Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 22

Journals
I think we should create a guideline on distinguishing fringe journals from reputable ones, e.g. based on impact factor. What do others think? Everymorning (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Impact factor alone isn't a useful guide. I think this is very difficult to codify and may open the door to endless quibbling about which side of the divide a particular journal fell: at some point judgement has to kick in. For the purposes of this Wikiproject, a journal will fail WP:FRIND if it is devoted to coverage of a fringe topic, the classic example of course being the journal Homeopathy. Alexbrn (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What about acupuncture specific journals or alternative medicine oriented journals like the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine? Which of these would be considered fringe? Everymorning (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd consider both of those fringe and not usable for any type of significant/extraordinary claim. Such journals generally lack independence: they're journals that exist in a bubble, written by altmed types for altmed types and whose content is decided by altmed types. If something's significant, it should be easy to source it instead to something outside that bubble 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This statement (and the content at WP:PUS) is dependent on the assumption that alternative medicine researchers are closed-minded and don't care about evidence that their treatments are ineffective. I have created a lot of articles about scientific journals and what matters when determining whether a journal is notable in this respect is whether it is indexed in selective databases and/or has an impact factor. Also, it seems like it would be necessary to have a RS that describes alternative medicine as a whole as a "fringe" concept in order to portray alternative medicine journals with impact factors and indexing in selective databases as "fringe". Everymorning (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems all fairly obvious to me. People may believe in (and create journals for) holocaust denial, homeopathy, perpetual motion, etc. But we don't lend credance to such bloody silly nonsense. Seems to me like you want to shift the basis of Wikipedia's concept of neutrality, potentially to legitimize such stuff. Good luck with that! Editing Wikipedia requires some degree of ability to exercie rational judgement. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would consider a journal that was not listed in any of the major academical databases (such as PubMed, EBSCO, Elsevier) to have a greater likelihood of being a fringe journal, and the PubMed database is, in my view, maybe the strongest indicator of what is considered to be within the mainstream view of medical science. The Journal of alternative and complementary medicine is in fact listed in PubMed (NLM ID: 9508124 [Serial]), and is also currently indexed for MEDLINE. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog with NLM Title Abbreviation: J Altern Complement Med. I would therefore not, automatically, consider it to be a fringe journal. I'm not all that familiar with its content, but it might be that it represents a non-mainstream view of medical science that is also considered to be within the frames of science. The PubMed listing might indicate such an intepretation. This case is the same for several other journals which are also listed in PubMed, but which might be considered to be non-mainstream (Psychological Reports springs to mind). I have yet to find any of the Parapsychological journals listed in PubMed, but I have found them listed in other academic databases. However, since they are not listed in PubMed they might, according to my logic, be more likely to represent a fringe-view, although I would not want to generalize. It should therefore be possible to formulate an assessment of journals, to be included in this article, based upon the their listing in credible databases. No listing --> low cred.--Hawol (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are some valid peer-reviewed journals about alternative medicine (or parapsychology, or discredited interpretations of history, etc.) These can be some of the best sources on what people in different communities believe or practice. However it has to be kept in mind that their peer-review processes are still built upon a foundation of a priori belief in claims that are fringe or exceptional. There are ways they can still be used on Wikipedia, but one must be mindful of WP:ONEWAY and of course WP:MEDRS. Rhoark (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chiming in rather late here, but WikiProject Academic Journals has some notability guidelines for academic journals, mainly for determining notability for stand-alone article, but it may also have relevance in determining guidelines for fringe journals. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

while it would be impossible to keep a comprehensive "good" and "bad" sites list because of the wide ranging nature of FRINGE would be covering all types of "good" sites with various levels of WP:REDFLAG, I think it would be possible/good idea to keep a centralized list of known bad journals that are under almost all situations inappropriate, kind of like  WikiProject_Albums/Sources --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "that alternative medicine researchers are closed-minded and don't care about evidence that their treatments are ineffective" Homoeopathy is a good example of something that's been tested to death (and often of very low quality) despite being physically impossible. Have homoeopathic alt-med researchers abandoned homoeopathy? When will the Homeopathy (journal) shut down? It seems to me that they may say they care about evidence, but in the end they don't abandon the beliefs. Second Quantization (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS:ISMCAPS could use some WP:FRINGE input
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. While the example cases given related to catchall terms for new religious movements, the inclarity problem of the applicable MoS guideline on use of overcapitalization for promotional/PoV purposes is something easily exploitable by proponents of fringe beliefs/organizations. The sharp eye of WP:FRINGE regulars would probably be helpful in tightening up the copy of this MoS section. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Assumptive and non neutral language added to Fringe Theories guideline
I have posted here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC))


 * This is the most stable version of the section in question:
 * Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)
 * The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable.
 * The edit history shows that this version had remained unchanged since at least October 30, 2012 (i.e. three years) until just a few days ago. Please discuss proposals for changing it here. - Location (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor update on the stability of this section: I have verified that the first paragraph—the changes to which has spawned this minor debate—had remained unchanged since at least October 30, 2009 (i.e. six years). - Location (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Slight change in first sentence of WP:PROFRINGE
I propose a small change of the first sentence of section "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". The change is "have in the past used" ---> "regularly attempt to use". --  04:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevant words are underlined:


 * Old : "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas."
 * New: "Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas."
 * New 2: "Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas." ("use" ---> "misuse".)


 * This was previously discussed at NPOV/N, so now proceeding to an RfC.


 * Please !vote Old or New or New 2 for the version you prefer. Also indent discussion Comments. Feel free to change your !votes if you change your minds. --  05:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I expect that there will be plenty of discussion during this RfC. Many have already discussed it, mostly at NPOV/N, but those who have been notified by the creation of the RfC may not, and, as usual, they will want to discuss. That's fine. --  05:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just added a third alternative: New 2. The change is "use" ---> "misuse". Some may wish to change their !votes. Feel free to discuss this option. --  03:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * New 2. The old version is both obsolete and inaccurate. The new version is accurate and describes reality, which is why I consider it an improvement. --  05:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looking at WP:FTN, one can see that this type of behavior is not only relegated to the past, but is possibly almost a daily occurrence, at least in terms of discussion. Darknipples (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If fringe promotion is still a problem, we should probably also examine the sentence that follows the one under discussion... where we pat ourselves on the back, and say "Existing policies discourage this type of behavior"... if what Darknipples says is true, and fringe promotion is still a daily occurrence, then existing policies may attempt to discourage the behavior, but they are obviously not succeeding. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am interested in pursuing that discussion. What do you think should happen? - Location (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Do we need to even describe what has happened in the past or is happening on a daily occurrence? An alternative suggestion: "Existing policies and guideline discourage using Wikipedia as a forum for advocating specific viewpoints. If the only statements..." This may partially alleviate Littleolive oil's concern that fringe theory advocates are being singled out for a particular type of behavior. - Location (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An interesting proposition. The idea of making other changes can certainly be discussed, but let's not get too far afield right now. I think that the concern about "singling out" is a bit misplaced here. This is, after all, the Fringe theories guideline, so it makes total sense to do it here. People who are not advocates of fringe theories don't try to push them. They may push other things, but that is not the concern of this guideline. If we make it too generic, then we may as well get rid of it and have one central guideline that applies everywhere, but I doubt that would be practical or be accepted. Each type of subject and situation has its own special problems and needs, hence the need for specificity. We do need to limit this to fringe theories. --  02:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the actions of fringe promoters necessitated the creation of this guideline. I do not question that your suggested wording is accurate; I only question whether it is necessary. For example, the section that precedes WP:PROFRINGE states "Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia.", yet it does not begin "Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt to add unreliable fringe sources to the article." In my opinion, there should be some discussion (or at least an option to !vote) on this. Maybe something like: New 3: "Existing policies and guideline discourage using Wikipedia as a forum for advocating specific viewpoints. If the only statements..." (This option rewrites the first sentence and the first clause in the second sentence.) - Location (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * New Wording is Good It is indeed an ongoing occurrence - and one that is likely to ever terminate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. A fringe minority regularly attempt to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. --  03:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * New 2 It's a continual issue and the problem is with misuse. Second Quantization (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. The New 2 version is better than the old; the old doesn't make sense. Better than that is Location's version. We are adding a bandaid to a sentence that in total is not quite right so starting over per Lincoln's rewrite might be a best solution: For example these concerns:


 * Ideas advocated are probably not "their ideas" or, who we are here calling fringe proponents, but are the ideas put forth by whoever created the theory in the first place. So "their ideas" is inaccurate.
 * An editor may add content that supports a fringe view and suddenly is labelled a fringe promoter when in fact they are simply providing sources. Not all those who added sources that are deemed supportive of fringe topics are so called fringe proponents. We have to remember there is a place for fringe views in WP and for the sources necessary to write the content on those views. What our concern is, is the weight they add per the topic, sources, and per article length.
 * My greatest concern is that by using this language in our guideline we give permission for addressing editors as "fringe proponents" elsewhere on WP which requires both assumption and judgement and is for many editors an insult.
 * I am a firm believer in starting fresh rather than applying bandaids. Bandaids are temporary, tend to come off, and wounds become reinfected if you take my meaning.:O) (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:50, November 3, 2015‎ (UTC)


 * New 2: this is a straightforward and understandable way of describing an ongoing issue. -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New 2 Obvious really. Clear and understandable. LK (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New 2 Straightforward and accurate. --Calton | Talk 12:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New 2 - Exactly so. These crusaders for outlandish notions see Wikipedia as an easy way of promoting their views. --Pete (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OLD - Not an improvement here, both of the new versions are inferiorly phrased as if nothing has happened.  The phrasing of 'have' correctly conveys that past events have happened and that actual abuse occurred; the phrasing of 'attempt' conveys a failure and that nothing previously has been done.   The word 'regularly' also is incorrectly portraying events as if they are done to a specific period or template -- on the half-hour or solely of one particular kind -- and this is also not the case.   Markbassett (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If only the FRINGE pushers were a thing of the past! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New 2 as an accurate description of an ongoing problem. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Guidelines are to aid in article writing. (This one should probably have a section critical of the use of stereotypes.) Any attempt to describe or profile editors is wrong. Assume good faith doesn't make an exception for guilt by association. If there is a repeated misconception it calls for a guideline to instruct the reader what to do, not who they are(!?) There should be nothing on this page if there is no expectation for anyone to get it wrong. (wp:Avoid instruction creep) If you have something to say about editor behavior thats great, 1) use the user talk page, 2) be specific, 3) be constructive and 4) don't blame anyone for things they didn't do. Only when the user talk page approach fails should we attempt a different one. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern as well, and making a distinction between behaviour and an editing guide is well put.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC))


 * OLD as best of three unsatisfactory statements The entire sentence is poorly formed and should be removed or entirely rewritten. Meanwhile, given this narrow RfC: the Old proposes that Wikipedia has been "used" in a certain way, and once that way is understood, that it has happened can presumably be verified (by showing instances of abuse). The New versions, by changing the tense, make it next to impossible to verify the statement - what is "regularly" and how is it ascertained? - and confer an imprecise, editorialized urgency: "This could be happening right this minute, and if not, will soon be." This is inappropriate for guidelines, which should be clear and neutrally worded, and in no way alarmist. Second, common to all three versions, are two serious problems:
 * 1) "proponents of fringe theories ... promoting their ideas" sets up the situation (which I have observed) where by arguing for anything anyone considers to be FRINGE, an editor can then be characterized in discussion as a FRINGE editor per this guideline (i.e. "you're promoting FRINGE" becomes an argument that, and interchangeable with, "FRINGE editors are promoting...");
 * 2) by using the term "fringe theories," the statement is circular in proposing that editors promote what this guideline, at that point in reading, is in the process of fully defining, and as such can be fundamentally confusing to the reader (as worded, it essentially uses this guideline to justify itself).
 * The narrow casting of this RfC is technically good, insofar as it encourages focus on a clearly defined proposition, but that should not be used as way to entrench or imply support for any form of a poorly formed statement, including the current one - as the statement has been questioned, we should address that fully, and not be forced to consider only one arbitrary take on problem and fix. --Tsavage (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * New 2 as the most accurate. But, as a pedant, I dislike the use of "regularly" to mean "frequently" or "often". Maproom (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New 2 works for me. p.p. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 22:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Per procura (talk • contribs)
 * New 2 works for me, too. It's a misuse of Wikipedia to push fringe content into articles. SageRad (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * New 2 is straightforward and accurate. Yobol (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New 2, in line with most of the above. I suspect that some of the other votes were cast before the responders had seen the New 2 proposal anyway. Those who are unhappy with the new wording should propose improvements afterwards,not waste time niggling about the current question, or we'll never get done. Meanwhile an improvement for now is better than nothing. JonRichfield (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Old per Tsavage, with a request for clarity: the following statements seem to refer to a history that isn't known to me. Without it, arguments based on this assertion are quite hollow. [@JonRichfield, I don't agree with the suggestion that new proposals should become a part of RfCs, though it would be nice if they followed them.]  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:FTN, one can see that this type of behavior is not only relegated to the past, but is possibly almost a daily occurrence, at least in terms of discussion. - Not necessarily. It can also be argued that a handful of people are participating there with what they view as problems, but in the whole scheme of things, this noticeboard is very inactive.
 * the actions of fringe promoters necessitated the creation of this guideline - More information, please.
 * It is indeed an ongoing occurrence (?)
 * A fringe minority regularly attempt to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas (?)
 * crusaders for outlandish notions see Wikipedia as an easy way of promoting their views (?)
 *  petrarchan47 คุ  ก   01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The history is known to experienced editors, especially those who use this guideline for its intended purpose, which is to deal properly with fringe theories by preventing misuse of Wikipedia for their promotion. There are other editors who seek to undermine it and seem to think that this guideline (and especially its noticeboard) is a rallying point to use for defense of their attempts to push fringe theories into Wikipedia as if they were proven facts. As to the frequency with which such attempts are made, it varies quite a bit, depending on which editors are active. Because such editors often end up blocked, we then have peace for a while and can get some actual work done, but it's definitely not some "past" phenomenon. It will always be a problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have been far more specific. I am asking to be shown via diffs, links to past articles in media about this phenomenon, or past arb cases dealing with it. The history plays a role in this RfC, so it should be available to all participating. The proclamations of a few aren't as convincing as direct links to evidence.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   10:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * New 2. Things are getting worse on some articles. The new Wikipedia's consensus is mob rule. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal
Remove the first two sentences entirely... as in:
 *  Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: If the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. ... 

I suppose what I am really asking is: does the policy really need the language that I propose be removed? Thoughts and comments please. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some amount of redundancy is needed for didactic purposes. Not everyone who reads that statement is an experienced Wikipedian, with a broad knowledge of Wikipedia's history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK... so let's explore it in another way... do our editors need to know about Wikipeida's history on the issue? Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do (although those few words don't do it very much, so removing them serves no other purpose than to lessen such mention in the middle of a guideline for the purpose of describing and opposing such behavior!!!!). We are not labeling editors out of the blue, we are describing forbidden behavior. The behavior defines the editor at that particular time. Newbies often come here without understanding our PAG, and some of them seek to misuse Wikipedia for advocacy of fringe ideas. Some learn and stop doing it, and we should AGF and not keep labeling them as fringe editors. Those who continue to engage in such behavior are described by their actions. I see no good reason for deleting perfectly good wording.
 * Removal only (unwittingly) serves the well-known agenda of a group of editors who wish to deny that their ideas are fringe and/or pseudoscientific, and who claim that our opposition to their misuse of Wikipedia (to legitimize such things) is wrong. They want acceptance. Well, we won't have it.
 * It's rather remarkable that this is one area where Jimbo blew his top and expressed a very clear opinion, one shared by the community: He made it very clear that we refuse to cater to "lunatic charlatans" in any manner. Removal of words in our policies or guidelines which they feel point toward their nefarious activities is definitely catering to their agenda. We must draw a line in the sand because this isn't just a "in the past" problem, but is very much a constant one.
 * If anything, we need to make this more plain, and not weaken it. This fringe theories guideline is not to be used or shaped by advocates of fringe theories. Its purpose is to help deal with and oppose them and such content at Wikipedia. --  17:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's refocus: I'm only suggesting changing these few words ("have in the past") so we describe actual reality. I find it amazing and rather shocking that there can be any serious objection to a modest modification. Fortunately most agree it should be done. --  17:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bull... You are proposing (above) to just change a few words... but in this sub-section, I have proposed something more... to cut the first two sentences entirely.  I don't see how removing them "weakens" the policy.  All it does is remove unnecessary historical verbage.  The discouragement of self-promotional Fringe advocacy would not change one iota... all that would be removed is extraneous background material...  explaining why we include the discouragement. I question whether we need to include that historical background material. Is it really important to explain why we discourage Fringe promotion?  To my mind, what matters is that we do discourage it.  Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I support this change. The impact of the paragraph as a whole when we remove the 2 sentence preamble is greater, more succinct, and with less room to misunderstand. If its absolutely necessary to keep the two opening sentences perhaps they have more impact at the end to close and cap the paragraph. I did a quick rearrangement which is an example of how the guideline might have more  impact with very little change in wording. Just some thoughts. I believe the comments I see here and on this RfA are in favour of strengthening Fringe theory guideline. However, we don't all agree on how to do that.


 * The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are not supported by the encyclopedia. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. If the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines. Proponents of fringe theories have in the past  used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage [do not support] this type of behavior.
 * (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC))


 * Does it make sense to do that? We're dealing with a section entitled "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". One normally leads a section with the topic, instead of mentioning it at the end.
 * Can we get back on focus? This hijacking of the RfC isn't proper. Let's get back to the RfC and settle that matter. That improvement can happen, and then you can try this as a new RfC if you wish. --  03:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that the RFC has been "high jacked". But I think it makes sense to ask "do we want these sentences in the first place?" before we ask "what should the language be?" ... if this new proposal gains consensus, then there will no longer be a need to go back to the original RFC question (since the sentence which it discusses will no longer exist). In any case, it's now too late... this new proposal has already been proposed and is already being discussed.  You can't put the genie back in the bottle.  Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar. The point was raised previously that there should be some discussion on whether or not the language is even necessary. - Location (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bull Rangifer. I mentioned in my very first statement what my concerns with the two introductory sentences of this paragraph were, but I also tried to make a sincere effort to collaborate and go along with your requests in this RfA. I voted in the RfA above for a change in the wording despite the fact that I believe the sentences as a whole are fraught with problems. All I'm doing here is outlining a possible solution to my and other editors' concerns. If there are problems with the two sentences, word changes  may be a waste of time since possibly, and probably, in my opinion,  both sentences should be removed or heavily edited. "High-jacking" seems an unnecessary word.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC))


 * Support new proposal I thank Bull Rangifer for highlighting the issue with the sentence, but I find the two proposed solutions to violate our AGF policies. Well meaning editors editing fringe articles outside of the lines of the status quo, often get branded as fringe proponents and such proposed language further escalates conflict that shouldn't take place. Deleting the first two sentences altogether accomplishes that. Actual fringe proponents are somewhat a rare phenomenon, from my experience. They do, however, exist but language like this is like trying to prevent a gunman entering an airport by turning up the metal detector so high that it goes off everytime people have a penny in their pockets so everyone gets treated like a terrorist . That's the opposite of assume good faith. LesVegas (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The first proposal addresses minor wording changes in one sentence; this proposal addresses whether that sentence is even necessary. I do not think that it is. - Location (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I like the long form with New 2 above. It makes the problem clear. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support new proposal: This wording is unnecessary, in current form, and as proposed above (New 1, New 2). It adds nothing substantive or actionable to the guideline, and introduces problems:
 * A critical problem with all versions is that "proponents of fringe theories ... promoting their ideas" sets up the situation where by arguing for anything anyone considers to be FRINGE, an editor can then be characterized in discussion as a FRINGE editor per this guideline (i.e. "you're promoting FRINGE" becomes an argument that, and interchangeable with, "FRINGE editors are promoting..."). A guideline should not be providing fuel for adversarial editing.
 * In addition, New 1 and New 2 include a broad, predictive assertion, "regularly attempt to use/misuse" without support or example, and one that would be difficult to illustrate (what is "regularly"? is there a datestamped list of attempts indicating frequency? what constitutes an "attempt"?). A guideline should not introduce uncertainty and confusion.
 * The section title, "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories," is clear and effective framing, we don't need to argue the point in a guideline. (See also my comment at 13:51, 8 November 2015, above.) --Tsavage (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support This is a great improvement, thank you to Blueboar.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The problems should not be ignored. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quack, the problem isn't being ignored... if my proposal is adopted, the policy will still say:
 * If the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. ... 
 * In other words, my proposal retains the part that actually addresses the problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is not as clear. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This proposal goes beyond "ignoring" the reason we have this guideline, it "eliminates" it. There is no legitimate reason for weakening the guideline. The reasons why attempts to weaken the guideline are made have been mentioned above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose the complete removal - the context supports the fact that we are here to build an encyclopedia, just like the context provided in other guidelines and policies. this is not here "just because" it is here to address a specific, detrimental and ongoing issue impacting the creation of a good encyclopedia.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

what is mainstream idea in reality?
this? can this kind of things be published here, as it appears so sci-fi and esoteric, and only a handful of scientists have access to these kind of experiments.. is this fringe? mainstream? what is it? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the link but there are always cases that are difficult to classify. The principle is that any claim about reality needs to be based on multiple reliable sources. If someone produced a car using water as the fuel (something that contradicts established results) a description would need multiple gold-plated sources, all independent from the proponents. On the other hand, if a regular scientist floats an idea, possibly with experiments, it may be fine to mention the idea attributed to the scientist, no matter how weird it is. I do not think that an article on "computing with time travel" would satisfy notability, and if only a couple of papers mention something it might not be sufficiently significant for inclusion anywhere (my guess for this topic is no). A test might be whether independent sources discuss the concept as something significant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's my point, you can have s Nature (Journal as a source, but research accessible by only a handful of scientists.. How can that be mainstream or deserve NPOV inclusion if idea contradicts so greatly mainstream and common view and yet it cannot be tested by more people. 212.200.65.120 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A logical problem with WP:FRINGE
I see a logical issue with WP:FRINGE: it seems to categorize all conspiracy theories as fringe, whereas the actual definition of a conspiracy theory as given at the linked article's lede is:

Now, the problem here is that conspiracies do actually happen in the world, and explanations based on conspiracy are often true. Not always, but sometimes, they are true -- just like scientific hypotheses. So for a guideline to define all conspiracy theories as "fringe" and therefore not allowable in Wikipedia is a fundamental logical flaw in the guideline. One example of an actual historical conspiracy is that of Monsanto Chemical Company in the 1960s and 1970s to continue to sell PCBs while they knew of serious and dire dangers from the chemicals and they knew that the chemicals were finding their way into the environment and that people were being exposed. They conspired to cover it up, to keep it quiet, in order to continue to sell the product for as long as possible. This is evidenced extremely clearly in their own internal documents as made public in later legal proceedings as documented at the Chemical Industry Archives website with dozens of linked PDFs of actual Monsanto documents stating the conspiracy. This is a real conspiracy that happened as far as anyone who looks at the evidence would conclude. However, the WP:FRINGE guideline might be used to rule out inclusion of this actual conspiracy in articles related to PCBs contamination. This would be harmful to the article, a denial of some reality to the reader, and not good for the world. It would also be illogical. It is illogical to assume that just because some conspiracy-based explanations are wing-nut, that all explanations based on conspiracy are fringe.

Perhaps i am misreading the guideline. The passage i'm referring to is:

The inclusion of the term "conspiracy theories" in that last sentence seems to me to indicate that if something is a conspiracy-based explanation, then it must be fringe. The way the "and" then gives a second noun "esoteric claims about medicine" seems to equate those two as being equally fringe.

Some conspiracy theories are fringe. Some conspiracies are documented historical fact. Some are possible explanations for phenomena in the world. Just as with anything else, i think that sourcing and good dialogue are the keys to determining what's relatively solid and what is chaff. I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist but i do know that conspiring is a mode of human action in the world and it is a kind of explanation that fits some things. Please tell me i'm misreading the guideline. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And your example of a non-fringe conspiracy theory would be ... ? (Of course any such would have WP:RS in support of its plausibility, so we'd have no problem treating it neutrally). Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First, if a conspiracy is documented historical fact, then it is no longer a "theory". But, SageRed does have a point... The theory that Richard III of England conspired to have his nephews (Edward V and Richard, Duke of York) killed is an example of a non-fringe conspiracy theory... while impossible to prove (and thus "only a theory"), it is widely accepted (and is, in fact, the prevailing view among historians).  It has been heavily discuss and debated by reliable sources.  So, yeah... there are some conspiracy theories that are not considered fringe.
 * That said, the caution about conspiracy theories is worth keeping, because while a few conspiracy theories are not considered fringe, an overwhelming number of conspiracy theories are fringe.
 * The key to understanding WP:Fringe is to understand WP:Undue weight. If a conspiracy theory (even one that is fringe) is discussed by reliable sources (even disparagingly), then we can give it due weight by mentioning it in our articles (although it should be phrased as being an opinion, not stated as fact)... if no reliable mainstream sources bother to discuss it, then mentioning it our articles (even as an opinion) would give it undue weight. It is too fringe to mention. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

General comment: In my opinion, the key to understanding certain supplemental guidelines like WP:FRINGE is through first recognizing that there are effectively two types of policies and guidelineS, and this was well-stated by another editor in another discussion:


 * 1. straightforward, accessible, common-sense codification of principles
 * 2. when an area has real-world ethical consequences, we do in fact tend to insert specific anti-gaming, anti-misinterpretation wording that's quite detailed and tends to form definitions, scope clarifications, and line-item rules

That comment also indicated WP:BLP as largely of the second sort, and stated the opinion that the two types of PAG are not mutually exclusive and can be successfully integrated with due care.

There's a lot of murky territory in there, and personally, I'm still thinking about what those terms really do describe. Certainly, it suggests special measures for special cases, which raises the usual concerns that come with using exceptional circumstances as a reason for action: who decides what's special and then, what to do about it? (Yes, consensus...) --Tsavage (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy (or theories about conspiracies writ large). For better or worse, the current sourced use of the term "conspiracy theory" always guarantees that the idea is WP:FRINGE. It is not the best use of English language, but we at Wikipedia are descriptive and not proscriptive. jps (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the definition of "conspiracy theory" again; it has a derogatory meaning that, essentially, means that describing something as a conspiracy theory is saying that it is WP:FRINGE. If high-quality sources say that there may have been a conspiracy, and it's not completely WP:FRINGE, I don't think we would describe it as a "conspiracy theory"; eg. we describe the Business Plot as "an alleged political conspiracy", not a "conspiracy theory", while the lead describes the mainstream view as "While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of 'wild scheme' was contemplated and discussed." The key point, though, is that you need high-quality sources for more shocking claims; note the four cites to historians for the sentence I just gave on the Business Plot's article, say, including very well-respected historians. And it's important to be very careful when talking about what exactly the sources say, how they disagree about it, and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , the definition of conspiracy theory often has built into it that the theory will evolve to contain anything that contradicts it, which makes it a closed system, not falsifiable. In many cases, that's going to pretty much sum up a fringe idea. SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that this quality is built into the definition of the term. I suppose you mean that some specific conspiracy theories have that quality and i would fully agree, but it is not an inherent quality of every conspiracy theory. That sort of "slippery" conspiracy theory would be the hallmark of a poorly defined and probably fringy conspiracy theory. So i hear you saying that some conspiracy theories are not falsifiable and i'd agree, but that doesn't contradict the original issue i raise, does it? Specifically defined ideas about people conspiring can be non-fringy. SageRad (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that some concepts cannot be defined precisely is well known—defining "red" is often mentioned in that context. The core issue is in the WP:FRINGE nutshell: "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". The term "conspiracy theory" has a slightly altered meaning in colloquial usage when referring to fringe stuff, and it is not necessary for the proponents to clearly allege a conspiracy. For example, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories concerns various claims that initially don't claim any conspiracy, but when pressed with refuting evidence, advocates will often fallback on a claim that evidence contradicting their theory has been manufactured (that is, they claim people have conspired to produce fake evidence). That's another form of SarahSV's point—an advocate of a fringe idea will not drop the idea no matter how much contrary evidence is presented because such evidence will be dismissed, misinterpreted, dodged, or alleged to be fake. At any rate, there is no need to precisely define what is meant in this guideline, although the language might be improved if a real problem were demonstrated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the thoughts above. Someone above asked for examples of a conspiracy theory that would be non-fringe or legitimate. I had given the historical example about Monsanto executives conspiring to hide the real dangers of PCBs as the continued to sell them for profit, as well documented by their internal documents that were made public in legal proceedings in the year 2000. Another editor suggested the theory that Richard III of England conspired to have his nephews killed. These are both examples from the past, one case where a conspiracy has been proven after the fact, and another where the conspiracy remains a theory (or technically a hypothesis i suppose) that probably will not ever be proven correct or wrong. I thought of four possible examples in the present day that might be considered "legitimate conspiracy theories":


 * The hypothesis that the murder of Anna Politkovskaya was done either at the behest of the Russian state or as a favor in some way to the Russian state, especially as it was done on Putin's birthday. This may seem a stretch but it's actually noted by a quite a few reliable sources as a potential connection to the cause and mode of her death. It's even mentioned in the article in The Economist on the event.
 * The hypothesis that the media outlet Russia Today is to a degree a propaganda outlet for the Russian state (a "mouthpiece of the Kremlin" as it suggests in the Wikipedia article). This hypothesis is developed to various degrees in many sources that we'd consider reliable, i think.
 * The ideas of G. William Domhoff as expounded in Who Rules America? and on his website of the same name are essentially a theory about conspiracy by a power elite that he suggests wields power undemocratically via behind-the-scenes actions, but is taught in universities and is extremely well-documented and seems legitimate.
 * The ideas of Noam Chomsky in regard to media, especially as expounded in Manufacturing Consent, that suggest that the mass media are "effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function". These ideas of Chomsky's are also taught in university and are reflected in reliable sources.

It seems to me that all four of these theories or hypotheses suppose conspiracies, and yet all four seem to hold a good amount of legitimacy in that they are given a fair amount credence in reliable sources and/or are otherwise well researched.

If the guideline defines "conspiracy theories" as inherently fringe then it would occlude the mention of all four of the examples i listed above. I suggest that the guideline might be more useful if it were to say "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" because actual conspiracies do exist and some conspiracy theories seem rather apt and well-supported. Some things do seem to reasonable people as if there is a conspiracy and yet are not able to be definitively proven or disproven because the very nature of a conspiracy is to hide the evidence for it. Therefore, it often comes down to the reckoning of experts in the field as to whether a particular conspiracy theory is likely to be the case or likely to be bunk. SageRad (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia disputes clearly thrive in reference to edge cases, but in these cases I think we can clearly rest our laurels on sourcing. In particular, I don't know of any reliable sources which describe the four claims you list above as conspiracy theories in their own right. These ideas certainly are incorporated into a variety of conspiracy theories that are broader than each issue individually, but a conspiracy theory, as strictly defined on Wikipedia, is a closed, self-reinforcing set of beliefs that the prevailing understanding of a particular account of events is wholly incorrect. The explanations for how the prevailing understanding could be so incorrect are wide-ranging and far-fetched. How do we determine this? Why, through reliable sources of course. Unless you have reliable sources which explicitly identify a set of ideas as a "conspiracy theory", they aren't conspiracy theories.
 * Just to reiterate, there are examples of real conspiracies which are not "conspiracy theories" as defined by Wikipedia and by reliable sources generally. The tobacco companies really did collude to prevent the devastating public health conclusions about the dangers of cigarette smoking from becoming accepted. The Gulf of Tonkin incident really was trumped up. Etc.
 * jps (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you please give me some reference or documentation on the idea that "conspiracy theory" is a strictly defined term of the art within Wikipedia policy discussions that is different from the common understanding or that which is in the Wikipedia article conspiracy theory? As i read the WP:FRINGE guideline, it links to conspiracy theory which implies defining it as the article does. I do think that there are a lot of people who would call many aspects of Domhoff's or Chomsky's conspiracy theories exactly that -- that there is a conspiring group of people who rule America to an extent without the public's general knowledge, or that the mass media propagate illusions or otherwise render a propaganda function without the general public's awareness of that, or the idea that Anna Politkovskaya was killed by or for the Russian state, or that Russia Today serves in large part a propaganda function. I really think all these are legitimate conspiracy theories with good reliable sourcing. I don't see any indication other than your comment above that "conspiracy theory" as used in the guideline is a strictly defined term of the art that would be understood in its limited sense when the guideline is applied, which then enables the guideline to be used to overreach. SageRad (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It reads to me like maybe you didn't understand our article on conspiracy theory which clearly delineates a difference. Combining a number of these specific claims into overall narratives about, say, the way "manufacturing consent" may manifest itself could plausibly establish a conspiracy theory (provided we have reliable sources which document such an approach as actually being a conspiracy theory), but specific hypotheses about media commentary being problematically skewed are really not removed from mainstream scholarship in the way that, say, claims about chemtrails are. jps (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it reads to me like you don't understand the definition of "conspiracy theory" in that article, i have to say. I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the hypothesis that the Russian state killed Anna Politkovskaya is not a conspiracy theory? Are you saying the other examples i gave are not conspiracy theories? Instead of telling me you don't think i understand the definition, would you please simply tell me how you think my examples differ from the very clear definition in the first sentence of that article? In other words, please assume that i'm in intelligent person who can read and understand, and go from there, please. SageRad (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the Russian state was involved in a contract killing of Anna Politkovskaya is not a conspiracy theory as our page defines it. Neither are the other examples... though they all could plausibly be parts of conspiracy theories. jps (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * the examples you gave above aren't conspiracy theories; they are conspiracies or alleged conspiracies. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, aren't falsifiable, I would say as a matter of definition. See, for example, Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, University of California Press, 2003, p. 7:


 * "[C]onspiracy theories are at their heart nonfalsifiable. No matter how much evidence their adherents accumulate, belief in a conspiracy theory ultimately becomes a matter of faith rather than proof."


 * and p. 37:


 * "[C]ontemporary conspiracy theories manifest a dynamics of expansion – the movement from event conspiracies to systemic conspiracies to superconspiracies ... As this progression occurs, two characteristics appear. First, the more a conspiracy theory seeks to explain, the larger its domain of evil; the conspiracy includes more and more malevolent agents. Second, the more inclusive the conspiracy theory, the less susceptible it is to disproof, for skeptics and their evidence are increasingly identified with the powers of evil."


 * SarahSV (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That looks like a cherrypicked definition to me. I'm going by the first sentence of the conspiracy theory article:
 * SageRad (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SageRad (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not a good definition,, because it could cover any conspiracy allegation. There's an essential element of irrationality within the idea of a conspiracy theory. SarahSV (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sarah, it's odd that you say it's not a good definition. That is a definition right from the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry. I think you're taking one type of conspiracy theory as the complete set of conspiracy theory. Let's see, Merriam-Webster's definition: "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups" -- same as the one i'm using. The only essential elements to the definition includes rational hypotheses, so i would just have to say that i think you are working with an incorrect and narrow definition. Can you show me some real documentation to support your definition's requirements about them being irrational? Some of them are, to be sure, but not all. SageRad (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "real documentation." Focusing on subject-matter experts, rather than WP or Merriam-Webster, Michael Barkun is a good place to start. He offers an interesting description in Chasing Pantoms (2011), p. 10:

"Conspiracy theories offer a worldview built around imagined secrets. They do so because the conspiracist makes three cardinal assumptions: that nothing happens by accident; that everything is connected; and that nothing is as it seems. The result is a world stripped of accident, negligence, randomness, and incompetence, in which everything is meaningful if only it can be decoded."

SarahSV (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , i mean a definition that would be more similar to the commonly understood meaning, which is what most people would be using in their minds when reading and applying this guideline. SageRad (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the commonly understood meaning is, except that when people refer to something as a "conspiracy theory," they're not saying anything positive about it. As I said, the best place to look for a definition is in the writing of academic subject-matter experts. SarahSV (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, this discussion inspired a fix to the lede of the conspiracy theory article for the better. jps (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Weak statistical evidence?
Could somebody explain to me why parapsychology is cited as an example of a field that relies on anecdotal/weak statistical evidence? Most of the research characterizing the field is experimental (not anecdotal) - the meta-analyses of which generally produce strong statistical evidence. Please also take note of the fact the current President of the American Statistical Association regards the field of parapsychology to be a legitimate science. I recommend that the parenthetical reference to parapsychology at WP:FRINGE/PS be removed. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Look on the parapsychology article itself. There is enough references that explain parapsychology is a pseudoscience and its proponents hide behind statistics and have no empirical evidence for their magical claims. Parapsychology (study of paranormal) is as fringe as it gets. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please cite for me a single mainstream source that says that parapsychologists have "no empirical evidence for their magical claims". I really want to read that. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not how the burden of evidence works. User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources required
Many scientific journals offer space for authors of novel theories, which is perfectly normal for scientific discourse. However as the lede of this guideline states that in judging the merits of any novel theory, "claims must be based upon independent reliable source". If a theory is completely dismissed by a scientific community and is discussed only by its proponents, then it does not belong to wikipedia. Therefore in the context of this guideline, the qualifier "independent" as crucial as the word "reliable". Therefore I suggest to add it in all places where the merits of a fringe theory are discussed, to avoid misunderstanding. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. In my opinion this is too careless and may lead to violation of wp:notcensored.
 * 2. This is nonsense, every claim on wikipedia should come from some source because of No original research. By requiring for claim about fringe to not come from its source (to be independent) you exclude it from wikipedia which is against wp:notcensored, wp:due and it is also against wikipedia being the sum of knowledge, including fringe. see also Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. You also definitively exclude all primary sources for fringe, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.
 * 3. It is better to let sth slip that does not belong occasionally (as long as it is wp:due weight) and promote inclusion of knowledge, because wp is sum of encyclopedic knowledge, than render it overly restrictive.--Asterixf2 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * re: " By requiring for claim about fringe to not come from its source" - No I am not excluding it. I am excluding the case when such claims come only from its source. I wrote this in several places already. The key word is "only". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you mean if your edit doesn't say what you mean. Please also see WP:ALLPRIMARY. Guidelines should not be so imprecise as to allow excessively prohibitive interpretations. There are plenty of guidelines, that in my opinion address all your ideas. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposed - While independent sources are required to establish the Notability and Due Weight of a theory. Primary (non-independent) sources can be used for purely descriptive (and attributed) statements as to the opinions of the principal proponents of the theory (in fact, for such statements, a primary source is the most reliable source possible... You can not get a more reliable source for what someone has said than the source where they actually say it). The key is to present what they say as opinion, and not as fact. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you misunderstood me: I am speaking exactly about the WP:UNDUE. Let me highlight: add it in all places where the merits of a fringe theory are discussed - AFAIU, you cannot add something to wikipedia basing exclusively on the statements about importance of a theory coming only from the author of this theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "add it in all places where the merits of a fringe theory are discussed". I suggest doing small careful incremental changes in guidelines, instead of driving community into 'formal' consensus to an excessively general prohibitive statement. This is not a philosophy of Wikipedia. It is generally inclusive, but exceptions are detailed and careful. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * what Staszek said - folks objecting are not paying mind to the actual sentence about "judging the merits of any novel theory"  - this is all about providing context which is a key function of an encyclopedia article.  This is inline with NPOV and VERIFY and OR and what they say about the use of secondary sources vs independent sources - with FRINGEy stuff it is all the more important that we emphasize independence for contextualization.  Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry... I missed that key phrase. Yes... When discussing the "merits" of a theory (fringe, or otherwise) you do need independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the confusion about context, how about adding back the INDY language, but also clarifying the sentence: " Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources."? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about current edit. If there will be a different, more appropriate change, that will be more clear in what is necessary for fringe then it will be probably ok. But current edit is imo inappropriate. Careless edits will do more harm than good.
 * Tryptofish encyclopedia should avoid saying that some theory is true. When fringe theories are mentioned that is not because they are true. They are mentioned because they simply exist. This discussion has derailed too far imo and should be closed.
 * In my opinion, all issues with fringe theories can be resolved properly with current guidelines and with consensus.
 * Blueboar things you mentioned are already extensively covered in guidelines, see Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources. The goal of guidelines isn't to talk everywhere about everything.
 * If User:Staszek Lem needs to explain to us what he means then this edit is not good. In particular, it does not say what User:Staszek Lem means. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely important not to censor new developments in science (for example theories younger than 10yrs). They are all fringe and always controversial, because people are accustomed to old ways of thinking. Change is always opposed and always there are more fierce critics than proponents and it is excessive to make it even more difficult. Wikipedia should be wp:notcensored. Users would like to get information about the sum of knowledge. Also, I would like to point out that what User:Staszek Lem said induces bias "If a theory is completely dismissed by a scientific community and is discussed only by its proponents, then it does not belong to wikipedia.". It cannot be completely dismissed and at the same time discussed by its proponents. This is another fallacious reasoning. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop misusing WP:NOTCENSORED (try reading the linked text). Readers will have to find another website if they want to read about every crackpot idea because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly fine what you said. That is not what I am opposing. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE is pertinent here. We need independent sources to give a proper context. Wikipedia is not a venue for the exposition of fringe theories outside such context. Alexbrn (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also see interpretation Discriminate_vs_indiscriminate_information "So, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy. Enthusiastic editors are encouraged to put thought and care into collecting information for meaningful articles." --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - Also, here is a very important clarification User:Uncle_G/On_the_discrimination_of_what_is_indiscriminate and it says: "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is the most widely abused part of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. It is often abused as an argument for deletion, by editors who cannot find a real reason for deletion based upon what our policies actually say.".
 * - Furthermore, it says "It is those specific things listed that policy prohibits, not a blanket of indiscriminate information. The root of the problem is the section heading itself, which actually post-dates the policy points themselves."
 * - Last but not least, it says "Indeed, as Wikipedia:Editing policy#Perfection is not required explains, articles can be little more than an indiscriminate collection of facts when they are first started. Indiscriminateness is not only not forbidden by our policies. It is expected as part of the normal article development process." --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not true to say that all new scientific discoveries are fringe. In fact, most are incremental and not in the least controversial. The "discovery" of faster than light neutrinos was controversial - also, as it turns out, wrong. We didn't "censor" that, we handled it with the usual scientific level of caveats. Cold fusion is another example: we have reliable independent secondary sources describing its status as a pariah field, and that is how we write the article, despite the occasional influx of LENR cranks trying to include primary sources for New! ASTOUNDING! claims of validity. We do, however "censor" papers that conclusively prove that homeopathy works, ESP is real or the earth si flat. Actually no, we don't "censor" them, we simply don't include the primary sourced claims without the benefit of reliable independent sources discussing their validity. And that is precisely in line with policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. We are not qualified to weigh primary sources in the balance, so we don't include them unless they are uncontroversial and unchallenged. Uncle G's essay is not about this issue anyway, it's about the inclusion of what we used to call "cruft" back in the day. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

An opinion of some random user page is not policy. Also, WP:CGTW applies. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not random, Uncle G is one of Wikipedia's finest, but the essay is not about this topic and abusing an essay in this way is an amusing irony when the essay is about abusing the definition of indiscriminate. The point is that Wikipedia is not the place to expound new theories from primary sources. When something is genuinely novel we are bound by canonical policy to wait for reliable independent sources to comment - which they typically do extremely quickly (cf. faster than light neutrinos) unless the claim is obvious bollocks. And if they don't comment? The idea probably *is* bollocks and we should not include it. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I still don't agree that "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." should be allowed to stay. My previously stated arguments, especially those at the beginning of discussion remain valid. In particular, claim cannot be based on independent reliable source, because all sources for claims are primary sources. See wp:ALLPRIMARY, WP:NONSENSE, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest deleting this sentence. It is sufficient that next paragraph says "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.". --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." is concerned, I suggest to replace it with: "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, it must be discussed by independent secondary source." This sounds like a good balance. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Insofar as I can tell, Asterixf2 is basically arguing that Wikipedia should promulgate fringe theories. To put it mildly, the consensus of the Wikipedia editing community is contrary to that, and Asterixf2 should either accept that this is the case, or seek support for such an unconventional opinion from other editors, perhaps through an RfC (which is extremely unlikely to support Asterixf2's opinion). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not arguing for that. I am arguing for proper balanced guidelines. Furthermore, you also have suggested clarification of guidelines (above, earlier). Also, it is easier to argue about more general points, but it is not constructive. You first generalize my position and then argue how it is obviously wrong. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, yes I agree that wikipedia should promulgate fringe theories and even pseudoscience if they constitute encyclopedic knowledge. To have a different approach would be against wp:notcensored and against wikipedia being the sum of encyclopedic knowledge. Please see Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ and wp:npov also promulgate != advocate. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, sth that is fringe for a musician might be, for example, one of a crucial points for a physicist working in narrow domain. And content of an article about something from narrow domain should be judged from the perspective of such a person (person that is going to actually look for this article). Consequently, sth that is fringe in the context of one article perhaps should not be treated as such in some other article depending on its topic and breadth. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If such a "narrow domain" is not fringe, then it is out-of-scope for the WP:FRINGE guideline and off-topic here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That phrase "after considering what is the profile of potential readers'" almost coffee spill ruined my keyboard. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide real argument and also pls see WP:TALKNO, Avoid indirect criticism, Passive Aggressive and wp:DONTBITE. For example, person entering article "Fringe theories about X" (assuming it was created because they were notable) would like to find various fringe theories about X. Another example, person entering "Supercomplex and advanced thing X" probably is not a retard and can judge for herself reported knowledge especially if it is decorated with . Thank you. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this article due to the edit war. If anybody is really determined that a change must be made then they can start an RfC and abide by the result. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The text was moved to another page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See also talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think if this user tries it on once more, they need to be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tries once more what exactly? I have made totally different change not involving fragments about 'independent' words. Because sb suggested that fringe page was not appropriate for this change I moved this edit to NPOV and tried to discuss it there. This is a different issue. Please reopen the discussion there. Also I find your comment there highly inappropriate. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You urgently need to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of "Independent reliable sources required" dispute
This discussion started when user Staszek Lem - this was BOLD that was reverted (FIRST REVERT) and user Staszek Lem started a discussion.

All other reverts/edits RESTORING this INITIAL CHANGE that was reverted in FIRST REVERT constitute unnecessary WP:EDITWAR as the discussion is ongoing. Please provide valid arguments in discussion instead of reverting.

Futhermore, as WP:BRD says "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)"

Please also see Revert only when necessary.--Asterixf2 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is an essay. It seems fairly clear the consensus is that this text in the lede is good. It is after all only a summary (such as ledes should provide) of what is spelled out in WP:FRIND: if some fringe concept ain't covered by independent sources, we shall not have it in our articles. Alexbrn (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the prior state of the article, you're the sole editor reverting a change that has now been added by multiple different editors and supported by more in the discussion. I don't think the editors supporting the change are the source of the edit warring problem. Sunrise (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see: WP:WIKINOTVOTE and most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion
 * My point is, originally this word wasn't there, so everybody could politely wait some reasonable time for discussion to end and perhaps contributing some good points to the discussion instead of reverting immediately and obfuscating edit history. Moreover, it doesn't matter how many editors do what, but the arguments.
 * As I see it, the primary reason for this edit was this dispute: Talk:Entropic_force (comment by TR) which was not very constructive because another user did not carefully analyze the article and made hasty and disruptive edits. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of these points, thanks. The standard response in this context is "being right is not an excuse to edit war." It's from the first paragraph of WP:EDITWAR and is even in one of the edit warring warning templates. Sunrise (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this is a significant misrepresentation of the first paragraph. It says that "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is an invalid argument. In this discussion I was not reverting because I was claiming that my edits were right, but because there was an ongoing discussion. This is a completely different situation. However, I must admit that I have initially confused two different places in article with 'independent' word.--Asterixf2 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I suspect that adding another comment here is futile, but for the record: "right" in this context includes being right as a matter of policy or procedure. Sunrise (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition
I've reverted Kingofaces addition of "scientific consensus," because it risks pushing mainstream minority views into the fringe.


 * The sentence says: "... fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support."
 * Kingofaces changed it to: "... fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and scientific consensus while having little or no scientific support."

Either the new text says nothing new or it adds something that is not obviously correct. SarahSV (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the link to scientific consensus is a good addition, although would be open to other wordings.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The link was meant to specify that scientific consensus is often even stronger evidence (i.e., a higher tier) for something than just mainstream science (not fitting into SV's either or interpretation above). Given that people often misunderstand what scientific consensus is, or that we have cases like climate change denial, it seems pretty important to mention it here. I'm curious what other folks think that were fine with the edit in the two weeks it remained.


 * It's one thing to have a theory conflicting with mainstream science. It's much more extreme to have it conflict with consensus. Views that differ from mainstream science can be still potentially be minority, while a view that differs from scientific consensus is by default fringe. Scientists rarely declare scientific consensus compared to demonstrating something is just mainstream. The change I made would be exactly for people mistakenly thinking a view conflicting with consensus is only a minority view and not fringe. It's a minor change, but it should prevent people from overgeneralizing like that. Even if minority views were a legitimate concern here, we already deal with that discussion elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we need sources for this, because I'm not sure how you're using the terms. There are minority views in science that are mainstream. Do you have a source to support that "a view that differs from scientific consensus is by default fringe"? SarahSV (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We're dealing with Wiki policy and guidelines, so we aren't going to have sources spelling out directly how we should be forming this guideline. WP:RS/AC policy is however very clear that statements of scientific consensus require a higher burden of evidence as opposed to when we make general normal statements about science through WP:MEDRS or WP:SCIRS sources where WP:WEIGHT is the main deciding factor as to what is mainstream. Again, different tiers. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with "scientific consensus" addition. There are plenty of cases when there are several plausible mainstream scientific theories to explain something, but none of which reached sci cons yet. There is a wide spectrum: "sci cons <-> conflicting views <-> minority views <-> fringe views <-> pseudoscience". Kingofaces43 is conflating a very wide subrange thereof. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If there isn't a scientific consensus specifically stated on something yet, then there is no scientific consensus to compare to. Your example doesn't seem to show a problem. You're just describing mainstream science in general in that case. I can't say where you are thinking something is being conflated. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I’d probably agree with you if “mainstream science” were being replaced with “scientific consensus”, but as an addition or reinforcement—particularly with “and” rather than “or”—I think it’s fine, helping to clarify what’s meant by “mainstream”.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , many topics in science won't have scientific consensus, so we can't replace "mainstream" with "consensus", but I do think if we're going to mention consensus it will need to be re-worded to be a little less confusing, perhaps a new sentence. I think is saying that when there is clear scientific consensus about a particular topic (i.e., when multiple high quality sources explicitly state there's scientific consensus supporting such-and-such view), then any alternate POVs should be considered FRINGE and that elucidating this in the guideline ideally might help reduce the amount of time wasted rehashing arguments (e.g,. Talk:climate change denial) as to why any view opposing the clearly stated scientific consensus should automatically be treated as FRINGE. That part would not apply to topics where there isn't scientific consensus yet, or at least there isn't clearly acknowledged consensus in high quality sources. In those cases, FRINGE views are any views that "depart significantly" from the 1+ mainstream views, which is a little more subjective. Kingofaces43, did I get that right?  —PermStrump  ( talk )  04:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, though I don't believe Odysseus was advocating for replacement, but instead addition of the term alongside mainstream science. I'm entirely in favor of fleshing out the concept of scientific consensus even more beyond my edit. I just figured it would be best to work incrementally first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes; I disagreed with Staszek’s objection because it seemed premised on the removal of “mainstream science”, which isn’t on the table. His ‘spectrum’ model is useful; although mentioning the “sci cons” end does little to sharpen the boundary between “minority” and “fringe”, it serves as a conceptual anchor.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"There are minority views in science that are mainstream." -- I don't think that's right. There are minority views in science which are tolerated by the mainstream, but they are essentially, by definition, not in the main stream of thought. What you may be referring to are ideas which are not yet ruled out by the prevailing scientific models but are also not accepted by most scientists. Our WP:FRINGE guideline applies to those ideas just as much as it does to ideas which are completely ruled out and ridiculed as pseudoscientific, for example. Fringe is not meant to be a pejorative. It is a description of the epistemic position of the subject. jps (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I know this isn't exactly what slimvirgin said, but some topics might have multiple POVs that each get substantial support from different camps within the same field, so that's why I'd want to figure out a way to re-word the "consensus" bit to make sure it's clear that we're not saying everything is fringe until Science announces it has reached consensus on the issue. —PermStrump  ( talk )  05:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of “mainstream” is that it can indeed include minority views, where the majority admit to uncertainty and the minority’s research methodology is sound—that is, where the disagreement is more about conclusions or inferences than about the underlying data or observations.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree. That's how I interpret the part of the guideline that talks about alternative theoretical formulations being part of the scientific process... as long as they don't depart significantly from the mainstream view, but I know there are other editors that I usually agree with about most other stuff who don't interpret it the same say. But that's a little bit of a tangent right now I guess... —PermStrump  ( talk )  07:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think an example may be appropriate. In my field, people propose alternative hypotheses and new theories all the time. Most of these alternatives die obscure deaths as evidence either shows them to be incorrect. The few that survive end up being "mainstream", but then they are no long "minority" theories but instead are adopted by the majority. These alternative hypotheses and new theories are not rejected outright, but skepticism naturally runs high due to the history of failed ideas. In Wikipedia, we often get these "minority" opinions showing up and sometimes being promoted by the people who hold to them. The appropriate response is to WP:WEIGHT them accordingly, but, more over, a lot of the points in this guideline apply (WP:NFRINGE, WP:FRIND, WP:ONEWAY, WP:PARITY, etc.). Often the adherents to these ideas will argue that because their ideas are not pseudoscientific that WP:FRINGE does not apply. This makes no sense. A minority theory should not be allowed to masquerade as a majority theory or serve as a coatrack just because it hasn't yet been rejected. It still suffers from all the problems that other ideas in WP:FRINGE suffer from. The only difference is that these ideas often have had more attention paid to them in the context of the scientific discourse than many of the fringe ideas which are so far out of the mainstream that no one has bothered to comment. However, this isn't always the case. There are occasionally novel proposals made that later on attract attention but people try to insert them into Wikipedia before there are independent sources discussing them. My point is, I guess, that such minority opinions are properly covered by this guideline and to argue otherwise is one of the big misconceptions I've seen argued over at Wikipedia to no good end. This guideline applies to these ideas just as much as it does to the ideas which are completely pseudoscientific (though, of course, the treatment of these ideas will be different as, for example, reliable sources will not be found that call them pseudoscientific).

Perhaps examples of what you mean may be in order. I can provide examples of what I mean: Earth Similarity Index.

jps (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with jps and PermStrump. It should be kept, just reworded. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My concern about the recent addition was prompted in part by Kingofaces' involvement in writing an RfC to decide on words for several GMO articles. He added "scientific consensus" to this guideline, suggested adding it to WP:IRS,  then did the same to the first RfC question, which refers back to these guidelines.


 * The result of the edit is that scientists who disagree with the consensus view of GMO are ipso facto fringe thinkers covered by this guideline.


 * Looking at another field – in Holocaust studies the consensus figure for those who died in Auschwitz is 1.1 million, but for many years there were mainstream estimates that were lower and much higher. Lying far outside these academic debates, there are the Holocaust deniers, identified as fringe because their figures are significantly lower, but also because they deny that gas chambers were in use, they don't have jobs as historians, and they hold racist and other ridiculous views. Their fringe views about Auschwitz are different in kind, not degree; they are not simply mainstream academics who disagree with their colleagues. Kingofaces' edit loses that distinction. SarahSV (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * But scientists who disagree with scientific consensus views really are ipso facto fringe thinkers covered by this guideline. This is in no way a means to disparage said scientists. It's just a simple fact of the situation in reliable sources. For example, it would not be correct to include a false equivalency on the page on transgenesis the views of scientists who claim that single gene manipulation is more dangerous than artificial selection techniques without careful consideration of independent sources, how well-represented their views are in the literature, and so on. This guideline is exactly set-up to deal with the minority viewpoints of certain scientists with respect to genetic engineering. The guideline in no way is disparaging the minority/maverick/breakthrough scientists who are making these points. It's only describing the best practices for how to couch their particular take in accordance with Wikipedia policies.


 * As far as estimates for Holocaust victims is concerned, I think this is a different matter as we are discussing science rather than history here. Even so, you are absolutely correct that there are different kinds of fringe theorists. However, this guideline is not trying to distinguish between different kinds of fringe theorists as I don't think Wikipedia is equipped to do that (though let me know if you think there is a way this happens). The guideline is explicitly meant to paint with a broad brush. We make no judgment against those ideas that are relevant for this guideline, we only offer guidance on how to cover notable ideas that are on the fringes (which is actually a term of art related to tapestry and originally carried no negative connotations at all).


 * jps (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the inclusion. As I've stated many times before, there is a distinction between 'fringe' and 'psuedoscientific'. I have stated many times that while Loop quantum gravity is a fringe theory, it is far from a pseudoscientific one. I have used this particular example numerous times, and it seems to be a really good one for communicating with people invested in a fringe theory that the skeptically-minded editors here aren't out to get them. However, my use of this example runs contrary to what the guideline states. The guideline, right now, does not draw a distinction between fringe science and pseudoscience.
 * Furthermore, the standards applying to fringe and psudoscientific subjects should apply to all fringe subjects, not just to those which are obviously bogus. When a group of cautious editors took a look at Cryonics, for example, it was fairly quickly determined that it should fall under those discretionary sanctions, even though it's hardly a pseudoscience. In short, we're limiting our ability to productively edit articles about non-mainstream science by not including this bit, as it means we're giving undue weight to the voices of those who, for whatever reason, have adopted one non-mainstream view or another as their own and endeavor to spread The Truth&#8482; here on WP. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , can you express in your own words what the proposal adds that the current sentence doesn't already say?


 * Current: "... fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support."
 * Proposed: "... fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and scientific consensus while having little or no scientific support."


 * SarahSV (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Although you did not ask me, I would argue that the addition of the scientific consensus term allows for a clearer explanation of which of the many different forms of fringe science the guideline is meant to address (the guideline is much more broadly applicable than to just pseudoscience or pathological science). jps (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thanks, but you don't say how it's clearer. I'm looking for someone to explain succinctly in their own words what the proposed text means—what exactly the new text says that the current sentence doesn't already say. SarahSV (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The current text uses a link to the Wikipedia article on fringe science to identify fringe science, which is ambiguous because it covers a lot of ground. It legitimately confuses some people who think that fringe science only covers pseudoscience or non-science (which is, according to our own article a legitimate interpretation). Adding scientific consensus makes it crystal clear that we are also talking about ideas which are marginalized within the scientific community which don't necessarily adhere to the pseudoscience definition, for example. jps (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The proposal would eliminate much of the reason that fringe (but not pseudoscientific) subjects such as Cryonics are often argued to not be fringe. It would make it easier for critical editors to address problems with articles like Electronic harassment, which are clearly fringe, but not scientific enough to classify as pseudoscientific. It would take some of the stigma away from the word "fringe" as it is used here, allowing all editors to be a bit more objective about it. It would allow subjects like Deprogramming to be addressed more directly, as it's clearly a fringe (applied) science, but not at all clearly pseudoscientific.
 * I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a fundamental difference between pseudoscience and non-mainstream science. Your holocaust example was a good one (even if it was about history, not science) for illustrating this. But the thing is, legitimate science -even non-mainstream- can rise above the restrictions imposed upon fringe views. Conversely, not including non-mainstream science makes it possible for editors to push non-mainstream views into articles with undue weight. After all, they will have the reliable sources to support those views. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Break 1
, thank you. It seems that this extends the guideline significantly. I didn't really understand your point, particularly:


 * "... legitimate science -even non-mainstream- can rise above the restrictions imposed upon fringe views. Conversely, not including non-mainstream science makes it possible for editors to push non-mainstream views into articles with undue weight."

Can you give some actual examples where editors have pushed non-mainstream views into articles with undue weight, and where this change to the guideline would have prevented it? SarahSV (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been having a bear of a time trying to clean up matters related to Earth Similarity Index over the last few months. For a time, nearly every extrasolar planet article had an ESI number attached to it which was pretty much a WP:ONEWAY violation. Many of those in favor of ESI inclusion (essentially gamers and science fiction fans who enjoyed fantasizing about life possibilities on other planets that have actually been discovered) used ESI as a prominent identifier on a wide range of articles across Wikipedia. I had a few colleagues ask me explicitly why Wikipedia was doing this and over the months I've been working on cleaning it up I've found that one of the things that the ESI-fans refuse to do is accept that this guideline is relevant.
 * Another example is the issues we had with where people argued that WP:FRINGE didn't apply was Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology. It would be nice to head-off these ridiculous arguments over jurisdiction before they become personalized. jps (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this old revision of the Cryonics article is a good example. It was after someone brought this to the FTN that more critical editors got involved and brought the article back to its current, more neutral tone. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no way of knowing what the issues were there. I'm looking for a concrete example of what difference this proposal would make.


 * Looking at an issue I'm familiar with, in female genital mutilation, the medical and legal consensus is that it's a human-rights violation that is medically harmful even in its milder forms, that it conveys no health benefits, and the UN should work to eradicate it. There is a minority medical view that it is not harmful or not significantly so. And there is a view within anthropology that it conveys cultural benefits and that the West should mind its own business. This is perhaps a majority view within anthropology, but looking at the reliable academic sources in total it's clearly a minority view.


 * Kingofaces proposal would push all these minority views into the fringe, meaning they could not be included. When I was writing the FGM article, I included the anthropologists, but I left out the minority medical position, because I couldn't decide whether it was minority (in which case I wanted to include it) or whether it was tiny-minority/fringe (in which case I didn't). So I erred on the side of caution, but only because I didn't know how to evaluate it. Kingofaces' proposal would lose that important distinction. SarahSV (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just because something is subject to this guideline does not mean it must be excised. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it does not. I think you are confusing the WP:WEIGHT aspects of minority/tiny minority with WP:FRINGE (which is intentionally designed to be broader and allow for edge cases). jps (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of a view identifed as fringe on Wikipedia that is included in the article about the mainstream position? Whenever I hear fringe being raised, the aim is to remove views or confine them to their own article. SarahSV (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A classic example is Evolution. jps (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what issue within that article would be affected by the proposed text, as I did with the Holocaust and FGM examples? SarahSV (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I precisely follow, and I feel a bit like I'm trying to kick the ball between moving goalposts here. To be honest, I myself didn't really understand how your examples were going to be affected by the proposed change at all. I thought your examples were more to highlight your opinion that "fringe" means completely outside academic discourse rather than just being a minority position. In that regard, the fact that ideas that are completely outside of the discourse on evolution are included in a mainstream article on evolution speaks to me to the idea that this guideline is not saying, "excise all fringe theories". The question of how to include alternative minority theories with respect to this guideline is handled well at other articles. For example, General_relativity. Scientific consensus is not that the people working on alternatives are completely outside of academic discourse. They are not all practicing pseudoscience or pathological science (though some are, to be sure). The inclusion of a section on alternative theories in the article on General Relativity is telling for its brevity and what it exactly says. All of the WP:ONEWAY, WP:FRIND, WP:PARITY, etc. issues seem well-handled. If we were going to argue that this guideline doesn't apply in those instances we might come to the same conclusion, but it would require more headaches, IMHO. jps (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , the difficulty I'm having is that either the new words mean something (they would lead to some kind of change in how we handle material) or they mean nothing and can safely be left out. But when I ask "what practical difference will these words make?" I'm given links to articles. What I'm requesting is greater specificity. What new thing on Wikipedia might these new words lead to? What problem will they fix (along with clear examples)? Would it change the article on evolution? If so, how? SarahSV (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it will cause less confusion in the discussions (and the auxilliary ones) I referenced above where there were questions whether this guideline applied to a specific alternative theory of cosmology and an obscure index. Straightforward principles such as WP:ONEWAY, WP:PARITY and so on need to be reargued if the person refuses to accept that the particular idea which may not be pseudoscience but is certainly not part of the scientific consensus is subject to this guideline. It's that simple. By including the specific example of scientific consensus we are ensuring that people don't question whether or not their pet idea is covered by this guideline. Not in the scientific consensus? Covered by this guideline. The guideline, note, does not say "EXCISE ALL FRINGE THEORIES". Instead, it offers a number of helpful principles that are clearly delineated here while convolutedly discernible from main policy pages. The addition has the potential to forestall certain tiresome debates that I've referenced precisely by removing the question of whether a normal minority idea is subject to the ideas in this guideline or not. In practice, we use these principles all over the encyclopedia for minority ideas outside of the scientific consensus. Since fringe science is ambiguous, it is absolutely helpful. jps (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's important not to extend the coverage of this guideline, because it's already contentious, and some of the ways in which it is used have been problematic (I can't think of examples offhand, though).


 * I disagree that scientists who take issue with a scientific consensus are fringe thinkers, and as that seems to be what the new words are saying, I oppose their addition. I'm thinking now about an area of medicine with which I have some familiarity. There are standard treatments, agreed by national and international bodies. There are also doctors who waver from this, and who are introducing new treatments carefully. These doctors are working with governments and universities and are not fringe by any standard, but they disagree with the scientific consensus on this issue and seek to change it. If we were to include their views in an article (well-sourced of course), we wouldn't flag them in any way. They would simply not be presented as the majority or consensus view. SarahSV (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Break 2

 * I think it's time to drop the stick on those comments. You've already been told this would not change how we categorize fringe, minority, mainstream, etc. views. As others have mentioned, the addition of scientific consensus only reinforces what an aspect of mainstream science is with additional clarity as consensus is a subset of mainstream science. However, it is an aspect we give significantly more weight to per policy than if we're just talking about more general statements from mainstream sources that don't explicitly say scientific consensus. That's what merits specifically pointing out without causing any actual change in how the guideline is implemented. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Change your tone, please. I don't appreciate "time to drop the stick," and that I've "already been told." You tried to slip in a major change to a contentious guideline, so it's being discussed. SarahSV (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The point is that your specific questions have been addressed even after you keep repeating that this is a major change when that idea has been thoroughly addressed and dismissed. You may not appreciate being told you're vastly misreading things here, but you need to deal with that as part of consensus-building when you're arguing premises that are very different than the specific piece of guideline at hand. The best thing to do is realize you were off base on something rather than keep sticking to it. There's nothing to change in tone about that as normal civil discussion. However, I'll just choose to instead chuckle at the comments that I tried "slip" things in given what I explicitly said in my edit summary as this isn't the place to discuss behavior issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43, you are not answering a very specific question, namely, how would the suggested change in the policy affect our decisions. With the exception of obvious, minor rephrasing we don't change policies without solid reason. "If not broken, don't fix it". If you cannot point to past discussion, please provide a hypothetical example. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That question has already been answered a few times. It doesn't affect how we already do things in terms of WP:FRINGE. It only gives additional guidance and clarification by mentioning the concept of scientific consensus as part of mainstream science. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You write "That question has already been answered a few times". It was not a question. It was a request to provide a case and an explanation how the policy change would affect it. Now, since you are saying that the change does not affect our actions per policy, then let me narrow it down: Please lease provide an example where your change would have affected the arguments, e.g., so that the parties come to an agreement faster. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43, re: "the addition of scientific consensus only reinforces what an aspect of mainstream science is with additional clarity as consensus is a subset of mainstream science" - Yes, you are right here: the consensus is a subset of mainstream science. And therefore your phrasing is redundant. It is just like saying "Vegetarians do not eat meat and beef" This is what some of us are against. However we may be mistaken and your addition indeed reinforces something. Hence SlimVirgin asked you to provide an example in support of your opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone believes the phrasing is redundant, that's exactly the kind of person we need to be educating better through this guideline. As you stated below, they are different concepts, so this question and quoted example seem odd. Others have already explained how the term reinforces the language above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO it cannot reinforce. It goes against the basic logic. However it appears I am starting to understand what you have in mind. If a vegan does not eat meat, the statement "A vegan does not eat meat and beef" is a reinforcement for those who don't know that beef is meat. So, are are you saying that your reinforcement is for people who don't know that "scientific consensus" is part of "mainstream science"? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43, re: "However, it is an aspect we give significantly more weight to" -- Yes we do, but the watershed "mainstream vs. consensus" is not the same as "fringe vs. mainstream". Both are valid aspects of WP:UNDUE, but they have different peculiarities, and better not to mix-and-match them. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No one was ever making that argument. Consensus is just an even stronger version of mainstream science that has more specific requirements. If something goes against the mainstream science whether minority for fringe, it will by default go against a scientific consensus if it exists to at least the same degree if not more. There is no mixing and matching. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is "mixing and matching". A reasonably educated person will read it and think: "now wait a minute, isn't SciCons is part of MainSci? What did they have in mind again? This wikispeak starts freaking me out. I've already learned in a hard way (after two blocks :-) that in wikpedia, consensus is not most people think. So, what's the deal with WP:SCIENTIFICCONSENSUS now?" Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am starting to suspect that some of the miscommunication comes from a well-known discrepancy in treatment of logical predicates in natural languages. For example, the phrase "I don't eat fish and milk" may mean either (A) "I don't eat dishes that contain fish AND milk taken together " or (B) "I don't eat dishes that contain fish OR milk". Regarding the discussed proposal, depending on the reading, the discussed change is either a strong restriction of the policy or redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec)The addition of "consensus" is too problematic and ripe for abuse. In addition to adding little clarity, it shifts the focus from science ("mainstream science") to people ("scientific consensus"). It leads to placing individuals into "in group" and "out group" buckets that can evolve from very minor departures from mainstream scientific thought. Fringe theories should be identified as fringe theories by reliable sources. Scientists themselves should almost never be identified as being "fringe" especially if that identity is determined by an assessment of whether they are in the "consensus" group. Given that, I don't see a need for including "consensus" language in the definition of "fringe." "Scientific consensus" doesn't help identify fringe theories and even less helpful in identifying fringe scientists. "I don't believe what they believe" is the heart of every new scientific theory. That is generally a departure from consensus on some level. It is generally a departure from mainstream scientific thought but often hard to quantify its merits. it is very disconcerting that it would be harder to quantify the departure from mainstream scientific thought than it would be to simply put them in the "out group" and use ad hominem arguments to make a scientist and, therefore, their theories fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would leave it out, in the form that is discussed here. And I'm saying that as a scientist. I agree with some other editors that novel scientific ideas often start out outside of scientific consensus, even when the ideas are put forth as part of a non-fringe, mainstream scientific discussion. String theory does not have consensus, but it is not fringe. So the actual definition of "fringe" relates to mainstream science, rather than to consensus, in that fringe occurs outside of mainstream discourse. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with saying that mainstream, but not-consensus, science should be treated in accordance with WP:DUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The proposed change seems problematic to me, for two reasons:
 * The part "mainstream science and scientific consensus" could be interpreted to mean that there cannot be any fringe theories if there is no scientific consensus. However, some theories contending for consensus are mainstream, others are fringe. (For example, there is no consensus on quantum gravity, yet I would neither call string theory, nor loop quantum gravity fringe theories, but I'm sure there are other alternatives that are.) This should at least read "mainstream science or scientific consensus". But since the scientific consensus is necessarily mainstream science, it then also becomes immediately clear that the part "or scientific consensus" is redundant.
 * If there is a scientific consensus, it can also be interpreted to mean that any alternative theory that goes against it is necessarily a fringe theory. This is not true. Some of these alternatives may be fringe theories, but some could be mainstream (particularly those that eventually become the new consensus).
 * So, contrasting fringe science against mainstream science seems sufficient. Also contrasting it against the scientific consensus would introduce an ambiguity than changes the meaning to something that is either too strong, or is merely superfluous.
 * —Ruud 23:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ruud, and would add: Isn't fringe science equivalent to WP:UNDUE's "tiny minority views", as distinct from "significant minority views"?  The latter are part of the spectrum of mainstream science, but are not fringe (because they do not depart from it significantly, e.g. by upending the laws of physics the way homeopathic notions do); however, they are not necessarily part of scientific consensus either, if they legitimately challenge it.  OTOH, tiny minority views are fringe and are not part of the spectrum of mainstream science (let alone sci consensus).  In that case, the original wording -- fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support -- is sufficient.  However, recognizing the arguments in favor Kingofaces's proposed addition, it might be good to clarify with something like this (changes italicized):
 * fringe theories in science depart significantly from the spectrum of mainstream science (of which scientific consensus is by definition a subset) and have little or no scientific support. (See also WP:UNDUE.).
 * (FWIW, we don't need to go further into the distinction between fringe science and legitimate alternative views because it's discussed in the immediately following subsection, WP:FRINGE/PS). --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 19:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I like those changes. It's basically establishing the same concept I was trying to get across that scientific consensus sits at the core of the spectrum of mainstream science. I haven't caught up on much of the conversation that has happened since I last posted here, but I agree that we don't need to be discussing further distinctions of fringe vs. alternative views. I think folks were getting too hung up on that somewhat separate aspect and missing the intent of my original change of specifying where scientific consensus comes into play. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the change is really needed, but if editors decide to go with it, I would delete "the spectrum of" and "by definition". It would also be better to address UNDUE elsewhere, and with more explanation than a "see also". That would make the change simply the addition of "(of which scientific consensus is a subset)". Again, I'm not convinced that it's necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Break 3
This thread is getting long and the chunks that clarify what we're talking about are all mixed in the middle, so I wanted to try to start over and attempt to explain again in a spot that's easy to see, because it does seem like there's a miscommunication among people who fundamentally agree with the spirit of the Fringe guideline and may or may not agree with this tweak if we were all talking about the same thing.
 * Current wording:

The amount of time editors spend debating if a certain perspective is fringe instead of spending that time improving wikipedia. In the current wording, the "example" is almost identical to the preceding sentence, so it doesn't really clarify anything. There's some subjectivity, or at least a semblance of subjectivity, about what it means to depart "significantly" from the mainstream view. Certain editors use that semblance of subjectivity to endlessly debate that their view doesn't depart significantly from the mainstream view and therefore isn't fringe. They're wrong and fringe definitely applies, but we still waste time arguing with them.
 * What problem are we trying to solve?

Only to a small number of topics for which there is clear scientific consensus; everything else will continue business as usual. MAYBE, if we add a sentence or tweak the current wording to specifically address topics for which there is scientific consensus, we can save a little bit of time editors have to waste debating if viewpoints opposing the consensus are a significant enough of departure from the mainstream so as to warrant being considered fringe. gave Climate change denial as an example, which is a rare circumstance where multiple high quality sources explicitly state that there is "scientific consensus" that climate change exists (one example). Yet, editors who disagree with climate change persistently try to argue that "climate skeptics" do not represent a minority view. It should be obvious to most people that anything opposing the scientific consensus is fringe, but the current wording makes POV pushers think there's wiggle room to make an argument, and much time is wasted rehashing the same arguments.
 * When would the proposed edit be relevant?

Keeping that all in mind, and reading Kingofaces43's edit in the context of the sentence before it, I think this was a good edit (additions underlined): I don't think anyone here is so naive as to think this will eliminate ALL debate on the climate change article (or other topics that scientists have consensus about), but it would make it easier to come up with a canned response that includes a direct quote from the policy that might help shut it down in a little bit less time. —PermStrump ( talk )  01:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and scientific consensus while having little or no scientific support.
 * Another suggestion (from me): "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science deviate from the scientific consensus or depart significantly from mainstream science while having little or no scientific support."


 * I like your suggestion, and would add that if we're going to mention scientific consensus, we need to be clearer about its relationship to mainstream science. I tried that above the latest break, stating that sci consensus is a subset of mainstream science (IOW, at the core, where various mainstream ideas converge in widely-held agreement).  Kingofaces43 liked it for that reason.  Here's a clearer version, taking into account Permstrump's suggestion and Tryptofish's feedback above; additions in italics:
 * (A) For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science (and even more sharply from scientific consensus, which is at its core) and have little or no scientific support.
 * Or perhaps omitting the parenthetical, since it's now implied:
 * (B) For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science (and even more sharply from scientific consensus) and have little or no scientific support.
 * This change is not essential imo, but if some editors do want to clarify the relationship between mainstream science and sci consensus, it shouldn't hurt and might help. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 08:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I like (B), and I'm also just fine with no change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think B does the job plenty fine too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I'd change "depart" to "deviate" to make the image work. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Break 4
Either the new words make no difference or they reduce or extend the reach of the guideline. The second sentence offers an illustration of the first sentence (note: "for example"). Therefore it ought not to reduce or extend the reach of the first, which says:

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."

The mainstream incorporates majority and minority views. A consensus may form around certain ideas and practices. Mainstream scholars might disagree with the consensus. Historians don't become fringe thinkers if they argue that a higher number of people died in Auschwitz than the consensus figure of 1.1 million.

The first sentence is followed by a subject-specific sentence, which really just repeats the first sentence:


 * Current:

The two proposals add a new idea (bold added):


 * Proposal 1:


 * Proposal 2:

Proposal 1 was rejected because it appeared to extend the reach of the guideline. Proposal 2 appears to say the same thing as proposal 1 (the only difference is the addition of "and even more sharply"), but the grammar is confusing: fringe views depart even more sharply from consensus than they do from the mainstream? SarahSV (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal 2 about "even more sharply" is highly dubious: Who measures sharpness? I say two kooks may depart from each other as sharply as piranha teeth. It is a very bad idea to invent definitions in wikipedia policies: it will highly confuse ordinary (non-wikilawyer) people. We have to stick to "normal" understanding of the terms. Therefore, for starters, please  fix the inadequately referenced article "fringe science". Then at least we will know what we are talking about here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Per WP:SOFIXIT, I cleaned up some obvious logical blunders in "Fringe science". Please join. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , yes, you're reading Proposal 2 as I intended it, but it could be clearer. FWIW, the thinking behind Proposal 2 is that scientific consensus is at the "center" of mainstream science, i.e. the part of mainstream science upon which a substantial majority of scientists agree, and fringe ideas are further away from mainstream science's center than from its periphery.  But (cf. ) that "further away" bit ain't necessarily so, because some fringe ideas are so far out that they have nothing to do with mainstream science at all, irrespective of where is "center" is.  Taking that into account, and getting rid of "sharply", and using 's suggestion, how about this (changes from Proposal 2 bolded):
 * Proposal 3: For example, fringe theories in science deviate significantly from mainstream science (and may deviate even more significantly from scientific consensus) and have little or no scientific support.
 * (I was going to say "tend to deviate" instead of "may deviate", but again: fringe theories are so varied that it's probably best not to overgeneralize.) --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 08:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, no one bothered to work on "Fringe science" article to provide reference to the very definition of the term. Therefore until you prove the scientific consensus about the definition of "fringe science", what we are doing here may well be fringe science itself :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is required to work on that article. That is your WP:BURDEN if you have issues there. At the end of the day, we've had an overall consensus that it's fine to include scientific consensus in some fashion even with your objections being considered early on. We generally don't require sources for policy and guideline changes like this, but if there is a source demonstrating that scientific consensus is somehow being misued here, I would be interested to see it. Most editors don't see that as a legitimate issue here though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I did my share of BURDEN there right after I first time mentioned it, and I am inviting others, and I fail to see why you have issues with that. I find it ridiculous that people discuss "fringe science" policy without having a clear understanding what the term actually means in reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus to add it here, and it's not clear how you're using the phrase, which is why you've been asked for sources. Again, either your suggestion would make no difference to the guideline or it would extend it. If the former, there's no point in adding it; if the latter, it's arguably important not to add it. SarahSV (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We can still have a WP:CONSENSUS even when you and Staszek Lem disagree with the inclusion. That roughly 80% of editors are fine with the general inclusion says something even though things aren't a WP:VOTE, but these editors haven't seen your concerns as valid or have already been adequately addressed. That's generally an indication it's time for the conversation to move on. The question now has been exact wording. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * also objected. There's a process of "othering" taking place here, both with the proposal, which would allow editors to label as "fringe" mainstream scientists they disagreed with, and in the way the proposal is being presented, with the suggestion that editors who disagree be ignored. SarahSV (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how it does that (allow editors to label as "fringe" mainstream scientists they disagreed with) -- can you elaborate? FWIW I am neutral on this but am trying to help along a consensus. Never mind -- I do see how this could be a problem.  It's not agreement with sci consensus, but lack of evidence, that makes something "fringe science" (as I understand the term, and Staszek Lem is right that we do need RS to clarify it before we start acting as amateur philosophers of science) --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 01:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC), struck/added cmt 09:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , yes. The proposal to introduce an additional, undefined, phrase increases the likelihood that mainstream scientists will be labelled as fringe.


 * Anyone wanting to introduce that phrase should (a) define it with reference to appropriate RS; (b) explain the function of the new phrase within the guideline; (c) offer clear examples of issues that will be affected by the new phrase; and (d) deal with objections. None of that has happened. SarahSV (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Most of those have already been addressed quite a bit in the above discussion, so that has happened. As for a source, it seems to be quite the stretch of the imagination that the change will somehow put mainstream scientists in the fringe category, so the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a source or concrete example of a problem. Also keep in mind that we typically don't source policies and guidelines to the degree some are wanting here (one could gut a lot of WP:RS with this logic). Can anyone think of an instance where there is a scientific consensus on something, but an opposing idea would depart more from the mainstream science than the scientific consensus. That logically wouldn't work, but if there is a concrete example, then that would be something to discuss. If someone is unfamiliar with the term scientific consensus, that's why we wikilink the page where there are sources on it's definition and all the nuance of scientific consensus building. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I basically agree about sci consensus (with caveat stated above), but am not sure this guideline (as opposed to, say, an essay) is the place to discuss it. How, if at all, would Proposal #2 change what we do and don't characterize as fringe science?  I don't see it making any difference in the hands of good-faith, science-literate editors, but I could see less clueful/scrupulous editors taking a legit mainstream idea and wikilawyering that the topic "is very different from sci consensus, so it must be fringe". Murphy's Law does apply with guidelines on contentious topic areas. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 22:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think such a scenario is pretty easily addressed. This scenario would require an idea being in the mainstream science yet simultaneously be against the scientific consensus statement. In that case, the scientific consensus would no longer exist, so you would need extremely strong new sources or the original sources coming out (i.e., not WP:FLAT) saying the course of the science has changed in order for it to not be a fringe idea. That means more than a few individual sources that can be easily cherrypicked. It would be difficult for a even wikilaywer to actually be incorrect here in saying something is fringe. That's why I'd want to see an actual example to work through if this really does concern people. I don't think anyone can actually provide such an example, but I will gladly eat crow and hit the drawing board if we do have a legitimate real life example. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * -- for an example of "an idea being in the mainstream science yet simultaneously be against the scientific consensus statement", see Alternatives to the Standard Model Higgs, all of which go against the Standard Model. A possible second example is the Nostratic hypothesis, which per this source is "outside consensus".  But more to the point: why is this change (Proposal 2 &c.) necessary?  What is broken now?  Where specifically are we getting false positives and/or false negatives, as far as fringe-categorization goes, with the current guideline? --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 05:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually seeing the term scientific consensus being used in these articles, so was there something specific you were intending to point out in them?


 * For your questions, it's a big deal when scientists say a scientific consensus has developed on a subject. That means most of the main debate is done. Most editors are not familiar with the term scientific consensus, so it's helpful in content discussions to mention that in reference to mainstream science. We already make the same type of distinction proposed here between pseudoscience and scientific consensus over at WP:PSCI policy. Permstrump's post at the very beginning of Break 3 summarized the underlying reasoning reducing some of the ambiguity of what is actually fringe. In the case where a scientific consensus has been declared, opposing ideas are more apt to be fringe as opposed to being minority views in mainstream science. It's meant to make it easier for editors citing this guideline or for those new to the concept to spend less time debating over what is a fringe idea when many editors are not familiar with the scientific consensus concept. Climate change or really any controversial article with a consensus statement would benefit for either of those areas. In short, a scientific consensus statement carries so much WP:WEIGHT that other ideas are typically in fringe territory, and we're just tightening up the language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to disagree with your interpretation of the effect of scientific consensus on judgement of other theories. By this logic nearly all novel breakthroughs are fringe. I disagree linking "fringe" with deviation from consensus. The very heart of scientific research is challenging the established views. However this challenging may be done in a fringe way and in a mainstream way. IMO the only way to link "fringe" with "consensus" is: "if sci consensus says it is fringe, then it is fringe". The other kind of fringe is when sci consensus does not care at all despite all noise generated (as opposed to obscurity, which, again, may be both fringe and non-fringe until evaluated). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a little nitpicky, but the previous language for proposal 2 (top of this section) seemed more concise. I can't think of a case where we need to say may. In a case where a fringe theory is maybe slightly closer to mainstream than others, it's still going to significantly depart from mainstream and scientific consensus even more. This has been going on long enough though, so I think we've done enough wordsmithing to go ahead with focusing the current proposal 2. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: There are obviously still doubts, so don't rush/push it too much; it will tend to alienate some who are unpersuaded. regards --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 22:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that this be tabled for now, as the opposing "sides" here take differing stances on a pending RfC and the disagreement here is clearly an extension of that. Perhaps when that RfC is over this can be revisited.  Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I don't consider this addition relevant to any specific disputes currently being discussed that I'm involved in, otherwise I would not have proposed the change as we generally discourage changes to policy and guideline to "win" current content disputes. That's as much as I'll say on that.


 * That being said, I'm running on limited available time to work with this much more, so I'm content letting this sit for awhile. That's especially so someone can provide an actual example of when someone could falsely claim something as fringe when it's vastly different than the scientific consensus as I described just above to Middle 8. I'm starting to think that's looking like a unicorn idea, but I'm in no rush. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)