo is part of Serbia; Some North Korean troops disguised themselves as civilians during the Korean War; Research by LaCour and Green was readily accepted because it confirmed what people wanted to believe; Censorship inflamed Gamergate through the Streissand Effect; and Hillary Clinton used a particular e-mail address. In some of these cases, there was a good RS or UNDUE reason not to use a source or a claim, but none of it should fall under the remit of FRINGE. It's nothing like pseudoscience. I'll re-emphasize what I wrote in the opening paragraph, that people should redirect their arguments to more fundamental policies.

A few wording changes have been suggested in the thread so far, which have in general failed the sniff test, in that editors have easily named an idea that would be treated incorrectly under the proposed wording. It may be best to start with the treatment and work backwards to the definition. Typically, editors will argue that a view is FRINGE in order to justify its dismissal as a WP:NECESSARY assumption. I think that stands as good as any definition of fringe: that which is justified to ignore as a necessary assumption. As I see it, there are two reasons, either of which independently would justify NECESSARY assumptions.

The first is failing the test proposed by Jimmy Wales, in that the view is held by such a small minority that prominent adherents can't be named.

The second is when an idea contradicts objective scholarship that is foundational to the field. That part has several prongs that deserve to be broken down in detail: Rhoark (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The comparison is with scholarship, not general press or public opinion (Those should only be considered within the "prominent adherent" test)
 * The scholarship is in a field, which is defined by the article and section. The relevant scholarship is different depending on whether the section is X, History of X, Cultural attitudes toward X, History of cultural attitudes towards X, X in feudal Japan, etc.
 * The fringe idea must contradict prior scholarship, not just differ from it.
 * The aspect that is contradicted must be foundational to the field. (e.g., perpetual motion is fringe, but axions are not)
 * The scholarship that is contradicted must be objective. (It should be very difficult to justify making NECESSARY assumptions about the symbolism of Moby Dick, for instance)
 * No change to any policy or guideline is going to stop people from writing stupid or mistaken things.
 * On the first prong: there are prominent supporters of many FRINGE ideas about health. Dr Oz, joe mercola, food babe, etc etc.
 * On the second prong: this sentence makes no sense: "Typically, editors will argue that a view is FRINGE in order to justify its dismissal as a WP:NECESSARY assumption." I have no idea what you are talking about. Editors will argue that a view is FRINGE because... they think it is FRINGE (nothing to do with summaries/assumptions made in multiple articles bridging a topic or set of topics, which is what WP:NECESSARY is about)
 * I don't understand if your bullets are meant to be separate tests (fail one and it is FRINGE) or one test (fail one and it is not FRINGE).
 * all in all, more smoke than light... Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't stop people from writing stupid things, but we can stop people from writing stupid things and finding support for those stupid things in the guidance page as written. Perhaps when dealing with pseudoscience, people will call it fringe and just be calling a spade a spade. When anything political comes up, FRINGE means IDONTLIKEIT. It's a convenient tool to keep something out of the article.
 * I proposed two tests, and the second test has multiple prongs. Something could be considered fringe on the basis of one test. To be fringe by the second test requires fulfilling all the prongs. (A OR (B1 AND B2 AND B3 AND B4 AND B5)) Rhoark (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am willing to consider further elaboration along these lines, but I thought it would be a good idea to first correct a clear error in this policy, so that we are building upon a solid foundation. I do not see what idea could possibly be treated incorrectly if we say in this guideline: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from prevailing and mainstream views in its particular field."  If the prevailing and mainstream views are utterly insane, then I don't think that makes them fringe theories does it?  If that's the way we want to use the word "fringe" then we could simply say that any untrue theory is a fringe theory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to consider "further elaboration" on the premise that "the prevailing and mainstream views are utterly insane,". That is just clearly not ever possible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor am I.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Again...if an article calls a topic or sub-topic "fringe", and you think that term should not be used... the way to address it is to file an RFC or ask at WP:FTN ... find out what the consensus of the broader community is. There is no need to change the policy just so you can win an argument. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not in furtherance of any dispute anywhere on Wikipedia. It's a general matter about the meaning of the guideline, whose text is not sufficiently clear. The conversation has already been advertised at FT/N. Rhoark (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I see problems with all five of those criteria. The easiest example is the assumption that scholarship will exist on the subject in question, which isn't necessarily going to be the case. (The issue that's easiest to fix would be that the relevant field should be determined by the nature of the statement being sourced, not the section or article.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's quite intentional. If there is not established scholarship, there is no grounds to declare a view with prominent supporters to be fringe. Rhoark (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's incorrect. Absent special circumstances, like a claim being extremely recent, a lack of serious scholarship on a subject is a strong indication of fringe status. (There are also related considerations, e.g. for many subjects a fringe classification can be based on journalism.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, a lack of serious scholarship is just an indication its not the subject of serious scholarship. That's the case for broad swathes of popular culture and current events topics in the encyclopedia. Rhoark (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't expect a claim to be the subject of serious scholarship even if it were true, then that issue goes away (cf. "special circumstances"). That's where journalistic sources can become relevant for a fringe classification. But if you do expect it, as you do for scientific claims (say, a species of three-headed alien from Alpha Centauri visited Earth 100,000 years ago and left no evidence), we do not need scholarship on the subject to classify it as fringe.
 * That said, I think you're trying to pursue a proxy dispute about a specific topic area, so I will stop responding along this line of discussion. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 06:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is not in furtherance of any dispute anywhere. Your example would be fringe, because there are no prominent adherents. It would also be incompatible with foundational scholarship in archaeology or exobiology. Rhoark (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Roark I just checked out your contribs. You have been here just about 6 months, and almost all your edits are on controversial/FRINGEy topics, with most on gamergate. Based on what you wrote above, I don't think you understand normal WP editing and you are definitely coming here from within the gamergate BATTLEGROUND framework. This is clear. fwiw if you want to be credible (and make sense) in discussions of policies and guidelines you are going to need to broaden your experience-base. I won't be responding here further either. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see how anything you've brought up is relevant. I edit mostly within controversial areas, of which Gamergate is one, and I stand by the quality of my edits and their consistency with the policy and purposes of the encyclopedia. You are, of course, free to recuse yourself from this discussion, or elaborate further on your criticisms of my editing history. In the latter case, it would be better to do so on my talk page. Rhoark (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not be responding because what you are writing makes no sense; there is nothing to respond to. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand what User:Rhoark is saying, it might be wise to consider this change: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from is incompatible with the prevailing...." (italicized language added). I take no position on this change myself, but am curious how User:Jytdog or User:Sunrise or others feel about it.  Perhaps if an idea is compatible with mainstream views, then we should not be referring to it as "fringe"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would definitely oppose any change that makes "is incompatible with" or words to that effect part of the criteria to be considered for WP:FRINGE. The problem is that fringe medical treatments, for instance, won't often have any clear points of incompatibility; they simply have no mainstream support.  The core to WP:FRINGE, in my opinion, is the degree of mainstream support an idea has -- anything that has none whatsoever is always fring-y, and anything that has only a small amount should have its coverage governed by WP:FRINGE.  I don't see what incompatibility, say, has to do with whether an idea is mainstream or fringe. --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point... "Fringe-ness" is not really about the level of compatibility ... it's about the level of acceptance. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Points of Agreement
There does not seem to be any consensus for the modification of text in the guideline at this time. There does seem to be some agreement about the actual nature of the guideline and best practices. Let's see if that's not the case, before returning to the question of whether the text is consistent with best practices. I believe there is consensus for the following: So far, so good? Rhoark (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline of WP:FRINGE offers guidance that is derived from WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and others.
 * It makes statements that are not made by the above policies, but these are meant to be directly consequent from those policies, especially in their intersection.
 * In the case of conflict, the root policies take precedence. (explicitly stated in FRINGE)
 * The original motive for elaborating on FRINGE was to clarify WP:PSCI, which pertains to pseudoscience and historical revisionism.
 * Unscientific medical claims are a form of pseudoscience.
 * Other forms of pseudoscholarship that are not pseudoscience are also fringe if they do not meet whatever standards constitute true scholarship in its respective field.
 * Views that are not any sort of pseudoscholarship can also be fringe, which can be determined in some way based on journalistic coverage.
 * Views that are in the "mainstream" and are not pseudoscholarship are not fringe.
 * The definition of mainstream is fuzzy, but is not limited to views that are in the majority.
 * Jimbo's trilemma at WP:DUE is probative.
 * The practical effect of whether or not a view is FRINGE is determining which if any articles should give any due weight to the view.
 * Any minority view described in the encyclopedia, whether or not it is FRINGE, should have its level of (non)acceptance accurately characterized.
 * That's pretty good, in my view. Not sure what you mean by "probative" but Jimbo's thing is useful.  The last point - its optimal to be able to explicitly characterize but not always do-able - sometimes the minority-ness is not explicitly stated but simply handled by giving little weight or other indirect means.  Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jytdog that Rhoark's list is pretty good. It's not good enough to set in stone though.  For example, non-pseudoscholarship can be fringe even if journalists are silent about it, but some other reliable sources are not (e.g. books, real scholarship, et cetera).  Also, the practical effect of whether or not a view is FRINGE is not only determining which if any articles should give any due weight to the view, but also perhaps whether those articles (and their talk pages) characterize that view as "fringe" (which is a pejorative term and can be harmful to living persons).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, journalism was just an example I was using, as one type of source that can be relevant for some types of claims. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with what you've written. My concerns about proposed policy changes tend to be conservative ones. If it's not broke, don't fix it – doing so may lead to unintended consequences. LK (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a few points I'd want to take issue with; first, "The practical effect of whether or not a view is FRINGE is determining which if any articles should give any due weight to the view" isn't entirely accurate. WP:FRINGE views are also given their due weight.  It means that the weight due to them is often minimal (and, in some contexts, none), but it doesn't mean that they're always completely ignored.  It's important to make it clear that WP:FRINGE is making a statement about the weight that is due to them and not saying that they're denied the weight they would 'otherwise' be due.  Second, you left out the key point that what decides whether a view is WP:FRINGE or not is based on the reliable sources; this might seem obvious, but it's one of the main reasons WP:FRINGE is a policy, because the most thorny issues of determining due weight are ones where a theory has significant numbers of adherents among unreliable sources -- eg. opposition to evolution remains WP:FRINGE regardless of poll numbers among the general public; similarly, no number of 9/11 conspiracy theory videos on Youtube can make that theory non-fringe, and no number of personal webpages on a fringe medical treatment can make it non-fringe.  Third, likewise, when acceptance is characterized, it has to be done using reliable sources, based on the coverage in reliable sources; if reliable sources talk about a theory, but only dismissively or only mentioning it in passing, that might be enough to mention it, but any coverage in article text would have to make clear that it's dismissed and would have to avoid devoting more text or weight to it than it is given in those sources...  a fringe theory or viewpoint that only gets a sentence or two in most mainstream coverage should only get a sentence or two in corresponding articles.  --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Opposition to evolution is not WP:FRINGE because of its coverage in unreliable sources. Its not WP:FRINGE because of its lack of coverage in reliable sources.  Its WP:FRINGE because reliable sources actively controvert the opposition to evolution.  Silence does not make an argument fringe. Silence is here Silence and consensus and is from qui tacet consentire videtur.  A WP:FRINGE theory must be actively controverted in reliable sources in overwhelming fashion.  Einstein's views weren't fringe even when they couldn't be proven and even when other scientists were mildly opposed or questioning.  It didn't matter how many Newtonian physics papers were published before and the weighted average of different views was meaningless.  It was not fringe simply because opposition was absent and silent.  This is true for all our Fringe theories.  They are not just ignored, they are opposed in reliable sources.  It is one thing to apply due weight based on reliable sources as part of our article coverage, but it is quite another to decide that the weight determines WP:FRINGE when sources are silent on the matter.  This is why WP:FRINGE is also a content guideline, not a policy.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that "a WP:FRINGE theory must be actively controverted in reliable sources in overwhelming fashion" in strongest possible terms. To me, that would undercut the core purpose of this policy.  A theory that lacks any coverage whatsoever among mainstream sources is manifestly WP:FRINGE, and this has always been how the policy has been applied; suggesting otherwise strikes me as absurd.  If someone comes to a page with a theory about a medical treatment that has only been covered in obscure alternative journals, that theory is WP:FRINGE, and I believe that labeling it as such is one of the core reasons we have WP:FRINGE as a policy.  --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DHeyward, that's the kind of policy-wonking I expect from wikipedia. By that logic a guy on youtube claiming the moon is a hologram doesn't satisfy fringe because no reliable source actively disputes it. No, clearly the guy is a nutter and it's on the lunatic fringe. Not every view which is covered by WP:FRINGE is going to have reliable sources covering it because sometimes no one is going to bother to refute stupid things. Wikipedia does not include fringe nonsense that isn't covered by reliable sources because it's too fringe to be here. It doesn't satisfy WP:NFRINGE (for article creation) and WP:PROFRINGE/WP:FRINGELEVEL.
 * "Einstein's views weren't fringe even when ..." If no sources were reporting Einstein's theories, Wikipedia wouldn't. That's because it's a fringe view until it enters the mainstream. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a newspaper. It's going to reflect the mainstream scientific consensus.
 * . This is why WP:FRINGE is also a content guideline, not a policy No it's not. It's a guideline because it's a guideline on how to follow policy in a specific topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Another option
Thinking about all this further... would the following (in bold) resolve the issue? I think this is a slightly more accurate definition. Fringe isn't really defined by what a theory says... but by how accepted it is. Two competing theories may well be radically different, and yet both may be accepted as valid by the mainstream... on the other hand, two theories may be quite similar - and yet one may be accepted by the mainstream, while other is not. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea with a level of acceptance that departs significantly from that of the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.


 * I would write it more in an active voice such as We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea with a level of rejection that is widely shared by the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. --DHeyward (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 9/11 fringe theories, for example, were addressed specifically by the NIST and other reports. Kennedy Assassination fringe theories were addressed by various bodies and explicitly rejected.  I think it has to be active and we should need sources that reject the particular theory before we, as Wikipedia, denounce it as fringe (and by corollary, the holders of those views).  In hard sciences, it's usually easier but in social sciences it is more difficult and more likely to be used to exploit one point of view over another.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with requiring "active rejection" is that many Fringe theories (especially the more outragious conspiracy theories) are so fringe that no one bothers to actively reject them. They are simply ignored.  I would not favor something that prevented us from calling them fringe.  Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is precisely why I have misgivings about FRINGE. Sometimes the salient point is just that a topic lacks notability. Sometimes it lacks acceptance, or verifiable sources, or is promotional, etc. Spilling a lot of ink over whether its fringe or not tends to be a distraction. Rhoark (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Active rejection is not required for WP:FRINGE; as I said above, a theory about a medical treatment that has only been covered in obscure alternative journals, and has had no coverage elsewhere, is unambiguously WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a counterpoint, there was recently this case of a PhD dissertation. I don't think that should be called fringe just because it hasn't garnered a lot of attention. That's why I think coherence or compatibility with the essential assumptions and methods of the field should be the principal standard. Rhoark (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A PHD dissertation from a reputable, mainstream institution, would at least have the potential to move it out fringe, though we'd have to consider how severely it contradicts the mainstream (if at all) and other similar things. However, if that one publication was from an alternative journal of medicine (one far out of the mainstream, one that wasn't a reputable source), it would definitely be WP:FRINGE, regardless of whether or not we had other sources saying it was.  To me, the main point of WP:FRINGE is to avoid giving excessive attention to eg. alternative medical views that are popular among adherents but which attract no attention elsewhere, which would be undermined under your insistence that it should only cover views that have been explicitly dismissed as fringe. --Aquillion (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Explicit rejection was DHeyward's suggestion. What I'm saying is essentially what you've said with "we'd have to consider how severely it contradicts the mainstream (if at all)". Rhoark (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from a so-far uninvolved editor who only met FRINGE in the last four months
Came to this page from a current contentious RfC, where FRINGE is used broadly and quite liberally as an all-purpose tool to cast doubt and devalue, with comments like, "FRINGEy as it gets" aimed at simple discussion points that do not advocate for any sort of minority view. From my experience with its use so far, I agree with the original poster's comment:


 * "it has come to be used by editors in ways that are less productive. Particularly, its often treated as a sort of special double-plus WP:UNDUE"

This is exactly my experience. Furthermore, there seems to be what I have come to call a debunker approach, where the underlying reasoning is that the current general public distrust of "science" (as evidenced by various polls, movements against what is considered scientifically supported, and so forth), must be actively countered in Wikipedia's voice, for the good of all, a kind of by any means nececessary/means justifies the end attitude. (This approach seems to be mirrored by contentious editing around MEDS topics as well, there, pointing to MEDRS.)

The result, which I have observed in several articles recently, is intense argument from position with little or no attempt at collaboration from the outset, much citing of policy (often loosely and imperfectly), gutting of articles (removing sources and content as unverified, to the point where the article is essentially information-poor and barely readable), reorganization of articles to create substandard articles that essentially bury key information, and blocking article change through endless RfCs, noticeboard queries, and other procedural activities.

This is no revelation, however, from what I have seen in just a short while, in the trenches as it were, as an editor with no agenda, who enjoys general editing and reacts to apparent bias and ownership when encountered, this over-the-top approach to ensuring some editors' personal idea of how exactly Wikipedia must present the "scientific view" is unsustainable, and it or its consequences will sooner or later have to be dealt with.

As it is, one or two editors can largely on their own hijack articles and block change, in large part by appealing to FRINGE. Scrutinizing and clarifying FRINGE-related policy and guidelines, and providing balancing instruction for inappropriate skeptic/debunk editor behavior, is in my opinion quite urgently required. --Tsavage (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which RfC is that? Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which RfC is not important to my comment, I am here posting my general opinion on the topic, not referring to a particular instance or supporting a specific charge. If other editors disagree with my descriptions or assessments, as presented, that is the point of discussion.


 * To make it clear, my overarching concern is the aggressive skeptic/debunker editing approach used in a range of articles: FRINGE is one tool. --Tsavage (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actual examples rather than abstract handwaving are informative. The suggestion is FRINGE is being used inappropriately (and yes, folks come here with dud cases from time to time). So, which RfC is it please? ... Google couldn't find the text you quoted on Wikipedia except from a comment in 2010, which seems odd. The point is: is this a real problem or something being worked up to try and weaken our defenses against guff? Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a typical filibustering tactic common to what I am talking about, in this case, trying to draw a general comment, set in a thread where the topic is already being discussed on a broad level, to specifics that of themselves are largely irrelevant, and then drill down on the detail. If there is only this one example you are so industriously seeking, then I hardly have a point. And if I wanted, or the discussion indicated, enough examples to illustrate a trend or pattern, that is another case not at hand - that in due course. (Meanwhile, if you're implying that I am...lying, the comment in question is verbatim from an edit summary from today - I'm sure you can locate it with that information. And if you'd like to post an example of the general obstructionist skeptic/debunk behavior I am referring to, you are currently involved in a discussion with me, to which you're free to post a link.) --Tsavage (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking for evidence is not a 'filibustering tactic'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it was this edit, and in the edit summary. But as it happens this is a correct use of the word fringe. There are some loony-tunes things being said in that RfC and correctly calling them out is commendable. I don't see any support for 's case from this example; quite the reverse. Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're making my filibustering point, zeroing on a single example, and arguing it, as if that negates my entire comment, which has to do with a broader phenomenon, not isolated single instances. So first, you imply I'm using ancient or made-up data, now, that not being the case, you're attacking this one instance. Fine:
 * the very use of the phrase '"FRINGEy as it gets" indicates the non-specific use of the term to cast editors, viewpoints, associations, comments, in a generally negative light, somehow devaluing them and their comments by ascribing them to fringe theories.
 * the edit summary refers to this edit: "The claim that statements by the AMA or AAAS are advocacy is as WP:FRINGE a statement as it gets. Thank you for locating your stance." Meanwhile, the AMA IS an advocacy group, in the AMA's own words: "The AMA is aggressively involved in advocacy efforts related to the most vital issues in medicine today. It advocates for physicians wages, malpractice and so forth, also public health, truth in advertising, nearly 50 areas itemized, it supports political positions like the War on Drugs in the 1990s where it provided an opinion on the negative effects of marijuana, and it has one of the best-funded Washington lobbies (all from our AMA article).
 * To call someone saying that a particular announcement by the AMA is advocacy is neither novel nor unfounded, and at worst, an opinion, not a fringe theory.
 * Meanwhile, the AAAS position paper was released as a public statement advocating against GM labeling, and arguing non-scientific considerations like "the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm." Calling this advocacy is more than reasonable, it is what it is. None of this is questioning "science," or the general nature or mainstream stature of these organizations, simply pointing out that they are not dispassionate scientific reporters, they do advocate, like any other advocacy group. FRINGE does not apply here.
 * That illustrates an instance of the blunt, unfounded use of FRINGE, exactly as portrayed in my initial post. You can search through for more in that RfC if you like, they are to be found. --Tsavage (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes ... right ... so, reading more, you're saying there that a report published by a council of the AMA can be dismissed on the grounds that it is "advocacy". Well, that's as FRINGEy as it get, alright (and I thought you claimed to be uninvoved in this!) Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were actually following the RfC (which is there, not here), the issue is not dismissal, it is using the sources in question as reliable, independent support for a claim of scientific consensus about GM food safety (WP:RS/AC. Where do you get dismissal of sources from that? And you misrepresent "uninvolved," which refers to direct discussion of this guideline, WP:FRINGE (this use of varying scope for "uninvolved" happens to be another...tactic :). --Tsavage (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GMO foods are a curious case, since opposition to the scientific mainstream is itself mainstream in the general public. The due weight shifts depending on whether its being discussed as a physical phenomenon or as a matter of public policy. It's a potentially useful case study for this thread, but please try not to proxy the RfC. Rhoark (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, re not proxying the RfC. This TYPE of discussion is appears as a tactic central to the FRINGE-skeptic/debunker problem I see: arguing endlessly over points taken out of context, while ignoring the actual substance. Look where this thread has gone on that basis: unfounded claims, necessarily refuted, pursued as an argument about whether statements from AMA councils can be considered advocacy, to support contention the "FRINGEy as it gets" is a blunt and nonspecific use of the term.
 * Also agree, GM as opposed to flat earth is a "curious case," but the same sort of dichotomy between public and science is evident in a broad range of concerns that are Wikipedia problem areas, like alternative medicine, and medical topics that include pharmaceuticals and the companies that produce them. So we have this battleground as it were across many of the topics likely of high interest to the general reader. --Tsavage (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An argument against misuse of WP:FRINGE (which I remain to be convinced happens much) is not the same as an argument against WP:FRINGE itself. One might as well say that since WP:NPOV is abused (which it often is), there is a problem with WP:NPOV. Fact is, some PAGs such as WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS act as valuable bulwarks against crappy content. Alexbrn (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One critical difference between WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV, is that the former are extensions of the last, of policies, intended to clarify and make more plain to understand and follow, the intent of NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, but not to add new and novel directions or restrictions or editing behaviors that supersede core policy. If there is misuse of WP:FRINGE, examining how it extends and alters the policies it is based on is a logical step.
 * WP:FRINGE already contains some cautionary language to this effect, like "ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong ... the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy." If a pattern of misuse does surface, perhaps additional cautionary language is part of the remedy. --Tsavage (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The claim TSavage is making at the GMO RfC is a) that the stances of the AAAS and the AMA are "advocacy" and b) they should somehow be put on par with the advocacy of a FRINGE group, ENNSER (a few dissident scientists who say there is no scientific consensus on the relative safety of food from GMOs). Putting the pillars of the american scientific and medical establishment on par with a FRINGE group... is a FRINGE stance.  A violation of WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL - Wikipedia stands on science and not on the claims of lunatic charlatans. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Tsavage, this phenomenon you speak of may very well be related to the Guerrilla Skeptics movement, which is discussed at the bottom of this section ("Wising up to astroturfing").
 * Jdog is misrepresenting the facts. ENNSER published a paper signed by 300+ scientists that supports the fact that no scientific consensus exists with regard to the safety of eating GM food. This same paper detailed the reasons why SC cannot be claimed at this time, and pointed specifically to the Wikipedia page on Genetically Modified Food, calling the editors out for misrepresenting science. A consensus cannot exist when, according to the singular review done to date on this issue, half of the studies show there is reason for concern. Jdog has used as support for his claim of SC a paper from the AAAS which was not written by scientists, but by a few members of the board in an effort to counter GMO-labeling. The advocacy positions of both groups is discussed further here. Worse, the WHO and FAO have been misrepresented as sources supporting a consensus (see comments here). The AMA is also being misused to support a SC claim. Here is what is says:  "FDA’s science-based labeling policies do not support special labeling without evidence of material differences between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The Council supports this science-based approach, and believes that thorough pre-market safety assessment and the FDA’s requirement that any material difference between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts be disclosed in labeling, are effective in ensuring the safety of bioengineered food. To better characterize the potential harms of bioengineered foods, the Council believes that permarket safety assessment should shift from a voluntary notification process to a mandatory requirement. You can wikilawyer all day long, but the misuse of sources is egregious in this case and the claim of SC unsupported.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop pushing this discussion off-topic and into inappropriate areas for this Talk page. You're arguing the RfC here: editors can check it out as they please. Meanwhile, you're constructing an argument for me that I never made. I have never mentioned ENNSER, not even particularly familiar with them. My participation in that RfC is based entirely on first, questioning 18 citations to support a statement of scientific consensus, and then, in the ensuing protracted discussion, evaluating certain individual sources, and not all 18. Each source is different. The AAAS source was publicly criticized, and, as I mentioned, was not a review of scientific literature, nor strictly confined to science. The AMA citation I didn't examine in detail, and I never commented on it. And the comments referred to here were only to refute your claim that calling AMA or AAAS statements advocacy was categorically "FRINGEy," a claim made not against me but another editor.
 * We are well and truly off-point now, yet nothing substantive has been said, and only an RfC from elsewhere has been inserted here. --Tsavage (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree the GMO topic is an interesting case study in FRINGE, especially how we see a lot of the same tactics used in evolution, global warming, etc. to say there isn't a consensus, it's starting to look like this conversation is just primed to become very WP:POINTy for certain editors here coming from the GMO RfC wanting to make changes. Best to keep that guideline in mind if anything is actually going to be productive here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all getting a bit WP:CGTW No 8. Alexbrn (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * and OK, the line now seems to be that, somehow displeased by an RfC, I have come to a guideline page hoping to make changes here, based on ego and desire to have my POV prevail, that will somehow re-engineer perceived setbacks in said RfC? Nice push to the off-topic!
 * For the record (and this is actually mostly on-point): The fact is, as I stated here originally, I've recently encountered this aggressive debunker approach on several pages, my activities as an editor have been entirely blocked with tactics I have come to see as an editing pattern, with FRINGE and PSEUDOSCIENCE, as well as a general holding up of the science/EBM banner to justify extreme editing approaches (mentioned above), being a common denominator. Maybe this is limited, but something is happening, and it is affecting high-profile topics and articles. So I've gone from being a sometime just-the-content editor (with a brief break as a Featured Article Candidate reviewer years ago), to an involved Talk page participant arguing PAGs as much as content (new in the last 4-5 months), to coming to the conclusion that the problem or solution maybe lies higher, in the PAGs that are being cited as basis for this ownership/debunk editing approach. Why I'm here is as simple as that. And I'm curious as anyone to see how that RfC will be closed. --Tsavage (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @: I recall a comment I read once that everyone has at least some views which Wikipedia considers fringe, and so there will always be some articles or topic areas where we feel that our own viewpoint is being unfairly excluded or minimized. I think many of the objections to FRINGE come from people who don't realize this. It comes up since these are often topics that we're motivated to edit; as an example, there are probably some editors here who would object to Christ myth theory. I haven't looked much into that specific topic, or indeed any of those that I think might possibly apply to me, because I try to leave them to other editors whenever possible. The idea is that if I'm right, someone more neutral will do a better job, and if I'm wrong I'll save all the time I would have spent trying to argue against consensus (or worse, I'll succeed and it will result in poor articles). <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 07:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a nice story, meanwhile, try to read the article we've both just been discussing. Does that fit your outline, as far as the arguments and resistance advanced for non-change and reorganization? Try a usability test: does the ToC seem appropriate for a general interest article? Can you easily find basic information you'd expect? Are there sections that seem more detailed and technical than others for no apparent reason? These are basic readability checks for a general encyclopedia, especially for high-level overview articles. Then examine the Talk page for editor issues and what has become of them. You know, perhaps I've stumbled into the aggressive editing style of primarily a single editor, operating on multiple articles in the same subject area, with a number of unaffiliated supporters who can nonetheless be counted on to show up at FRINGE-framed disputes and generally take whatever is set up as the anti-FRINGE side. There's a hypothesis... --Tsavage (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a conspiracy theory. The place where you are, is what happens when you throw WP:AGF out the window. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, Tsavage.  Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you've missed the point of my comment if you're interpreting it as a story. "I recall a comment I read once" is just to indicate that the idea I presented isn't my own. How are your questions about the article relevant to the fringe guideline? If you're suggesting that the article is poor quality because of FRINGE-related misbehavior, then please identify what that misbehavior is. (A group of editors having similar opinions is not misbehavior, though...) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It was a figure of speech, in that it would be nice and neat and relatively non-contentious if perceived problems with FRINGE arose from editors who are innocently not in touch with their personal biases. Unfortunately for that view, the editors I've encountered on all sides seem alert and precisely aware of what they are doing.


 * You apparently did not understand my answer. Maybe the miscommunication is due to a consideration Blueboar brought up further down: I am talking about using FRINGE/PSCI guidance as the driving force behind efforts to edit articles in a particular way, as opposed to determining what might be labeled FRINGE in-article. There's a big difference. It's usually easy to identify minority view content, while the way it is covered can range from sensibly balanced and informative and fully compliant with WP:NPOV, to something that resembles one of those redacted documents that show only every fourth word. That is what my usability testing suggestion was about, because an article has to be readable to be of value, and editing in an anti-FRINGE environment can be like wading through sludge, and makes maintaining readability...difficult.


 * This obviously does not have to do with simply identifying minority viewpoints and the creating the language to describe them using WP:FRINGE for guidance, it's about imposing an extreme form of FRINGE-proofing that affects entire articles - how they are written, what they contain, how they are maintained - in a manner that I believe violates WP:NPOV in the most basic way.


 * To be clear, at this point I have observed what seems to be a problem with editing, see that other editors appear to have encountered similar things, and I'm now simply exploring, gathering information, hopefully through simple discussion, as part of my Wikipedia contribution. --Tsavage (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've replied below. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, we aim to cover scientific issues according to mainstream scientific thought. If the public at large have misconceptions about something, they should be addressed rather than just left. To quote Jimbo Wales on pseudoscience: "If you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. ... What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”." We shouldn't be pretending nonsense isn't nonsense in the wikipedia tone, or imply something by not setting statements in context. 

"one or two editors can largely on their own hijack articles and block change, in large part by appealing to FRINGE" If the changes are poor, blocking the changes is a good thing. Undue changes or those that fall afoul of fringe should not make it through. They are making articles worse, not better.

"GMO foods are a curious case, since opposition to the scientific mainstream is itself mainstream in the general public." No, that's not that unique. A lot of pseudoscientific positions are like that, just look at creationism or Alt Med. For WP:FRINGE what really matters is not putting any pseudoscience or fringe science in wikipedia without putting it in the context of the actual science, i.e making it clear that it's not generally accepted.

I don't get what the purpose of this discussion. It seems people are promoting a fringe point of view and are annoyed that policy is being used correctly. Boo hoo. Second Quantization (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "It seems people are promoting a fringe point of view and are annoyed that policy is being used correctly. Boo hoo." Not the point at all. It is one thing to cite defense against extreme theories of the flat earth nature, and another to look at articles on mainstream topics that bury information and manipulate language to actively promote the dominance of "science," rather than present the facts neutrally and with all viewpoints properly weighted, in readable language suitable to our general target audience. But I see that the same endless debate is likely to go on here as it is on an article Talk page, and citing examples in detail will only fuel a larger boondoggle. So it's a puzzle. The problem is clearly evident; lone editors are not likely to have an effect, I guess it is up to more editors to step up and express their views in civil, rational, non-disruptive terms, persistently. --Tsavage (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * to actively promote the dominance of "science," What does that even mean? A neutral summary means of an issue means excluding fringe views and only including mainstream views except if the fringe view is relevant for other reasons (i.e sources discuss them a lot). Mainstream here means scientific mainstream if it's a scientific issue, historical if it's history and so on. The purpose of existing policies is not to equate the opinions of some nutters with that of a scientific consensus. This is an encyclopedia, and a mainstream one, it follows the mainstream opinion of scientists, historians, mathematicians etc. Sometimes the extreme minority views (as dictated by the frequency of the view amongt the relevant body of experts) are mentioned if they are particularly prominent in the sources, but they are put into context with respect to the mainstream. Second Quantization (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What I've surmised from the comments by TSavage is a legitimate request to analyze what appears to be a blatant advocacy that shows all the signs of being noncompliant with NPOV. What ends up happening is censorship of important encyclopedic information because the advocacy truly believes they know what's best for the world, and can label information Fringe if they so desire.  WP is not the world's parent.  It's not our job to prevent readers from knowing anything other than what science presents to them, the latter being presented strictly on the POV of a small group of editors which is already a red flag.  It's our job to provide general knowledge about everything.  Advocacies dominate based on the size and clout of the membership comprising the advocacy.  They probably really do believe they are keeping readers safe from learning about things that are bad for them or anything that goes beyond what science says they need to know, or what science believes is safe.  We all know that's a big crock and it belongs right up there with dreams of utopian societies.  Regardless, that isn't the encyclopedia's job and WP should not be used to promote a particular POV whatever that view may be.  I strongly believe in accuracy regardless of what we write about, but I oppose censorship and any attempts to protect suites of articles that only certain editors who support a particular POV are allowed to edit.  The same applies to instances where a group of editors swoops down on an article to discredit it because it doesn't follow in line with their advocacy.  Preventing inclusion of material because one group says it isn't mainstream is actually noncompliant with NPOV.  Even when a subject is supported by science, there's a good chance it will be dismissed by the simple misapplication of Fringe and MEDRS, but that only happens if it's in conflict with the group who controls consensus at the time, as with the prevailing skeptic view that appears to be dominating WP in an effort to right the great wrongs.  I had no trouble understanding the gist of this discussion and it definitely has merit.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I see you stalked me here. Don't do that. Your anti-science comments are bizarre. "Preventing inclusion of material because one group says it isn't mainstream is actually noncompliant with NPOV", erm no. What sort of bizarre reading of NPOV is that. If that group is the scientific mainstream or consistent with it, then no that is categorically not the case since that's NPOV explicitly says to proprotion weight to the mainstream. Read the policies instead of inventing your own ones. Second Quantization (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * RE: Atsme: it is ABSOLUTELY our duty to prevent wingnut ideas from being presented as anything other than wingnut ideas. It is also our duty to prevent the actual facts from being pushed out of its actual prominence by wingnut ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What does that even mean? I detailed that in my opening post, please feel free to scroll up. You seem to have a binary view of the situation - mainstream-fringe, inclusion-exclusion - whereas writing a general encyclopedia involves creating a narratives that invites easy comprehension and assimilation. Try actually reading some of the articles we know we're talking about (try performing a quick usability test to find info you'd expect to find with ease). If you don't see the problems or where they originate, it still does not mean they are not there. There's more to article creation than collections of facts without proper context, and patchworks of negotiated "balance" that are barely readable. In any case, thanks for your replies, but without specific examples, we've already gone circular. I completely understand your position, and agree with it, as far as it goes, however, it does not take into account article usability from the end user's perspective, which in these certain cases seems to be being compromised, and is ultimately why we're all here. --Tsavage (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs to be said: there is a group known as GSoW (Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia) operating on WP. It is well-organized, militant, very popular, and completely WP-legal. Recent changes in the editing atmosphere at WP seem to make more sense when this fact is considered. If you're near Vegas, you can learn more at this upcoming workshop July 19 @ 4PM ;)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with the skeptical viewpoint, but I would not join the Guerrilla Skeptics because I am my own man and do not like to be told what to write about. Also, they are mostly busy with Who's Who among skeptics, which seems to me like a trivial interest, but I do follow skeptic publications on pseudoscience and quackery. Why? Because I am frankly horrified by the chain mails which apparently intelligent people send each other through the internet, mostly dealing with health issues, evidence for miracles, bizarre theological beliefs, conspiracy theories or a combination of these. I think it is a tragedy that these people lack critical thinking skills. But I wouldn't like of being associated with a clique, even if for the purposes of Wikipedia it isn't a biased clique (or it has the right kind of bias, because according to Mertonian norms science is organized skepticism). Should Wikipedia take the mainstream view? Definitely, that's what a serious encyclopedia would do. There are ways to find out what the mainstream view is in respect to a given subject, and if we would not take that view, Wikipedia would simply fall apart due to advocacy for competing interests. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I bring up the group in this thread is that I believe it relates directly to the somewhat recent phenomenon I would categorize as WP's obsession with "Fringe!!" As for the misuse of the term in order to win content disputes by discrediting an opponent's argument or sources, that is another issue which has not been properly addressed. A skeptical mind makes the best editor, however becoming a gang, organizing off wiki, and the resulting ownership of articles, talk pages and noticeboards where an independent editor has no hope, makes for a frustrating and confusing experience, as well as a biased encyclopedia. There is an unwritten agreement that all WP editors will edit with a NPOV (suspending our innate POV whilst logged in) - but this has been upended by the seemingly accepted POV of the QuackWatchers/GSoW, which does match the POV of the co-founder of WP and at least 4 very active admins, so I don't see this situation undergoing any serious challenge.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Meh. You're giving yourself too much credit, SC.  I have absolutely no interest in you.  I'm stalking  who is on my WL because I absolutely enjoy reading his comments.  He's such an eloquent writer and gets the point across beautifully.  Try reading what he has to say.  You may actually learn something.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Accepting "readability" as a valid trade-off for "factual presentation" is not a deal worth taking. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Where there's a clear consensus of scholarship, that should take priority in the article. It's not correct for the article to say there's a consensus without a source to support that claim specifically, but if editors perceive there to be a consensus, they should edit and assign due weight according to that consensus. It's not original research in that case. Rhoark (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just realized that people are conflating two distinct issues in this thread: a) Editors stating that X is "fringe" - in a talk page discussion" and b) Articles using the label "Fringe" to describe X.  Let's be clear as to which of these we are talking about, because they are not the same thing at all. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@: In response to your comment above, I have a number of questions to try and clarify your position if you're interested in continuing. I agree that nothing should get in the way of improving articles, though of course editors' opinions will differ on what that means. It's still not clear to me precisely what you think the issue is, e.g. I don't see the connection you're making between enforcement of FRINGE and a) poorly organized or b) non-neutral articles. Of course, FRINGE is written to help us comply with NPOV rather than to violate it - specifically, it includes (among other things) guidance on how to be neutral when dealing with fringe topics. With regard to "driving force behind efforts to edit articles in a particular way," of course the entire article needs to be compatible with FRINGE (and also NPOV and all the other policies and guidelines), so I think a description of what you mean would be useful for that as well.

Whether a viewpoint is fringe or not can be disputed, but let's take for example Homeopathy, an article which has had a stable consensus for a long time and is generally compliant with FRINGE. Do you have any objections to that article? If not, which of the differences between that article and Genetically modified food is responsible for your concerns? Even if you're only objecting to a specific editing style, we should still be able to identify differences in article content resulting from it. I can think of a few possibilities, e.g. the fringe subject being the article topic, but I can also think of responses. Or, alternatively, is your position solely that the food safety viewpoints in question are not actually fringe? - that is, if you were to agree that they are fringe, you would also agree that they are being treated appropriately? Thanks, <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this will clarify my concern, and answer your questions:
 * I agree that nothing should get in the way of improving articles This is by definition (WP:PAG) the baseline common ground and goal for all editors; nothing trumps this.


 * I don't see the connection you're making between enforcement of FRINGE and a) poorly organized or b) non-neutral articles I've explained this: the common case I've observed is citing FRINGE/PSCI to support claims of undue weight, in order to affect what content is included, and how it is presented: "including X would be giving it undue weight"; "wording X this way would be giving it undue weight"; "not wording X this way would be giving less weight than it requires" and so forth. The method, open to legitimate use and to abuse, is:
 * 1. establish the mainstream view (usually not difficult through RS);
 * 2. establish the FRINGE view (usually not difficult through insufficient RS and/or RS describing the position as FRINGE);
 * 3. make sure the mainstream view stands out, and the FRINGE view does not (open to a wide range of interpretations and article outcomes).


 * Case 1: In cases where, despite clear RS evidence, what is mainstream and what is FRINGE is still argued, that is unto itself, and not what I am referring to here.


 * Case 2: In cases where there is dispute over whether a minority view is a FRINGE view, that is still unto itself, and not what I am directly referring to here.


 * Case 3: In cases where there is no dispute over what is mainstream and FRINGE (or simply minority), but there is disagreement over how to present proper balance in the article AND where enforcing a certain notion of balance contributes significantly to "a) poorly organized or b) non-neutral articles," undue weight, therefore violation of WP:NPOV, can result from tipping the balance too far in EITHER direction - here, I am referring to overemphasizing - giving undue weight to - the anti-FRINGE (mainstream) view.


 * Separating Case 3 from Case 1 and Case 2 is critical in order to avoid situations where editors are being accused of FRINGE-pushing when they are attempting to adjust content towards better presentation of the overall subject (as opposed to arguing against what is reasonably established through sources as mainstream and FRINGE/minority). Conflating the cases can result in biased discussion, where particularly less involved editors (as found in RfCs) are guided towards opposing what is framed and perceived as a FRINGE stance, when in fact the discussion is about basic policy-based content issues like sourcing and representing all notable/noteworthy views and related information.


 * The idea that giving due weight is a delicate task is at times exaggerated to influence content decisions. Stating, "This is the generally accepted mainstream view[1], and this is the FRINGE/PSCI/minority view[2]," is really all it takes to establish balance; given that simple declaration, it is reasonable to assume that most readers have then been provided with sufficient and appropriate information and framing with which to consider other information - editing to encourage readers to interpret content in a certain way is not legitimate. Subsequent activities like:
 * incorporating contentious strong wording (like consensus statements) to beef up the mainstream statement;
 * suppressing sourced material because it is claimed to give undue weight to the FRINGE view;
 * enforcing particular section titling and content location to "maintain balance,";
 * countering every mention of a FRINGE aspect with a greater number of words proximately located to counter that mention;
 * ...and so on, does not automatically follow from WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE. Concerns like excessive coverage of particular items within an article can and should be addressed in terms of article quality, not as violations of FRINGE policy to be remedied by overpromotion of anti-FRINGE/PSCI views. Neutrality ultimately demands that we present all of the verifiable information appropriate to a readable, comprehensive article written in straightforward, non-technical language - due weighting is intrinsically part of that aim.


 * As for the form of usability testing I proposed, unlike broader Good Article or Featured Article criteria, checking articles to see whether they deliver what most editors can agree is basic information for an article, is an uncomplicated and useful test of readability, comprehensiveness and balance issues. For example, in the Genetically modified foods example mentioned several times here, would most editors agree that obvious general questions like:
 * What percentage of food around the world is GM right now?
 * Is GM food regulation more or less the same everywhere, if not, what are the general differences?
 * Why is there significant public concern over GM food?
 * ...are a0nswered: is the information clearly stated and easy to locate? If not, there is a problem with article quality, and improvement is the clear and well-defined immediate next step. Discussing content in terms of hypothetical reader questions, and whether they are cleanly answered in the article, is a more objective and effective approach to overall editorial assessment than trying to argue due weight as a rule-based abstraction. -Tsavage (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please answer my questions directly? You've done that for one question (in great detail), for which the core point seems to be that you think fringe views are being marginalized more than is warranted - if there are others, can you provide a concise summary? I've also asked several other questions (two explicitly and a couple more are implied), and I think you're trying to address them indirectly, but straightforward answers would be appreciated. Thanks, <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 04:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Our discussion here doesn't seem to be headed anywhere useful, as you are asking many questions but don't seem any closer to showing any sign of understanding what I'm getting at:


 * the core point seems to be that you think fringe views are being marginalized more than is warranted That is exactly what the core point is not: see my Case 1, Case 2, Case 3. If it can be boiled down into a pithy one-liner, the core point is that FRINGE is being used to subvert non-WP:FRINGE content. Another editor put it well earlier in the main discussion: the overwhelming frequency with which the word "fringe" is used as a rhetorical bludgeon. It's an extremely attractive implement, since it can be used to exclude an opposing viewpoint while offering no bright-line defenses, on account of open-ended wording - that may have been referring more specifically to actual viewpoints, I'm saying the same behavior extends to non-controversial material, where overall article structure and content are affected by anti-FRINGE editing activity.


 * I've also asked several other questions (two explicitly and a couple more are implied), and I think you're trying to address them indirectly, but straightforward answers would be appreciated. I don't see the relevance of comparing Homeopathy and Genetically modified food - on what basis, what for? --Tsavage (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your descriptions of the cases, and the discussions in the following paragraphs, mostly don't make sense to me. (For example, what is the connection between the cases and the preceding paragraph?) I gather that you think case 3 is the most important, but it's an excessively long runon sentence which appears to include separate assertions and vague references to other points that aren't explained. (For example, what is the "certain notion"?) I also assumed that you intended to include the GM food page in case 3 - and given that it says there is no dispute over fringe status in this category, that leads to my interpretation of your core point. But that part isn't clear either, since e.g. on that page you consistently object to editors characterizing the viewpoints in question as fringe, and not to the editors who claim they aren't fringe. AFAICT you haven't taken an explicit position on fringe status, but it seems that your analysis would need to account for that.
 * In answer to the specific question, there are other subjects besides that particular comparison. For that particular case, the two articles are both have to address fringe subjects, and one of them is agreed to be well-written. As such, describing the key differences between them (as you see it) could help you in communicating your position. I have no doubt that you do mean something in your response, and I could probably figure it out eventually, but I'd need to spend a couple of hours in a literary analysis where I parse out all the dependent and subdependent clauses and make educated guesses about the intended meaning. Thus my request for straightforwardness. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've managed an entire extended reply that doesn't at all address the discussion topic, only manages to a kind of mildly ad hominem argument, along the lines of, "your writing style is so bad, your point is indecipherable":
 * it's an excessively long runon sentence which appears to include separate assertions and vague references to other points that aren't explained Nice. You STILL don't understand because the sentence is too long. And vague. If you had managed to make it to the end of that sentence, it does have a conclusion, a self-summarizing feature which says:
 * I am referring to overemphasizing - giving undue weight to - the anti-FRINGE (mainstream) view.
 * Pressed, I re-summarized in the previous reply:
 * the core point is that FRINGE is being used to subvert non-WP:FRINGE content
 * So you curiously seem to be cherrypicking some things you don't like about the writing style, while ignoring other things that you can't critique on that basis. And it's not like I'm referring to anything new. Looking back, the same problem I'm referring to was already in evidence in the first, formative days of this guideline, as in this Talk comment from July 2006:
 * Fringe status should not be conflated with irrelevant accusations regarding other editorial concerns. As we know from recent experience, such accusations can be opportunistically employed by those who misunderstand, miscategorize, or merely oppose a theory in order to suppress its Wikipedia article. (Wikipedia does not need the kind of guideline that might encourage this sort of thing to happen again.)
 * At that time, the FRINGE guideline was proposed to address only notability for article creation; its reach seems to have increased.
 * the two articles are both have to address fringe subjects, and one of them is agreed to be well-written Ahh, you're referring to Homeopathy as well-written - earlier, you only mentioned that it seemed to be stable, and offered your opinion that it is "generally compliant with FRINGE": well-written does not necessarily follow from that. In fact, I glanced at Homeopathy: it contains a lot of information that is well-sectioned, but I wouldn't call it well-written (I can explain why, but that is irrelevant here for the use you propose). Also, I don't agree with your characterization of Genetically modified food as addressing a "fringe subject" (if you're referring to food safety, it has yet to be shown in-artcle how safety concerns are a "FRINGE theory," rather than simply a prevalent public mistrust based on a number of non-FRINGE concerns). In any case, an article I consider well-written overall, that I gather has been FRINGE-contentious, and is now apparently stable, is Global warming; still, I don't see what a comparison with GM foods will do for this discussion.
 * There are now two brief and bolded takes on summarizing the issue I'm describing, as well as a historical version from an unconnected editor from long, long ago. Perhaps that all is sufficiently clear to allow for a direct response, without need for hours of literary analysis? --Tsavage (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage, that comment you quote from 2006... it is from this section and was written by an editor who worked almost exclusively on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (now redirected -- last version is here. A FRINGE theory if there ever was one.  If you looked at that editor's contribs you will see that they were here only 2006-2007 and the article above was pretty much the only reason they were here, and they went gonzo across several boards pushing and pushing to keep it and pursuing editors who sought to treat it per policy.   Their last post ever (on Jimbo's page) was making it clear they was working with the main proponent of the theory ("DrL") all along.  (grand, Reichstag-climbing appeals are another typical FRINGE-pusher behavior, btw)  So... yes, FRINGE-pushers almost always have a problem with this guideline.  They always say that their pet theory is not FRINGE and unfairly described as such.  Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The 2006 comment was quoted to help Sunrise avoid hours of literary analysis; in the context of the current discussion, it is perfectly self-contained: the words are clear and their meaning is not changed by your representation of the editor and subject as FRINGE. I am not a FRINGE advocate, and I'm saying the same thing. Meanwhile, the only direct replies here are, to summarize, "I don't understand what you're saying," and, "this is all just FRINGE-y." That's fine for now. --Tsavage (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm only addressing your writing style to the extent that it makes it difficult to understand your point, and my comments are considerably more than "I don't understand what you're saying." My previous comment was intended only as a description of some of the issues I see; I added a couple of specific questions to try and help, but (again) you haven't answered them. Yes, I'm only asking about a couple of points at a time; if you wish, you can call it cherrypicking, because I'm selecting the ones that I think are probably the most important. I could write out a couple dozen examples about that comment, but that would be the literary analysis I mentioned. To continue with the first of your bolded statements, "I am referring to overemphasizing...view" makes sense on its own, but one of the relevant issues is that it was introduced with the word "here" which has an ambiguous antecedent. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 02:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Try, "in this case," or alternatively, use the bolded summary above, which omits the offending antecedent. In any case, I don't think this particular discussion is heading anywhere useful, because I am referring to patterns of editing behavior, while the general argument against claims of misuse of WP:FRINGE focuses on single instances. Here's a comment I wrote and saved a couple of weeks ago, and hesitated to post for fear of...confusing things.

The following addition was recently made to the Genetically modified food article:


 * In 2015 the Obama administration announced that it would update the way the government regulated genetically modified crops.

The lead of the cited NY Times story reads:


 * The Obama administration said on Thursday that it would update the way the government regulated genetically modified crops and some other biotechnology products, saying that the nearly 30-year-old system had become outdated and confusing and did not foster public confidence.

The lead of the official White House statement, from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, reads:


 * In 1986, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, which outlined a comprehensive Federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology products. The Framework was updated in 1992. While the current regulatory system for biotechnology products effectively protects health and the environment, advances in science and technology since 1992 have been altering the product landscape.  In addition, the complexity of the array of regulations ... developed by the three Federal agencies with jurisdiction ... can make it difficult for the public to understand how the safety of biotechnology products is evaluated....

In a Regulation section that already says very little about regulation, and mostly discusses the US, we don't mention any of that detail. I considered adding the dates and something about "outdated and confusing," but didn't feel like testing the at least 50/50 chance of a battle that would start with reversion of my edit, supported by arguments like, "we don't give undue weight to regulations that have not yet passed into law," or whatever, whereupon I insist that the 1986/1992 dates are relevant basic information, countered by, "FRINGEy, POV pushing, undue weight, the most relevant is 'effectively protects health and the environment'." And so forth. If I undo the reversion, other editors are at hand to re-revert, and I'm up for edit warring. Meanwhile, basic, directly relevant, non-controversial facts are omitted. Additionally, in this case, the information that the US framework is up-to-date as of 1992 does not appear (at least, I couldn't find it), in the Regulation of genetic engineering and Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms articles either.

If you argue this is a hypothetical fantasy, I'm presenting it this way to avoid fingerpointing; simply browse the edit summaries and Talk pages of related articles for actual examples.

Once an item has been reverted and is on a Talk page, chances of it getting back in a FRINGE-overwatched article seem slim. The discussion is made to drag on, RfCs are called, noticeboards are petitioned for various details within the argument, and so forth. Stonewalling and filibustering. Lone editors have effectively zero chance. (I am referring to several situations like this that I have directly encountered in the last 4-5 months - I have little doubt others exist, so I'm looking as time permits.) Stll unclear? --Tsavage (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing that up here? Has nothing to do with FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I said,I am referring to patterns of editing behavior, while the general argument against claims of misuse of WP:FRINGE focuses on single instances. You are making my point when you say my example, this particular edit, Has nothing to do with FRINGE. To put the example in context, borrowing the words of another editor (above): With regard to "driving force behind efforts to edit articles in a particular way," of course the entire article needs to be compatible with FRINGE. --Tsavage (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How can an example that has nothing to do with FRINGE, be an example for things having to do with FRINGE? In any case, this Talk page is for discussing the FRINGE guideline, not editor behavior. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When an article has been identified as having a significant FRINGE/PSCI component, then everything in that article can be argued against not giving undue weight to the FRINGE viewpoint, which can include basic facts that can be seen as providing support to the FRINGE view. In the GM foods example, the general supposedly FRINGE aspect is that people believe that GM food is not safe, which goes against scientific evidence, so asserting that the regulatory framework governing GM foods was last updated nearly 25 years ago, before GM foods were even on the market, and that the US government currently acknowledges that technology has advanced since the 1992 update, and that the US' three-agency regulatory set-up is confusing to the point of not being able to reassure the public, could be perceived as supporting the mistrust of GM food, i.e., the FRINGE viewpoint, and therefore needs to be...muted or omitted.


 * Far as I can see, this is on-point for a discussion of the FRINGE guideline - a guideline Talk page is the appropriate forum for discussing the uses and effects of the guideline it refers to. And I am not discussing editor behavior, insofar as I am not suggesting anything beyond poor interpretation of the guideline in question; I am discussing in context committed edits that result in published content (my usability testing suggestion earlier is a simple way to highlight cases of content imbalance, by surfacing basic article questions that are not answered). It will all come together... :) --Tsavage (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Something can deserve great WEIGHT in one article in a set of related articles, and little to no WEIGHT in another. Has nothing to do with FRINGE per se. It has everything to do with article scope and curating article content per WP:SUMMARY and specifically the WP:SYNC portion of that. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When an article has been identified as having a significant FRINGE/PSCI component, then everything in that article can be argued against not giving undue weight to the FRINGE viewpoint ← not so. Homeopathy has a big fringe component, but (e.g.) that Samuel Hahnemann was born in Meissen has no fringe aspect, and is fair game for inclusion. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Something can deserve great WEIGHT in one article in a set of related articles, and little to no WEIGHT in another. Sure, and as it should be when properly applied; this approach can also be misapplied to obscure certain information, a possibility which I am exploring here. In the general case of WP:SUMMARY/WP:SYNC, determining what content should appear in which article can be perverted by a too-literal interpretation of that approach to daughter articles. Usability testing will quickly point out both FRINGE- and non-FRINGE-related imbalances, in that an article should be able to answer basic questions upon which most editors will easily agree, like: when and where did it begin? (in non-technical language) how does it work? and so on. So we have an evaluation tool that I have yet to see applied.


 * I said, everything can be argued against, not that everything will be. Any point that seems to subvert the clear dominance of the mainstream view in the estimation of a particular editor MAY be targeted as undue weight, with or without explicit challenge as FRINGE (which suggests, how does FRINGE differ from WP:UNDUE/WP:GEVAL?)- this approach is consistent with both alleged COI editing, and simply editing to a particular interpretation of FRINGE that some other editors may agree with and others do not (IOW, basely or righteously motivated, undue suppression of information is POV-pushing, advocacy) - the content end result is what we're concerned with, and usability testing allows determination of whether that problem may well exists, by pinpointing obvious holes in coverage. And here/in this case, your birthplace example doesn't make sense: is there a reason why where Hahnemann was born might affect the apparent legitimacy or efficacy of homeopathy? --Tsavage (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Another proposal
Hi there, I'd like to contribute with my two cents to this discussion with the following consideration: What if, instead of a dualistic approach that considers things to be either fringe or mainstream, black or white, win or lose, we established a three-levels categorisation, where theories or viewpoints can be either:


 * 1. Mainstream: a view widely accepted by the public and/or the scientific community. Must be the main view exposed in a WP article.


 * 2. Alternative (or slightly fringe): a view that is not widely accepted as true by the majority of public/scientists, but is not considered by that majority to be an impossible or nutty theory, only improbable. Must be included in WP articles although not as prominently as the mainstream view(s).


 * 3. Markedly fringe: a view that is considered by the vast majority of public/scientists to be impossible or nutty. Must only be included in WP articles (characterising it as such) if it has gained considerable public attention for some reason.

Perhaps my labels or definitions above can be made better (specially since I'm a ESLer), but I hope you see my point. --Savig (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your wording for 'alternative' is liable to run contrary to WP:WEIGHT - one of the policies WP:FRINGE is derived from. To say that a minority view 'must' be included, regardless of how much discussion it has had, isn't the way Wikipedia works. And frankly, I don't think that three options are any better than two - it just gives us more things to disagree over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - regarding "scientific community" ... while debates over fringe science tend to be the "tail that wags the dog" around here, we have to remember that "Fringe" is not limited to just science related topics. Other academic disciplines have their "Fringe".
 * I also agree with Andy... the proposal bumps up against WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see both of your points, and as a matter of fact I mostly agree with them. Let me blend them in with a better wording:


 * 1. Mainstream: a view widely accepted by the public and/or the experts on the matter. Must be the main view exposed in a WP article.


 * 2. Alternative (or slightly fringe): a view that is not widely accepted as true by the majority of the experts, but is not considered by that majority to be an impossible or nutty theory, only improbable. Unless it is the view of a very tiny minority, it must be included in WP articles, although not as prominently as the mainstream view(s).


 * 3. Markedly fringe: a view that is considered by the vast majority of the experts to be impossible or nutty, or a view that is only held by a very tiny minority. Must only be included in WP articles (characterising it as such) if it has gained considerable public attention for some reason.


 * A three-level categorisation was actually proposed by Jimbo Wales, as to what to include or not to include in the Wikipedia. Such an approach certainly allows for a richer and more enciclopedic WP than a two-level, black or white (fringe or not fringe) approach. Savig (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. I read recently that 98% of truth lies in the grey areas between the two extremes. For our purposes, it must be taken into account that:   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely do not think a three-level categorization would be an improvement; WP:FRINGE is meant to be a separate policy from WP:UNDUE, and there's no advantage to trying to make the two more similar. Remember (and this is something people keep forgetting), just because a view is fringe does not mean that it should necessarily be completely excluded from articles; WP:FRINGE is something to consider when determining due weight for WP:UNDUE, not a substitute for it.  The weight due to a fringe viewpoint may be zero, but sometimes they can and should be covered, as the policy states.  Regardless, "sometimes science is wrong" is not something we can take into account in our policy; we're an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, so we present what's verifiable according to reliable sources, without original research.  If the mainstream view is simply wrong, Wikipedia is not really the place to go to try and correct that mistake. --Aquillion (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your comments are accurate, but when you say that 'some fringe viewpoints can and should be covered', you are actually proving me right, because that's exactly what my three-level categorisation says: there's 1. not-fringe views, 2. fringe (or alternative) views that should be included, and 3. fringe views that should not be included. And this is also in agreement with what WP:FRINGE says. What I'm proposing here is just to sum it up (as Jimbo did in WP:DUE) in three points or categories so that it's easier to see for everybody, and also in order to prevent black-or-white attitudes of some misinformed people who may wield WP:FRINGE inappropiately.
 * On the other hand, there's also the debate on what things should fall into category 2. and what things into category 3., a matter that is covered in WP:FRINGE in a not very clear way in my opinion, and would be (just my suggestion) a nice area for editors to work upon. Savig (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that there's any evidence that WP:FRINGE is being used inappropriately; a few people above seem to be making vague assertions to that effect, but nobody has really pointed to any examples (and the few examples that have come up strike me as places where it was applied appropriately.) I definitely oppose your 'three-level' suggestion. What you are suggesting does not clarify WP:FRINGE at all; the current text goes into careful detail about how to handle fringe topics, which goes far beyond just "include or don't include" (a topic already covered, after all, by WP:UNDUE, in a way that I believe is working exactly as intended, whereas your suggestion would turn it into a blunt instrument. I feel that your suggestion would gut the most important parts of WP:FRINGE (the nuanced discussion of how to cover fringe topics) in favor of a completely unnecessary reiteration of WP:UNDUE; and, as I said, I feel that you're trying to solve a problem that does not exist, since currently WP:FRINGE is doing its job admirably. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Aquillion. Our current guidance seems to be serving us well.  Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)