Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 23

Example
An example on this page currently says, "including McCartney, who is alive and well as of 2014". Could some admin update it to say "as of 2016"? (Actually, Guy, I think it might be reasonable for you to remove protection early, as the disputants seem less active at the moment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What is an independent source?
"It is fine for the authors to have chiropractic affiliations if they are writing for reliable publishers independent from the chiropractic industry like Demos Medical Publishing (a Springer Publishing imprint) and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (a Wolters Kluwer imprint). Reliable publishers independent from the chiropractic industry are independent sources," according to User:Cunard. However, "Robert A. Leach is a chiropractic practitioner, as is Kirk Eriksen, these are not independent sources of the subject. The book Suckers is reliable but only briefly discussed NUCCA on one page of the book (p. 152)," according to User:HealthyGirl. Who is correct according to Fringe theories or does WP:FRIND need to be more specific to resolve the matter? See Articles for deletion/NUCCA. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Section hierarchy overhaul
I suggest to reshuffle the sections into a logical order. Right now the sections look like a random pile. For starters, I would like to rehash them all into three major supersections: Identifying, Sourcing, and Coverage :


 * Identifying fringe theories
 * Spectrum of fringe theories
 * Coverage in wikipedia
 * Notability
 * Notability versus acceptance
 * Evaluating and describing claims
 * Unwarranted promotion
 * Mentions in other articles
 * Treatment of living persons
 * Sourcing
 * Reliable sources
 * Sourcing and attribution (with its subsections)

To me this is a more logical sequence than the current TOC:

1		Identifying fringe theories 1.1	Spectrum of fringe theories 2	Reliable sources 3	Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories 4	Notability 5	Evaluating and describing claims 6	Notability versus acceptance 7	Sourcing and attribution (with subsections) 8	Treatment of living persons 9	Mentions in other articles

Opinions? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Further, the lede should be split into "lede proper" and "Rationale" section. IMO the first paragraph of the lede already gives an adequate summary of the guideline content. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you are doing. Everything in WP starts with sources, so sources should be 2nd not 3rd.  Other than that, makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I considered moving sources up as well. I have arguments in favor of both ways, so I am OK with your way. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases
I would like to discuss removal of Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases (diff: ). In my opinion, this was an Alternative theoretical formulation that became mainstream and should be restored. My reasons for this are:
 * not accepted for 30 years (contributed to Boltzmann's suicide)
 * very important and perfectly fits the criteria for inclusion: In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are ... big bang theory

Excerpts from Ludwig Boltzmann:
 * 1) "Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases seemed to presuppose the reality of atoms and molecules, but almost all German philosophers and many scientists like Ernst Mach and the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald disbelieved their existence. During the 1890s Boltzmann attempted to formulate a compromise position ..."
 * 2) "In 1904 at a physics conference in St. Louis most physicists seemed to reject atoms and he was not even invited to the physics section ."

In my opinion honorable mention would be appropriate. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All the examples used in guidance must be clear-cut, so if there's any doubt about this case it is unwise to cite it here. Alexbrn (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a valid potential criterion for exclusion, but I am not sure if it applies in this case because there is no reasonable doubt that Boltzmann's theory was mostly rejected. I don't think we should omit this just because it was hugely influential later and because for some users it is somewhat uncomfortable to notice that it fits here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The cited source in your edit does not say that this is or was fringe. It does say that "Boltzmann suffered extreme mood swings, possibly due to bipolar disorder, and struggled to cope with criticism from scientists who maintained an anti-atomist standpoint." Concluding that the KGT was fringe would be a very obvious case of wp:OR. - DVdm (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand now that your objection is related to the cited source. I am not going to add it without a better source and I will try to find such later. Thank you for your comment. PS. "does not say that this is or was fringe" - those examples are not meant to be fringe now. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I just read the history section of the article on Kinetic theory of gases. It confirms my memory of the development of the theory of gases – it's not really a good example of an alternative theory that was on the fringe for a significant period of time. Atomic theory was already well accepted by the time Maxwell and Boltzmann did their work. LK (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Boltzmann died in 1906 and even in the section you mention it says "An important turning point was Albert Einstein's (1905)[17] and Marian Smoluchowski's (1906)[18] papers on Brownian motion, which succeeded in making certain accurate quantitative predictions based on the kinetic theory." Please also read Ludwig Boltzmann. I suggest you to reconsider, you don't have to insist on your position just because you have reverted this change (and also DVdm). However, it is acceptable to include kinetic theory of gases without mentioning Boltzmann. In my opinion, this is one of the best examples. There is no reasonable doubt. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could live with that, provided there is consensus that 3 examples of past fringe is not sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There is this kind of consensus, because Lawrencekhoo (LK) has removed 'heliocentrism' without consensus (and I object to decreasing the number of examples ;). Therefore, there is no consensus to decrease the number of examples. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mind you, consensus is usually de-facto established after the facts, when things already have stabilised. Before that it's usually called discussion. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I clarify that I have not added 'heliocentrism'. It was here before and constituted a part of consensus. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say that kinetic theory of gases is a more important example of "scientific fringe theory" than either the existence of Troy, or the Norse colonization of America. If three is the limit, I'd probably drop Troy. JerryRussell (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete all former fringe examples from alternative theoretical formulations

 * This topic was split off from, above. Asterixf2 (talk)

All of the examples should be deleted. Nothing beyond the third sentence of that paragraph is necessary as guidance to editors. The examples doubtless are well-intended but to my mind they can be read as supporting the Galileo gambit, "but scientists have been wrong before!" mindset common among those promoting fringe views. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I see it, you propose to make the paragraph more difficult to understand. Examples clarify things. In my opinion, editors should maintain a healthy dose of skepticism but shouldn't become extremists. Please also note that heresy is essential to science, for example see fallibility: any claim justiﬁed today may need to be revised or withdrawn in light of new evidence, new arguments, and new experiences." This position is taken for granted in the natural sciences. For example, theories in physics cannot be treated as sacred. To treat something as sacred is religious not scientific. They may be settled but not proven. Feynman famously said "Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that removing the examples of old fringe would make the paragraph more difficult to understand. On the contrary. This page is meant to guide editors, and what exactly was once fringe but is not fringe anymore is entirely irrelevant for deciding what is fringe now. Indeed, as suggests, it might even misguide editors into inaccidentally (—or deliberately—) promoting fringe views with something in mind like "but just wait a few years!" So indeed, these examples, together with their sources, are very interesting in a content article about fringe, but not at all in a content guideline for editors such as this one. Good thinking, SBHB. Removal would be ok for me. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but the examples are items that once were 'alternative theoretical formulations', and are now accepted. We are currently debating whether the pejorative term 'fringe' should be applied to the likes of Dr. Boltzmann, before his theories were accepted. Perhaps we should also have some examples of current 'alternative theoretical formulations', and discuss whether we want to insult them by calling them 'fringe'? JerryRussell (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are excused, but I don't think that this is what we are discussing here. In any case we shouldn't be discussing it, as it would simply be off-topic here per the wp:TPG. This is the talk page of a fringe editing guideline, not an article about fringe. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If we can't come up with examples of what we're talking about, then how is anyone else reading the guideline supposed to understand what we mean? Isn't the clarity of this fringe editing guideline improved if we can offer examples that we, as editors of the guideline, can agree are representative of our intention? JerryRussell (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Examples are not at all essential to clarity of exposition in English; many perfectly comprehensible things are written that do not include examples. In any event if we are to have examples they should be drawn from contemporary issues rather than past controversies, the outcome of which only became clear in hindsight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would oppose removing the examples completely (Having examples to point to may not be essential, but they are very useful when trying to explain how WP:Fringe applies to new ideas/theories/discoveries that may well be valid, but have not yet achieved mainstream acceptance). That said, I would be amenable to further discussion on which examples we should give. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC here
RfC here SPECIFICO talk  15:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Change definition of 'fringe'
I propose the following: "We use the term fringe theory in a very narrow sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Fringe theories may purport to be scientific or academically respectable, but they are obviously bogus according to the consensus, and may be so labeled and categorized as such." The section on Spectrum of fringe theories should be re-titled as Spectrum of minority views and should explain that pseudoscience is definitely fringe, and that articles on questionable science may contain information to that effect. Alternative theoretical formulations should not be described as 'fringe'. Starting from a more neutral set of definitions, we can then review the individual guidelines for their applicability to various levels of minority views. JerryRussell (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support There's an RFC from 2008 which discusses whether 'fringe' is pejorative. The sense of several participants at the time was that it was *intentionally* pejorative, and it was intended to be applied very narrowly to pseudoscience. At that same time, there was a suggestion to make this a guideline for 'minority views'. That proposal was rejected largely on the grounds that the guideline wasn't intended to sweep in respectable minority views. But somehow, the rationale expressed in those debates was lost in the implementation. JerryRussell (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Can see this opening up a whole world of wikilawyering. In particular saying fringe is a "very narrow" category applicable to an "idea" is an invitation to claim it is exceptional (it has often been argued that altmed practice is not subject to fringe guidance because it is in some senses mainstream), and reference to "the consensus" invites the claim that we need something of the strength of WP:RS/AC to say something is fringe - a tactic which has already been repeatedly used by advocates to try and exempt various forms of woo from the fringe guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "narrowness" is orthogonal to the broad terms "significantly", "prevailing", "mainstream" in the remainder of the sentence. - DVdm (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are many more ways to be wrong than right, and Wikipedia is swamped with junk being promoted as . The proposed wording would provide a large opening for wikilawyers. Is there an example of an "alternative theoretical formulation" that has been incorrectly labelled as fringe? Such cases should be fixed following discussion at WP:FTN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - We need more neutral phrasings and the regular reliable sourcing rules work well. We do not need special tools to "reign in" a mythical "takeover of woo" as some people think of it, and we honesty need more to reign in the labeling of anything slightly orthogonal to an individual's viewpoint of what's "mainstream" for in effect that is more of a takeover and shutting down of Wikipedia as a good place for people to edit on their interests. "Fringe" is indeed pejorative in most people's reading and only that which is actually "fringe" as determined by a common reading of reliable sources calling it such ought to be labeled as such. The current broad definition of fringe in "a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" causes Wikipedia to become a mainstream encyclopedia that reflects mainstream viewpoints as valid and all others as "fringe" and that is just plain wrong. Despite the essay WP:MAINSTREAM, Wikipedia is not a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's a verifiable encyclopedia that reflects reliable sources. That's all. The above essay is an essay and does not speak for Wikipedia as the disclaimer states. "Mainstream" is a sociological term that speaks to agreement with the establishment dogma, or general popularity of ideas, and does not mean "correct" -- it moreso means "widely believed" even if a mainstream idea may be incorrect. So, we must not define Wikipedia's rules in a way that causes it to become a "mainstream" encyclopedia. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a very interesting point. One really good example of this is the question of why zebras have stripes.  There are currently 5 theories about why zebras have stripes. It has been thought for many years that they function as camouflage, motion dazzle or individual recognition.  However, in the last couple of years, an anti-fly and a thermoregulatory function have both been proposed. All 5 in our Zebra are supported by secondary RS.  So, the question is, which is/are "mainstream" and which is/are "fringe"?  There is not even agreement about the first 3 theories which have been around for years. DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Alexbrn and Johnuniq. Which is amply demonstrated by the above support vote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this opens the guideline up to even more wikilawyering as others have pointed out. We often get claims from supporters of fringe theories that the guideline is too broad in an effort to have it not apply to certain topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am unconvinced that there is a problem to fix and the proposed change has some obvious risks. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's nothing to fix here. That wording invites even more wikilayering in fringe areas than there already is. A view does not have to be a minority view, in the sense of the general public, to be fringe. "Alternative theoretical formulations" are almost always going to be fringe. At least if I'm understanding the intent of what those three words strung together is supposed to mean. To address DrChrissy's example, which I think is a good one, there's a large difference between science not being sure about why something has occurred and a claim that is fringe. There can be multiple competing theories, none of which are fringe, if they are based on well established lines of evidence. Something generally becomes fringe when it makes assertions without evidence or with selective evidence that ignores multiple lines of contrary evidence. Capeo (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a solution in search of a problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
To prevent swamping out the votes, I'd like to encourage threaded discussion down here. First of all, I can see that I'm in the minority, and I respect the concerns. I think DVdm's comment is correct, and perhaps my proposal should read " an idea that is clearly in opposition to the prevailing views in its particular field. " The way to avoid wikilawyering, is to have a clear set of policies and guidelines that apply to all minority positions, whether they are crackpot or not. I can hardly imagine that the wikilawyering problem around "fringe" topics could be any worse than it is now, but I could be wrong. JerryRussell (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

With respect to Johnuniq's question Is there an example of an "alternative theoretical formulation" that has been incorrectly labelled as fringe? The present guideline leaves it unclear whether "alternative theoretical formulations" are fringe, or not. Under Staszek Lem's clarification, ATF's would be clearly placed in the fringe category. Is that what we want? JerryRussell (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2016(UTC)

Strongly support SageRad's comment Wikipedia is not a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's a verifiable encyclopedia that reflects reliable sources. That's all. There's a lot of non-mainstream content in Wikipedia right now. If Wiki becomes nothing but mainstream, I would hardly bother reading it, and certainly wouldn't volunteer as an editor. The mainstream doesn't need my help. JerryRussell (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "mainstream encyclopedia" even mean? Wikipedia doesn't confine itself to mainstream topics, but does confine itself to taking a mainstream stance (so where topics have no mainstream treatment they are shunned). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We could go with SageRad's definition of "mainstream", or you could propose a different one. Actually, topics are only shunned if no reliable sources can be found that mention them. There are many non-mainstream reliable sources. JerryRussell (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a fundamental mis-statement of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. We only include content where mainstream sourcing exists, otherwise we would become a miscellany of arcana for fringe topics (since there are vast numbers of sources which are 'reliable' in their own terms for detailing alien abductions, ghost sightings, esoteric experiences, etc.). See WP:VALID: "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." [my bold] in order to provide "proper context" so-called "mainstream" sourcing is required. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't meaning to disagree with Wiki's neutrality policy. In other words, I agree with the principle that minority ideas should be put in their proper context with respect to established scholarship. I don't understand the contradiction between this, and what I said. By "shunned" I meant "slated for AfD, and at risk of being omitted from other articles." JerryRussell (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The point they (and I mean SageRad rather than JerryRussell here) are coming at is that because Wikipedia is not a mainstream encyclopedia (and thus not bound by their limitations) we should cover every viewpoint. Which is not how it works. Its easily demonstratable that due to the lack of limitations on content, wikipedia covers plenty of really obscure topics in detail because there are reliable sources to justify their notability. Wikipedia is as far as you can get from being a mainstream encyclopedia while still requiring reliably sourced information and is not in any danger of becoming one anytime soon. Not until all the pokemon fans die anyway. What we do *not* do is cover fringe/pseudoscience etc topics from the point of view of non mainstream thought. EG we cover flat Earth, but from the mainstream view of people who know the Earth is round. We cover fad diets, detox, other CAM-subjects, but from the mainstream scientific view of reliable sources that they are mostly bollocks. If we actually graded notability based on the *acceptance* of fringe material by the mainstream, then Wikipedia would probably be sitting at 2 million articles. For the most part, actual fringe science is treated far more fairly on wikipedia than in scientific literature. Where something is proper 'fringe' science, either not accepted/rejected by the mainstream (or has not been proven, not enough research etc) then its article reflects that. Where something is pseudoscience/fringe and has been determined by the mainstream to be so, again the article reflects that. Quite often a common tactic is to attempt to move/justify known pseudoscience as 'unproven fringe' by the distortion/cherry-picking/outright source mis-quoting. 'This study says no evidence has been found!' well yes, thats because there is no evidence, and so on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting "Not enough research" = "Fringe"? DrChrissy (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm working right now and therefore I cannot write much, but I noticed the above comment and I want to say it is absolutely not what I was saying and it misrepresents my position. I absolutely do not think that Wikipedia should cover every viewpoint or everything that anybody wants to add to it. I very specifically said that only that which is verifiable by reliable sources can be included. Also there is the entire aspect of what is due/notable in terms of weight. That is also part of the policy of Wikipedia already. I said nothing that would contradict that policy of Wikipedia. Anyway I must continue working and I'll come back to this in the evening perhaps if I can then write at length. SageRad (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that i am able to reply, i wish to say that i mostly actually agree with the comment by Only in Death. It was only the initial characterization of my position that was incorrect. Of course, i do know that Wikipedia reports ideas like Flat Earth from the viewpoint of people who know the world is round, as that's the common sane-person viewpoint. I suppose my position that the basic sourcing rules of Wikipedia policy suffice for this kind of thing. It's easy to source that Flat Earth is a fringe idea. And normal sourcing rules suffice to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. An idea that is clearly fringe will be represented as such, and those that are clearly know to the common sane person will be represented as such, and those with cloudy areas are also represented as such. I see it all the time in good articles. It is definitely a powerful statement to report that "Study X says that no evidence has been found" if it's about a bogus "cure" or treatment. Cherry-picking and mis-quoting are both wrong under normal Wikipedia policy. I suppose i don't understand the necessity of a broad inclusion into a "fringe" category when normal sourcing policy takes care of all the problems i can see. SageRad (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re "definitely a powerful statement "Study X says that no evidence has been found" if it's about a bogus "cure"" -- In many cases serious people do not carry out research do debunk each and every snake oil. Therefore we need a policy which recognizes both references and lack thereof. Re: "normal sourcing policy" -- this guideline is to clarify application of "normal sourcing policy" in this specific area. Re: "all the problems i can see" -- How about assuming that other people see (and even face) other problems? Wikipedia has a whole HUGE LOT of policies, a wikiexpert has no trouble to apply (or judiciously twist) to apply them. But guidelines are recipes in application of our core policies in specific circumstances. This guideline is not about Flat Earth. We  have already pigeonholed it. But what about "Flat but Slightly Curving to the Left Earth" ? Please give me a reference that this is nonsense. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your well-written comment. This is a very interesting topic. I most certainly do see that others see problems that i don't see. That's a given. In fact, i know there's an important function in blocking pushers of bad content into Wikipedia. I've done a bit of that, and i know others do much more of it. As for the example of the moon being made of cheese, there is a wonderful article at The Moon is made of green cheese which also references Myth of the flat Earth. But i've heard that the moon is made of blue cheese. I don't know if there are sources to disprove this. I recognize what you're saying. I see the need for the ability to use lesser sources if a particular snake oil has not been covered in normal reliable sources. The problem i see is when the "fringe" category is used in a topic where there is sufficient reliable sourcing to speak to the topic with nuance and clarity -- some topics are mostly off-base but have some validity according to reliable sources. In those cases, admitting less reliable sources in Wikivoice can be detrimental to NPOV as many of those sources are specially debunking articles that often overreach in their analysis due to their specific point of view. Perhaps if the fringe guideline is used in the cases where you think it's necessary -- those where no serious people have taken the time to test them or write about them -- then it is useful. If there are few sources other than those written specifically to debunk, then perhaps this is good. Even so, it seems to me that if there are few sources but those specifically written to debunk an idea, then those sources would be relevant according to WP:DUE because they would not be minority viewpoints but the bulk of the sources other than promoters of the idea. It is interesting that both the myth of the moon made of cheese and the flat Earth idea are specifically designed to test credibility. Those articles are amazing. Perhaps you could give me some examples where the fringe theory guidelines were necessary to maintain a good encyclopedia. Maybe there is a problem i'm not seeing here. If there is some minor snake oil that has only been addressed by a Skeptoid podcast, for instance, then i think the Skeptoid podcast would be a good source on the topic. If it's been covered by peer-reviewed scientific articles then maybe the Skeptoid podcast would be an interesting source if it shed new light on the topic or provided a useful viewpoint but would be less reliable than the peer-reviewed paper for determining what is said in Wikivoice. I truly want to see why this guideline would be useful in cases where there is adequate sourcing to describe a topic using normal reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's imagine that physicist Paul Frampton publishes an article in Physics Review Letters stating that viewed from 26-dimensional string space, the earth has at least four dimensions in which it appears flat, and therefore should be considered dominantly flat. Other physicists gradually sign on to the new theory, while no qualified string theorist writes a word against it. Meanwhile, earth scientists call a convention and publish a special edition of Eos proclaiming beyond a doubt that the world certainly is round, according to consensus of earth scientists. But of course they don't reference the Frampton paper, because they can't make head or tails of it. What are we at Wikipedia supposed to do with a situation like this? Should we consider that even though a dozen physicists around the world have spoken in favor of Frampton's theory, that they're all dependent sources because they've talked to each other at conferences, per WP:FRIND? Reference the Objectivist Physics Blog which explains that Aristotle did not approve of string physics, per WP:PARITY? Is one single admin eligible to block everybody who knows anything about string theory from Wiki as a bunch of point of view pushers, because of the ARBCOM pseudoscience ruling and discretionary sanctions? Or can we just apply normal NPOV policy and describe both sides of the controversy? In fact there may be no contradiction, the geologists and the physicists just aren't speaking the same language.

This is all very whimsical, but exactly analogous to what I believe I'm dealing with at Earthquake prediction. When a physicist and a geologist walked into a Wiki talk page... And it's not so different from what goes on at Christ Myth Theory. The dominant view of the editors is that relevant scholars work for Biblical Studies departments. If folklorists were considered worthy to venture an opinion, it might not be so obvious who the fringe theorists are. JerryRussell (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * On this whole "mainstream" thing. Yes, WP is absolutely mainstream.   Please read WP:NOTEVERYTHING which is policy.  It says that WP articles summarize accepted knowledge.  How do we in WP know what is "accepted knowledge"?   We look at what what-we-call "reliable sources" say - and not just one of them (we don't cherry pick) we look at what a good swath of them say, and we give the most WEIGHT to the perspectives that are common to them per NPOV, and less to minority views, and we treat FRINGE as FRINGE.  (and when reliable sources disagree, we say that, as with the zebra example above)
 * And deeper yet, if you look at what kind of sources we find most reliable, they are sources that are produced by the institutions that the bigger society has created and generally trusts to produce knowledge or verify facts. So in medicine, the experts (created and validated by our institutions) who write reviews that get peer reviewed by their peers (created and validated the same way) and published by good quality journals (again, institutional pillars).
 * WP is built from the ground up to be conservative with regard to what gets defined as "accepted knowledge". We are completely dependent on the knowledge producing and reporting institutions of society.
 * Now - the way we do things here is weird and counter-cultural (this whole crazy clue-ocracy of anonymous editors following guidelines and policies we ourselves created) -- but what we put in articles is absolutely, 100% what is established by our institutions as "accepted." It doesn't get more mainstream than that.
 * Some people see how we do things and get all confused, and think that what goes in articles is also somehow countercultural or radical; but people who come here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS or advocating some wacky theory fail to have their content stick - this place is allergic to that kind of stuff.  That is because FRINGE is interpreted with all that stuff above as a foundation. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me see if i can express some of my thoughts on this.
 * Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs" for sure. But it can and should report on those in the world are righting great wrongs, provided those activities are described by reliable sources. That is clearly not the purpose of the encyclopedia, but it is part of good coverage of topics. Wikipedia is also not the place for people to be blocking inclusion of good reliably sources material because it doesn't fit with their worldview. That's a mirror image form of "righting great wrongs" that should be equally not tolerated here.
 * The words "establishment" and "mainstream" are too vague to be useful here. They can be the sort of thing defined by the eye of the beholder. "Mainstream" can mean something is widely accepted in a good sense, because the evidence is overwhelming, like the roundness of the Earth. On the other hand, it can also mean something in an Orwellian sense that is widely pushed by a class who has power. Both are valid meanings of the word. Same with "establishment" -- the roundness of the Earth is pretty well established by much co-supporting evidence. On the other hand, the word has another meaning in a political sense of status quo which is not inherently good, and which is not what Wikipedia is aiming to reflect. Very often, the two intersect and there is not much question. But in cases where the two do not intersect fully, Wikipedia should not take a side as that would be non-neutral. Sources must be evaluated, but being in line with a political establishment should not be a clue that favors a source.
 * A hypothetical example might be if the EPA (a federal U.S. agency) stated that a chemical like PCBs does not volatilize, and yet a review paper in a scientific journal stated that it does. In that case, i would like to see both sources represented, and a difference of opinion reported. I would not like to see the EPA supercede the nongovernmental scientific paper solely because the EPA is a government agency tasked with regulation of chemicals. That would be an example of a bad form of establishment bias, in my reckoning.
 * This is why i think it's unhelpful to declare that Wikipedia is a "mainstream" encyclopedia and to try to make policy conform to this notion. The word "mainstream" is too ambiguous and contains those political overtones. Simply insist on good sourcing. Good sourcing generally is in line with the mainstream. Those areas where it may differ are to be evaluated on terms of quality of sourcing alone -- not alignment with someone's idea of what is "mainstream" -- and herein lies, i think, the source of my ongoing issues with the way "fringe" is applied within Wikipedia -- as i see it, as a billy club to beat away topics that some people don't approve of, when good sourcing alone should be quite enough to arrive at good, solid, verifiable articles. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you have misunderstood this from your first day here. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain in what way you think i have misunderstood this?? Your reply here is eminently unhelpful to propagating understanding through dialog. I will not counter with a similar personal attack. SageRad (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did, above. I know you find it distasteful that WP relies on the knowledge producing pillars of society to tell us what is "accepted knowledge" but that is the way this place was built, from the ground up.  I noted above that when truly reliable sources conflict, we express that, so I donm't know why you even brought that example.  you have to listen to what the sources say. Have to.  And what you are listening to and actually listening for is the majority view among those pillar-of-society-produced sources, what is a minority view, and what is fringe.   You must listen to what is a mainstream in a given field.  Must.  per all the policies. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears you didn't hear my response to your comment above, then. What you attribute to me ("I know you find it distasteful...") is incorrect and verging on a personal attack. I am most certainly listening for the majority or most-likely-to-be-correct view within a field based on the relations of numbers of sources and the way review articles speak of primary sources, etc. All your negative characterizations of me are striking straw men here. I don't get the sense that you did hear what i said above, though, about the different meanings of the word "mainstream" and the way that sometimes "fringe" is used as a billy club instead of the result of a correct reading of sources, etc. I think you're not really hearing me here. I'm a huge advocate of the policies of Wikipedia. Sometimes people's' reckonings about a topic are different, though, and we ought not to bias Wikipedia in one way or another. We ought to strive for neutrality through discussion. For that to work, nobody must feel they have the truth. Unfortunately, i get that feeling about a certain subset of editors here. And often they're the ones who scream about others working for "The Truth" while they're working for their own "The Truth" twice as hard and blindly. SageRad (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * oh i heard it, and i have heard you say this before. as we have discussed before, your analysis about "power" has nothing to do with anything in WP; it is something you brought with you when you first started here.   it is irrelevant. but unfortunately you baked this into your assumptions about WP and it has thrown everything off, from the ground up. your whole "scientific skepticism" campaign grows directly out of this error.  Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Discovery > Psychological and social conditions of creativity
[...creative individuals usually have outsider status—they are socially deviant and diverge from the mainstream. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/#PsySocConCre] 176.221.76.3 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that related to the improvement of the guideline? Not to say this is bullshit, basically saying the whole Berkeley and Standford universities are cesspits of deviants. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's not get too emotional. This was a quote from a reliable source. It's true that it's vaguely related but it seems that linked article may prove useful. Asterixf2 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it was. But it is a perfect example of how a quote taken out of context sounds like bullshit. Even if viewed in context, the quoted point of view is on its way to obsolescence in modern times when it is well recognized that creativity is no longer a trait of few "blessed ones". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * guideline implies everything non-mainstream verges with bs, but the history of scientific discovery, by definition, shows the opposite. anything significant discovered was not mainstream, otherwise it would not be a discovery so significant. got it Staszek Lem ?79.101.187.173 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please cite the guideline text which says so (or makes you think so), and we shall see how we can fix it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How about this one: 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. 212.200.65.115 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion as a criterion for pseudoscientific
I have made this edit in response to this news, quote:

At the same time, I don't think wikipedians should call those results pseudoscience (which would mean they know 'better'). It seems that it is inappropriate for a guideline to contain specific scientific criterion for calling something pseudoscience. I would apply "no sharp boundaries" rule to pseudoscience, see origin of this phrase in above. If you consider 'perpetual motion' sacred, please see my reply here, above. Please also see the last paragraph of a lead section in scientific method. There is also a concern for virtually non-negotiable WP:LIBEL potential violation. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * But "the authors are planning to work closely with a team of experimentalists to design a proof-of-concept system", so as long as they have not designed and demonstrated a proof-of-concept system, it will de-facto remain fringe. While we wait for that proof-of-concept system, I have reverted the removal of this current fringe example. Feel free to come back here when the system is ready and accepted by the community. - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You slightly miss the point of my comment. It was that even if those results can be called fringe, they should not be called pseudoscience by wikipedians (and the previous version of guideline explicitly demands that). There are no proof-of-concept systems for many respectable theories, especially in highly theoretical modern physics. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a matter of consensus among wikipedians. If we agree to call it pseudoscience, then wikipedians can call it pseudoscience, specially when sufficient standard established literature do the same. - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Argument of last resort? - "it's all about consensus". It's counterproductive to make this argument when working on a guideline. As I said, the issue here is that previous version of guideline explicitly demands to call this result pseudoscience. In my opinion that would even qualify as WP:LIBEL. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to file for libel then . - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has called it pseudoscience yet, but WP:LIBEL clearly says that such statements may be removed. I am just pointing out that calling smth pseudoscience may be defamatory. Let's stick to real arguments and not horse laugh. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified". So, when it is identified, we surely will delete it. Of course. - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually we'd rely on independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This perpetuum-motion case is a perfect example that wikipedia cannot rely on pop-science sources for extraordinary claims. Here, a wikipedian obviously did not pay attention to an innocuous word "local" in the make possible a local quantum perpetual motion machine. I leave it to science geeks as a quiz to figure out why this does not invalidate the claim that perpetuum mobile is impossible. [You may e-mail me for an explanation; I don't want to spoil the fun for the rest of us :-) Not to say it is off-topic.] Staszek Lem (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in here... Ok, what criteria is used for this then : how many reliable sources need to call it "pseudoscience"? That term is often bandied about by opponents of a given theorist, you know. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly as many as many required in wikipedia to call something "something". And of course wikipedians must know difference between calling names and delivering arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, sure; but many Wikipedians don't know the "difference between calling names and delivering arguments", which is the reason for rules. This subject has a big potential for a lot of name-calling. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the qualifier, but I consider it a good example for the argument nonetheless. In my opinion, giving strict scientific criterion for qualifying smth as pseudoscience is inappropriate. To give another example, consider this sentence from the same paper: "We discuss the manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics in quantum physics and uncover special situations where the second law can be violated ." What? Second law of thermodynamics violated? It's easy to picture an editor saying "This must be pseudoscience!" Imo, it's better to stick with domain-based criteria like 'astrology' for the purposes of guideline. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is pop-science sensationalist statement from which we (wikipedians) cannot jump to conclusions. If you translate into less sensationalist speak, it will be something like "in conditions <...specifically described...> the second law is inapplicable". And it makes the same perfect sense as "under certain conditions Newton's mechanics is inapplicable". Not to say the claim becomes falsifiable. Second, an extraordinary claim cannot be taken for its face value from pop-sources or from primary sources, regardless pseudosci or not. And for this reason I see nothing wrong with strict scientific definitions: until mainstream says that perpetuum mobile is no longer always pseudosci, we dismiss it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, may be I misunderstand your point about "strict scientific criterion". Which part of policy or this discussion you are referring to? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No-one objects to quantum teleportation and yet it is equally sci-fi-ish.. how come this start track phenomena is perceived as non-exceptional? 212.200.65.115 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Move def of "fringe" high into lede
(as suggested in wrong forum; copied above in )

The guideline contains the following definition "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." IMO it is misplaced into the section "Identifying fringe theories" and not immediately visible, in particular, because the lede is too long. IMO the definition must be at the very top of the lede. This will remove misunderstandings due to tl;dr right away. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * this makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Better than nothing, but prefer my proposal below. If we stay with the existing definition, I suggest we add Staszek's clarification, immediately following in the lede: " These minority views may range from outright pseudoscience to novel bold ideas or new experimental results which did not enjoy a general acceptance or confirmation yet. While typically the term 'fringe' is used pejoratively, in Wikipedia we understand it literally: 'on the fringe of the mainstream knowledge' and therefore fringe views have little or no weight in general Wikipedia articles. " JerryRussell (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Although I would suggest copying rather than moving outright, as restating it in the indentifying section is helpful when linking people directly to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, should in body and lead Jytdog (talk)


 * Support, but indeed copy into the lead. And perhaps even better: reword the nutshell statement to contain this particular wording. - DVdm (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added this to the lead with minor copy-editing. It occurred to me that we should probably not link to the fringe theory article because it gives a slightly different, ambiguous definition. We want the definition that is used in Wikipedia parlance. In particular I don't think "fringe" should be considered a pejorative; at least on Wikipedia that should not be the intent. Manul ~ talk 13:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Spectrum of non-mainstream
A while ago it was suggested to visualise a spectrum of theories. I cannot find it, but it looked like like this:
 * mainstream <-> disputed <-> minority <-> fringe sci <-> pseudosci

(can anybody remember where was it and what was the context?)

I am happy to report that Martin Gardner in 2000 wrote basically the same:

Pseudoscience is a fuzzy word that refers to a vague portion of a continuum on which there are no sharp boundaries.

At the far left of this spectrum are beliefs which all scientists consider preposterous. Examples include claims that earth is hollow <.. snip>. Moving to the right, toward slightly less weird claims, we come upon Velikovsky's cosmology, homeopathy, <..snip>.

As we move along the continuum toward more respectable science, we reach such controversial claims as the conjectures of Freud <...snip> and a raft of other speculations in the areas where there is some evidence, but much greater doubt.

At the far right end, our spectrum fades into regions of open conjectures by scientists so eminent that no one dares call them kranks. I am thinking of David Bohm's pilot-wave theory <... snip> and the ongoing efforts by the physicists to construct a theory of everything. To the right of these reputable conjectures lie the undisputed facts of science, such as <.. snip>.

The key word in the above is no sharp boundaries. This is the observation favoring the opinion that this policy must not focus on on kranks, but consider the whole spectrum of non-mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * was it the thread from this past June on the wording “scientific consensus“ vs. “mainstream science“?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  15:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note: Please remember that WP:Fringe is applied to a lot more than just science topics. It is important that the terminology used in this policy also relate to other fields (History, for example). Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And archaeology. We have a lot of articles dealing with fringe archaeology subjects. Doug Weller  talk 13:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And Literature and Art. I'd add that there is a difference between fringe topics and fringe research. Finnegan's Wake for example may always be a work of literature that is fringe to the mainstream while literary criticism on Finnegan's Wake is now mainstream. Art may be fringe to the mainstream as in the Norwegian painter, Odd Nerdrum, whose work while mainstream to a classical style of art is not mainstream in the narrow confines of his native country. Research in some areas of archeology,  as for example in the determination of what caused Tutankhamun's death may be fringe to the mainstream but also more accurate given advances in forensic science. There should be a delineation between fringe topics, fringe research and fringe science. Right now we use the term fringe to encompass, for the most part, fringe science, as a pejorative, and in a manner that pigeonholes which seems a bit lazy minded to me. We should be clarifying when we use the term. Because fringe may refer to any or all of these areas, seems to me, pseudoscience cannot be a logical extension of fringe; pseudoscience refers to the quality of research in reference to the scientific method and although fringe science may not be necessarily  pseudoscience, pseudoscience is (probably) always fringe to the mainstream. Just some thoughts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC))
 * re "Tutankhamun's death"/"fringe topics" - in the context of wikipedia we are classifying fringe/mainstream with respect to article subject. Therefore in article about King Tut research about his death is not fringe per se. If the discussion of Tut's death takes more than half of Tut's bio, we just split a separate page, How King Tut died, and only within the latter one we start separating kranks from simply too obsessed. In other words, in wikipedia there is no  concept of "fringe topics", only nonnotable ones. And the article  How King Tut died may well be twice as large as King Tut's bio (due to peculiarities of wikipedians' dedication). Staszek Lem (talk)


 * Imagine a graph in which the x-axis represents the spectrum you describe while the y-axis represents the amount of problems encountered on Wikipedia. So for each particular point on the spectrum, we plot a value corresponding to its problem-level on Wikipedia. While it is true that the spectrum is continuous, the graph does not show a linear relationship. Around the edge of the graph near the "fringe" part, there is a spike. WP:FRINGE aims to address the unique challenges that spike represents. NPOV already tells us how to deal with the whole spectrum (including the spike) with principles such as due/undue weight -- FRINGE just offers some more guidance for the spike.


 * Another way to approach the issue is to ask the question: What in NPOV needs more explanation? FRINGE expands upon a particular part of NPOV, namely PSCI. You may have identified another aspect of NPOV that needs more explanation, but it seems to me that FRINGE is not suited for this "whole spectrum" idea since its purpose is to address a particular portion of the spectrum. That there are no sharp boundaries does not throw FRINGE into question. There is a continuous range of colors between red and blue, yet despite this, we have no problem calling some colors red and other colors blue. Manul ~ talk 13:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request
I've found at Talk:Intelligent Design a lack of agreement about what this sentence from the guideline means: "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." Here's a diff for the discussion, which is a closed thread that ran from Jan. 19-21, 2017. Can someone please clarify whether "describe the idea clearly and objectively" means in terms used by the idea's proponents, or in terms used by its opponents. The precise question was whether ID should be labeled pseudoscientific right at the beginning, or if we should first define ID in its proponents' terms, and then refer the reader to the more accepted idea that ID is a pseudoscience. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In "terms" that make most sense to the general reader. Often fringe proponents dress up their stuff in arcane vocabulary, and we'd want to avoid that. But yes, ID should probably be labelled pseudoscientific early in the lede because WP:PSCI says this consideration needs to be prominent (and it's not "opponents" of ID who categorize it thus: this is just reality). I'd maybe expect a fuller exposition of the ID stuff in the article body, however. Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and what does "then refer the reader to more accepted ideas" mean? Some of us understand the guideline to mean that first the topic is defined as it is presented/believed by its proponents, and then the reader is given the more accepted mainstream view of the topic. In fact, I can't see how it could mean anything else. (And, yes, it's "opponents" of ID: Encyclopedia Britannica, which avoids the word pseudoscience, says, "Opponents of intelligent design argued that it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection and that it ignores the existence of precursor systems in the evolutionary history of numerous organisms.") YoPienso (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there's maybe confusion between best practice in the article, and best practice in the lede. In the lede the pseudoscientific label up-front is critical, and that is non-negotiable NPOV policy. In the body there would be more of an exposition-followed-by-context mode. Wikipedia is very different from Encyclopedia Britannica - many of its "entries" are essays written by individuals, and some are not (what Wikipedia would call) neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: I reverted the closing by of this thread by User:Jytdog, who said I was forum shopping. This is what WP:FORUMSHOP says:
 * Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

Please note the last sentence, which is what I'm doing. User:Dave souza felt he should ignore WP:FRINGE because it "doesn't look particularly well written," so I came to this page to see what the guideline means. I went to Dave's page because my unanswered question was on a thread that had been closed. YoPienso (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop forum shopping. If you have a question about the guideline generally, ask about that but don't try to open yet another forum to discuss your views on ID or complain here about the ID article.  Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have totally misunderstood my intentions and actions, but that's easy to do in this format and context. Do you have any clarity to offer wrt the guideline in question? Can you tell me what "then refer the reader to more accepted ideas" means? It certainly tells me that the clear and objective initial description wasn't a very accepted idea. Maybe you can be constructive here and shed some light. YoPienso (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a "rule" and broad notions like this can be interpreted various ways. Obviously many people are interpreting ID as pseudoscience; "pseudoscience" is not a characterization of ID but rather part of what it actually is (and given the history of the notion - its evolution if you will -  that ID was produced intentionally as a way to shoehorn creationist notions into science education after raw creationism was rejected by the courts - this is not an invalid reading.)  Others are applying this guideline in a way that treats "pseudoscience" as more of a descriptor.  There is no "correct answer", there is only "here is community consensus on how to apply the guideline in this instance."  And btw, the way you are doing this is absolutely forumshpping. You would be writing very different things if you posted here in order to learn; you would not be arguing that your application of FRINGE is correct and you would not be trying to get people to go to the ID talk page and apply your reading of FRINGE to the discussion there.  So knock it off.  Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake news, bad journalism, and fringe theories
Longstanding tradition here at Wikipedia has us linking to WP:NFRINGE in AfD and article talkpages to explain why just because a story appears in a reputable journal, that doesn't necessarily mean the story is indicating notability or reliability. Our current wording of the section includes warnings about junk news, but we are now in a Brave New World where FAKENEWS is on Wikipedia's radar. Owing to this, I thought it reasonable to link to this relatively new discussion that elucidates the longstanding understanding of Wikipedians (but evolving policy-wise) of how to do research reliably for writing Wikipedia articles. I added a single sentence as illustrated in this diff:.

As with any addition. It is important to allow for discussion, so please let's discuss it here. I think both aspects (that legitimate news sources can go off the rails when it comes to fringe theories and that fake news sources can masquerade as legitimate news sources) deserve some nod in our guideline here as they are often discussing in the context of WP:FRINGE.

jps (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That dif makes a claim about reality (not advice about editing WP): "Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continues to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate."


 * If you are going to make claims about reality like that (especially in the first clause), you should source them. (not with examples, but rather with a reliable source that says that reputable news outlets publish credulous profiles) Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have lots of examples of such in my files, it's actually somewhat overwhelming. I'll give a sample below:


 * Here's one on duping the media with a specific claim.
 * Similar to the above.


 * Here's one from Cato. Not my preferred source, but largely accurate.
 * From Orac
 * If you prefer a more academic take
 * Here's a page from Dana Nuccitelli's book about this


 * Not knowing exactly what you hope to find to source this point, let me know if these sources can suffice.


 * jps (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Another example: During the early days of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, The Observer reported that a South African former detective was helping to find her with his "matter orientation system", a hand-held device that used DNA and satellites to locate missing people anywhere in the world, and that he had successfully picked up a signal on a certain beach. You put a sample from the missing person in this device, and thereafter satellites pick up the location. When the inventor was asked how it worked, he explained: "science, science, science". An apology here from the readers' editor. SarahSV (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion
Religion presents special problems because all religions promote beliefs or views that are fringe and non-credible to believers in all others. In general this policy should not be invoked for religious material unless some untestable claim is involved, e.g. that Satan created fossils to fool man into believing in evolution, and reliably fakes scientific results to make them appear very old.

By contrast, a theory of motive or conflict or influence in historical events that influenced or changed the course of a religion should be examined as history, using historical method, e.g. keeping in mind the biases known since the Muqadimmah, and avoiding reliance on one kind of source, e.g. Christian apologists, advocates of an Islamic state, etc. on secular history.

While it is not possible to come to agreement on Jesus, Buddha or Muhammad, it is possible to dismiss the theory that they were created by aliens or divinities or that they were time travellers as fringe, as this involves an untestable claim. The claim that they were either living humans or fictional characters, however, can be tested as with other figures, e.g. Robin Hood, St. Nicholas, Confucius. The position that a religious figure never existed should not be treated as "fringe" unless there is profound written evidence and clear historical change arising from them in their lifetime about which others wrote extensively, e.g. it is very hard to doubt Muhammad existed. By contrast Jesus, Buddha or Moses existence can be fairly debated, and the key consideration would be whether the historical records of non-followers would usually have mentioned them at that time, to what degree, etc. An example of a difficult case is Josephus on Jesus where translation, motives, etc., are disputed and the same author wrote of several oddly similar characters with the same names (Jesus, Ananus). Where perspectives cannot be reconciled, it's best to simply list the positions taken, and to order and label them to indicate how widely held, and by whom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * policies and guidelines are expressions of community consensus -- they aren't "golden words to live by" or even rules. Please do read WP:PAG and understand what this document you are editing is, and how it is formed and used. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What it is, is a completely neglected pile of notes that has not been copyedited since the ArbCom ruling on which it was based. Someone must copyedit it extensively because it is being applied to situations it clearly does not address, e.g. whether to mention Jesus ben Ananias in an article on Josephus on Jesus, even though there's a book ("the two Jesuses") on that.  This talk page clearly says it must be refactored for other reasons, and I agree, but when I stick within scope to copyedit and say nothing new, you change it.  Why?  Are you a believer in one of the pseudoscience examples that I added?  Hard cases need to be elaborated, and responses outlined.  Don't tell me you have not seen and used every single technique mentioned in my copyedit.
 * And I quote from WP:PAG "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views." you have given no such reasons that would apply to my second edit which stays within the scope of the article as written.  Being bold is sensible for that aspect since it has been left in a state prone to abuse.  I agree, and did as according to WP:PAG, put the scope expansions on this talk page.  I have not ever, not once actually in Wikipedia, reverted an edit, I've always made some attempt to respond to critique & propose something different.  You need to read WP:PAG yourself and stop accusing persons of "edit war" or reverting when they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2017‎

Recent edits by 76.11.94.233
While I agree with some of it, these were substantial changes without previous discussion (to a guideline, not just an essay), including some editorializing. Here is a point that seems unclear: "The best Wikipedia can do in this situation is to list the exact position taken by each sect or cult, qualified by the strongest (not the weakest) counterpoints, including any accusation of fallacy, cherry-picking, overlooking of conflict or non-credibility". I think that the neutral point of view also goes with notability, meaning that not all point of views of all groups or individuals can be listed. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 00:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * They have been reverted. We are not debate moderators or judging the validity of points made in a discussion; we simply (try to) follow WP:RS. If an accusation of "fallacy, cherry-picking, overlooking of conflict or non-credibility" is not in a reliable source then it has no place on Wikipedia. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an answer. As soon as you are asked to determine what is a "fringe" theory, you must deal with the fact that sheer numbers favor every major world religion as "not fringe" no matter how outrageous their claims (reincarnation, resurrection, miracles) are.  This policy as stated is simply not reconcilable with anything but strictly scientific claims, e.g. history.  It needs to either be renamed or it has to be stated strictly that it does not apply to religion, history or long-dead persons, and that there is no way to call something a "fringe theory" unless it's within the realm of hard science.
 * Obviously "not all point of views of all groups" can be listed, but where there is no possibility of reconcilation/consensus (like religiously or nationally important questions) you make a list rather than having each side revert in some edit war.
 * this is the complete policy as edited, and yes the wording could use improvement, but there is simply no way to leave the article as it stood when I found it, and it is being inappropriately cited in religious, historical and legendary character debates when the policy simply doesn't cover those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * you are importing a bunch of stuff into this guideline (not policy, guideline). This guideline fleshes out parts of WP:NPOV dealing with cases where views on X are so minority that they are FRINGE.   Groups and people that have very minority views are all over the place, and WP, being open as it is, is vulnerable to them coming here and trying to make what is a tiny minority view seem quite mainstream, or give it tons of WEIGHT.  This guideline helps deal with that problem, generally.  It is easier to manage with hard science but it manageable in other fields as well, with this guideline's help.  One of they key ways that advocates for FRINGE views try to create a lot of WEIGHT is to source things only from within their "bubble".  That is one of reasons why this guideline emphasizes independent sourcing so much, and also why PARITY is so important.  If we have dip down to a blog where mainstream people even give discussion to very minority views, we do that in order to get independent perspective on it.  Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I restored and heavily edited the sections on historically influential theories, and useful response procedures and criteria for pseudoscience. Examples are now clearly marked as such, so as to avoid the impression of editorializing.
 * I think you and I would agree that a new policy should be formed for history, religion, and legendary characters, and this one should not be cited in those kinds of debates. You cannot apply even remotely similar terms of reference to hard science vs. biography vs. history vs. religion, so the human sciences need their own rules.  I don't disagree that independent (non primary) sourcing is critical.  In case you disagree that religion should have its own set of rules, I put that section below to discuss.
 * This version does not expand the scope of the policy at all, it is copyedit with examples, most of them already contained in the version as it stood. It is not in any sense an "edit war" and you are expressing a rather extreme POV by seeming to claim that these hard science definitions of what is pseudoscience can be applied to history, religion or biography.  Literally any reference to this policy in those fields is wrong, as it does not address those fields.  We differentiate between human sciences and hard sciences for very good reasons.  Fix the policy by either clarifying or expanding its scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2017‎
 * Fringe guidance applies not just to pseudoscience, but to "other fringe subjects" per WP:PSCI: So, Shakespeare authorship, fringe historical theories, conspiracy theories etc are already within scope. Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Traditions and religion
Traditional claims present special problems because of the large numbers of people - sometimes very under- or over-represented in the systemic bias - who believe something simply because they or their family or people always have. Wikipedia as a rule should be absolutely useless to anyone making a traditional claim, i.e. "Wikipedia says this is true", unless it has a totally undisputed historical and scientific basis. Without that, Wikipedia must say only that many people believe it is true, without falling into the logical fallacy of popularity or authority.

Religion presents unique problems because all religions promote beliefs or views that are fringe and non-credible to believers in all others. Wars have been fought over such claims. In general this fringe theories policy is applicable to science and to some historical argument, and should not be invoked for religious material unless some untestable claim is involved, e.g. that Satan created fossils to fool man into believing in evolution, and reliably fakes scientific results to make them appear very old. Or that histories written by parties without conflict or power of authority must be wrong simply because they say something unwanted. The best Wikipedia can do in this situation is to list the exact position taken by each sect or cult, qualified by the strongest (not the weakest) counterpoints, including any accusation of fallacy, cherry-picking, overlooking of conflict or non-credibility. By no means can Wikipedia be the forum in which irreconcilable views become reconciled to some standard common worldwide view - it can only report what people believe. Do not confuse a view unpopular with Wikipedians with a view that is unpopular in the world, nor especially not a view unpopular with Wikipedians who are editing a particular article, as they are most likely to be biased. Look with extreme suspicion on anyone describing a large revert as a "warning" or using small parts of an edit as an excuse to cut it entirely. Check to see if there is evidence that a religious believer is "patrolling" an article to keep it within their view.

It is extremely helpful to title articles so as to emphasize that they are from a perspective, if they are, e.g. names of the form "[author] on [subject]" or "traditional origin of [religion]" - this can avoid claims that one is making a fiction appear to be real.

While religious claims of cause and effect must be ruthlessly examined in a secular encyclopedia, this cannot be true of their own history. Any theory of motive or conflict or influence in historical events that influenced or changed the course of a religion should be examined as history, using historical method, e.g. keeping in mind the biases known since the Muqadimmah, and avoiding reliance on one kind of source, e.g. Christian apologists, advocates of an Islamic state, etc. on secular history. While it is not possible to come to agreement on Jesus, Buddha or Muhammad, it is possible to dismiss the theory that they were created by aliens or divinities or that they were time travellers as fringe, as this involves an untestable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2017‎

Historicity of key figures
The claim that they were either living humans or fictional characters, however, can be tested as with other figures, e.g. Robin Hood, St. Nicholas, Confucius. The position that a religious figure never existed should not be treated as "fringe" unless there is profound written evidence and clear historical change arising from them in their lifetime about which others wrote extensively, e.g. it is very hard to doubt Muhammad existed. By contrast Jesus, Buddha or Moses existence can be fairly debated, and the key consideration would be whether the historical records of non-followers would usually have mentioned them at that time, to what degree, etc. An example of a difficult case is Josephus on Jesus where translation, motives, etc., are disputed and the same author wrote of several oddly similar characters with the same names (Jesus, Ananus). Where perspectives cannot be reconciled, it's best to simply list the positions taken, and to order and label them to indicate how widely held, and by whom.

If there is very good reason to believe an event occurred, e.g. that the Israelites founded a state in Canaan or that someone founded Wing Chun martial arts style or that someone spread a form of Jewish messianism in the Roman Empire by or in the late 1st or early 2nd century, be careful to differentiate provable dates from traditions about its founders and when those arose, often centuries later. Bizarre stories arise about people even while they are still alive and able to complain (see WP:BLP) and once they are dead, there are many reasons these stories might be modified, falsified or disputed. By no means should anyone be permitted to simply claim that a founding figure not extensively documented by unconflicted and professional non-followers is historically real, or not after about 500BCE when written records become generally more reliable and cross-checkable.

And yes this does apply to Jesus and Buddha, no matter how strongly people feel about either having physically existed as humans. Writing for the enemy implies directly addressing the agnostic or atheist or Hindu or Taoist or "pagan" claim that they did not ever exist, whether or not that is widely held by current editors of Wikipedia, or particularly of one article. Nor should one rely on Muslim, Jewish or some atheist sources that have their own reasons to claim they physically existed so as to debunk their claims to divinity or wonders - a method that works well on actual people, less well on fictional superheroes. That is, an atheist may be just as conflicted about historicity as a believer, since a historical person is easier to debunk as divine, and a conflation of multiple people into an apocryphal founding figure becomes particularly hard to debunk, e.g. the Yellow Emperor, Noah or Robin Hood, since we know that real people did face some of the challenges they were said to, at about the right time, so as to found China, survive the Black Sea flooding, or resist King John's rule. According to Joseph Campbell, humans have a powerful urge to mythologize (therefore simplify or streamline or make heroic) the stories that are important to their identity. Wikipedia however is not a compilation of every culture's myths as history - and it is particularly important not to allow each language's account of history to vary without regular reconciliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2017‎


 * The deal is this: everybody here has to obey WP:RNPOV. Meaning that we simply render verifiable information from WP:SOURCES (Josephus did not write reliable sources, as far as WP:PAG is concerned). We want contemporary mainstream scholarly sources because we, Wikipedia editors, trust no Wikipedia editor on his/her word of honor, but we always demand WP:SOURCES for verifying information. Perhaps I should stress: we're not discussing subjective religious beliefs, we discuss objectively argued historical facts. As Bart Ehrman says on, Ancient religion is really out there, like the stuff of any other academic field. Personal religious faith has no bearing on objective facts. So discussing the religious preferences of editors is a red herring. Not the personal opinions of editors matter, but academical sources matter. As Ehrman stated in a debate, in physics you can test that 100 ivory soap bars float and 100 iron bars sink, which makes you pretty confident on their physical properties. Historians do not have such luxury: the past is over, cannot be repeated by experiment, so they have to guess which events were the most probable. They always render a probability judgment, not exact results like in physics. So: we focus on mainstream scholarly works on the topic, we ignore the pontifications of editors who cannot provide such citations. In this, we are neither pro-Christian, nor anti-Christian, nor pro-atheist, nor anti-atheist, etc. We simply side with mainstream scholarship (mainstream academic views). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include"
Location, regarding this, why do you think it's important that "may" be there? Sure, reliable sources sometimes report on fringe views, but that doesn't mean that the reliable source is any less reliable. It simply means that the source found the fringe view important or notable enough to report on. And the guideline is clear that we do sometimes report on fringe views. My only issue with "may" not being there is the fact that a peer-reviewed source does not automatically mean that it's a good source; medical articles are an example of this, which is why WP:MEDRS is stern. Peer review doesn't mean review article. So this is why I didn't revert you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think "may" is an important qualification for the fact that university presses, respected publishing houses, and mainstream newspapers occasionally publish material that is promulgating - not just reporting on - various fringe theories. For example, I can name at least four or five university history professors who have pushed various JFK conspiracy theories in books published by university presses, and there are dozens more from other historians or academics published in what would typically be considered "respected publishing houses" (not just Skyhorse). I imagine that the editorial control and review process for books going through Elsevier or Saunders is much more stringent given the nature of those works and their target audiences, so perhaps this isn't much of an issue in articles under the guidance of WP:MEDRS. -Location (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OUP publishes the very dodgy Weil Integrative Medicine Library, and in the past I've had to combat the argument that "It's OUP therefore it's RS". So yes, this clarification could be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Location, I understand what you mean. If we are going to include any fringe view, though, it should be from a reliable source. Something being a fringe view and something being a reliable source are two different things, although a fringe view might be coming from an unreliable source and a reliable source might be covering a fringe view. We have the WP:Due weight policy and this guideline to handle any reliable source reporting on or promulgating a fringe view. Anyway, I don't see a problem with your inclusion of "may." I just wanted clarification and a little a discussion about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Understood. I get the impression that many editors seem to think that material written by academics or material published by mainstream newspapers or publishing companies is inherently reliable, but that isn't always the case in certain subjects. I am a believer in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so I would like to see the guidelines here reflect that. -Location (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I keep WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in mind, but I keep WP:BIASED in mind as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of the fringe label for censorship
I have observed that the fringe label is routinely abused as a catchall argument in edit wars. People who support one point of view or one theory regard everything else as fringe. They are not satisfied by a balanced view representing multiple points of view. They are not even satisfied when the views they oppose are listed in sections labeled criticism, reception, controversy or debate. They simply delete what they dislike and call it fringe, no matter how well it is sourced. I think that the fringe guidelines should warn about abuse of the fringe label. Bolarno (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe... this sounds like a conspiracy theory however (that the claim is false and only used for censorship). There are legitimate reasons to report that something is fringe, and to treat it as such per policy.  That is not censorship, only promotion-mitigation.  Like for anything else however, when someone makes a dubious claim, we can request sources that support the claim that it's fringe (that is covered by the verifiability policy).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You should probably link to at least one example of this actually happening. Requesting input on supposed fringe theories is the point of the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --tronvillain (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Extreme minority viewpoints and content coming from unreliable sources are indeed "fringe". Editors who can't vet sources and who support their inclusion are fringe editors who create problems by violating policies and engaging in disruptive discussions. These are things that go directly against multiple policies here, and it's our job to point them out and make sure they don't happen. That's no conspiracy or censorship, it's following policy. Mind you, that doesn't mean we are never supposed to document them and include mention of them in articles. There is a place for doing it, but it must be done carefully. Yes, sometimes editors get lazy and just delete properly sourced content they deem fringe, and maybe they should slow down and follow WP:PRESERVE if possible. Sometimes that's not possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (This is still to the original poster): There are places where material may be WP:DUE.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (This is still to the original poster): There are places where material may be WP:DUE.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies. Of course, deletion of wp:fringe theories is justified. It is just my observation that the label is used as a universal argument in edit wars when somebody dislikes a theory, no matter how notable and well-sourced it is. Try to look at some edit wars: It appears all the time. Bolarno (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If this indeed happens "all the time," you should easily be able to give diffs that illustrate this in several current, ongoing cases. Please post those diffs so that we can look at those cases and intervene against spurious accusations of fringiness. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Marxism as WP:fringe
A search of past talk pages here shows that this topic does not seem to have been raised. So I hereby propose that Marxism -- as an economic theory -- should be recognized as WP:Fringe across all Wikipedia pages. Any mention on Wikipedia of Marxism -- as an economic theory -- should note that it's outside the mainstream and many specific elements of Marxism have been refuted and/or rejected as flawed, inadequate or simply wrong. Similarly, any mention of Marxism -- as an economic theory -- should not be given undue weight.

Marxism has virtually no mainstream credibility in economics. Zero. Mainstream economics today means the Neoclassical Chicago School, or various branches of Keynesianism, or (increasingly) behavioral economics, or elements of the Austrian school (via, say, Vernon Smith).

Marxism simply does not factor in economics any major way apart from a small number of heterodox economists who might gain publicity but are outside the discipline's mainstream. Pick up any major economics textbooks, on any level or sub-discipline, and there's little or no mention of Marx or his ideas, unless it's (a) book on the history of economics and/or (b) they are refuting Marx (e.g., Paul Samuelson's Economics: An Introductory Analysis, the most widely-used intro economics textbook in history).

Marx is essentially a footnote. See, for example, On Classical Economics by Thomas Sowell, Yale University Press (2006, p. 186):

'In the realm of ideas in general, the Marxian vision -- including his theory of history -- has not only dominated various fields at various times, it has survived both the continuing prosperity of capitalism and the economic debacles of socialism. It has become axiomatic among sections of the intelligentsia, impervious to the corrosive effects of evidence or logic.

'But what did Marx contribute to economics? Contributions depend not only on what was offered but also on what was accepted, and there is no major premise, doctrine, or tool of analysis in economics today that derived from the writings of Karl Marx. There is no need to deny that Marx was in many ways a major historic figure of the nineteenth century, whose long shadow still falls across the world of the twenty-first century. Yet, jarring as the phrase may be, from the standpoint of the economics profession Marx was, as Professor Paul Samuelson called him, "a minor post-Ricardian."'

Sowell is quoting Samuelson's "Economists and History of Ideas" from The American Economic Review, Mar 1962.

or see "The Wide Wide World of Wealth" by Robert Solow (New York Times, Mar 20, 1988)

'Marx was an important and influential thinker, and Marxism has been a doctrine with intellectual and practical influence. The fact is, however, that most serious English-speaking economists regard Marxist economics as an irrelevant dead end.'

I am not proposing Marxism be tagged or treated as fringe when discussed in sociology, or analysis of literature, or anything else. And, as noted by Sowell, Marx was a major historical personality who must be recognized as such. But the weight of centuries of economics scholarship, research, Nobel Prizes, etc., simply must be recognized as rejecting Marxist economics. That rejection, and the reasons for it, must be emphasized on Wikipedia.

I make this proposal because I regularly see Marxist stuff on Wikipedia, without a clear and unequivocal clarification that Marxist economics is widely regarded as an irrelevant dead end. For example, as of today (17 Dec 2018), the main page on Marxism makes the following claim without citation:

'Although the Marxian school is considered heterodox, ideas that have come out of Marxian economics have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy. Certain concepts of Marxian economics, especially those related to capital accumulation and the business cycle, such as creative destruction, have been fitted for use in capitalist systems.'

Which is it? Irrelevant dead end? (as described by a Nobel Prize winner) A footnote to David Ricardo? (as described by another Nobel Prize winner?) Or a needs-citation claim that Marxism has made major contributions to understanding the global economic system?

I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia talk pages and how to organize projects, but best case would be for some economics gurus to scour the pages looking for those that take Marxist economics seriously and make appropriate corrections.

Harrison wintergreen (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Marxism was and is a respectable economic theory of the Western 19-century capitalism. Its far-reaching applications to other types of economies, as well as most “strategic” predictions, are in many cases discredited. Not very surprisingly, as the early 20th-century development saw many things which could not be predicted by Marx and Engels. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not a Marxian, by any means. But Marx was a keen observer, and a skillful functional analyst - all this according to Karl Popper, who was even further from being a Marxist. I will also agree with Popper that he was a failure as a prophet.


 * But as an economist, he was close to mainstream; he was very largely indebted to David Ricardo, who invented the infamous terms use-value and exchange value. Ricardo is out of date now; but then so is the Chicago School, except in the mind of the fringy. Marxian analyses have been successfully used as recently as Sir Moses Finley.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFRINGE
There has been some disagreement about how to interpret this guideline. WP:NFRINGE states that "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." I interpret this to mean that the notability of a fringe topic must be established primarily with skeptical sources, and unskeptical sources count less or not at all.

has argued that "NFRINGE does not say that 'notability of fringe subjects must be established with sources skeptical of the fringe view.' It merely says that fringe subjects are held to the same notability standard as everything else: they must be 'referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers.' It does say that 'references that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate', but in no way does it say that they are the only sources that count. Therefore as long as the [subject of the article] has received sufficient coverage (of any kind) in reliable sources... the article should be kept."

The full conversation can be viewed on this page. Ultimately, the wording of the guideline is unclear and it should be rephrased. If we agree that the notability requirements for fringe articles are the same as for other topics than the guideline should say so explicitly. If we agree that fringe notability requirements are stricter, the guideline should say this explicitly. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cthomas3 is essentially correct... as far as NOTABILITY is concerned, we allow (and even encourage) skeptical sources, but do not require them. HOWEVER... NOTABILITY is not the only policy in play here. Our articles ALSO need to pass our NEUTRALITY policy. Specifically the WP:UNDUE section of that policy.  We DO need skeptical sources to write a balanced, neutral article on a fringe topic.
 * That said... the issue at the Annie’s Coming Out AFD was whether NFRINGE even applied. The topic of the article in question was a film. Films are not fringe theories. They are works of art.  The film may focus on a fringe theory as a plot element, but the theory itself is not what our ARTICLE is about. The film can be notable (as a film)... EVEN if the fringe theory that plays a major role in its plot ISN’T notable.  It is quite possible to have an article on the film, and not have an article on the theory. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the input. I think we should move past the deletion discussion for that movie and just make this discussion about rephrasing WP:NFRINGE. You are right that WP:NPOV forbids an article to unskepticly endorse a fringe position. However, WP:NPOV violations are grounds for a re-write and not deletion. In the case of a fringe theory that has coverage only by unskeptical sources, a re-write is impossible. In such a case, we cannot have an NPOV article, but we still have no grounds for deletion. In the case of Amy Sequenzia we got around this with BLP guidelines, but with fringe topics not involving living people this is a potential problem. If fringe notability guidelines are the same as for other topics, I think we should consider changing that to avoid the problem of POV WP:PROFRINGE articles that cannot be re-written or deleted. Just so that you know, I do not intending to delete Annie's Coming Out as it may not fall withing the scope of WP:NFRINGE even if my proposed change passes. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I just found this. WP:PROFRINGE states: "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." So sources by "adherents" don't count towards notability at all. This needs to be reconciled with WP:NFRINGE. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That bit from PROFRINGE definitely should have had a home over in NFRINGE. It doesn't significantly change anything in the guideline as a whole, but would just prevent wikilawyering or problems with not reading the entirety of the guideline. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The key is whether the source is independent of the fringe theory, not whether it is “pro” or “anti”. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's true for WP:NFRINGE. WP:PROFRINGE states that sources by "adherents" of the theory don't count. These two guidelines contradict each other, because WP:NFRINGE states that "References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight [than independent sources] when deciding on notability", implying that such sources should be given some weight in deciding notability. Something is going to have to be re-written. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction to be made with WP:FRIND and "skeptical sources". Just because a source is skeptical does not mean it is independent (I know, this sounds weird, but I actually do have examples of this!) and just because a source is independent doesn't mean that it is skeptical (this one you can probable work out for yourself). jps (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, far less weight could very well mean, "zero". However, I don't think it is worth rewriting the guideline to switch "far less weight" for "zero weight" necessarily. In some cases, the fact that a famous person advocates for a fringe theory can be a piece of evidence in favor of notability. This does not contradict the admonition to judge the notability of said theory through "verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents". To take a crass example, if Donald Trump retweets a fringe theory, that is evidence for the theory to be notable. In this scenario, Trump may (or may not be -- there is often vagueness) an "adherent" of the idea, but there is likely a (weak) case for the fringe theory to be notable because of the notability of Donald Trump. jps (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I propose the following re-write:
 * Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "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. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.


 * Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season). Even reputable news outlets have been known to publish credulous profiles of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate.
 * I have moved the first bit from WP:PROFRINGE to WP:NFRINGE (where is belongs) and replaced the paragraphs summarizing WP:GNG with the sentence "Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: it must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This should clear up any confusion about whether or not fringe notability guidelines differ from GNG. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it has been a week and no one has objected to my proposal, I will go ahead and make the edit. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Shortcuts: FRINGESOURCE and FRINGE VIEW
I've removed the WP:FRINGESOURCE shortcut, which was pointing to section #Sourcing in the previous version. It appears that this may lead to a misunderstanding based on a misreading of the shortcut as a "Fringe source". this was applied in this case, where an editor removed content and the ref sourced to a 2018 linguistics paper, presumably because it was published at University of the Ryukyus and Aoyama Gakuin University, and whoever heard of them, right, so must be a "fringey source", hence: delete. Wrong conclusion.

My first instinct was to look around for another shortcut that could be used for the #Sourcing section. I hit upon WP:FRINGE VIEW, which already exists. I was going to retarget it to the section, and use that. However, that's not appropriate, either. In reality, the introductory part of this section about Sourcing, is more of a "let's-recall-that.." appeal to the basics about standard sourcing. There's really nothing in the introduction about fringe views; the section doesn't get into that, until lower down, at #Parity of sources. If anything, WP:FRINGESOURCE would work better as a synonym of WP:PARITY, and should appear in the same shortcut box in my opinion, if it appears at all.

I'm not sure there *should* be a shortcut at the top of the #Sourcing section. Everything it says, is already covered by WP:RS. I can't think of a use case where you'd actually want to link to the top of the section (which is still possible via the section title, of course), rather than to one of the subsections. So, I removed the shortcut from that location, for that reason; and I removed it from the article entirely, because of the possibility of confusion inherent in the possible misreading of "Fringe source". However, I wouldn't object to adding it back, piggybacked on top of PARITY. Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a somewhat separate issue: looking at the discussion of NFRINGE in the section above, I wonder how much restatement of standard policy we want in an intro section, anyway. Three paragraphs seems like a lot, and then there's the issue of keeping it in sync with the policies and guidelines it refers to.  The lead already says, "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability.".  Do we really need a three-paragraph long intro to #Sourcing, that is strictly about recapitulating other policies, and has nothing to say about Fringe itself?  (If anyone feels that this is about too different a topic than the section header implies, I waive TPO for this comment, so feel free to add a new section header above it, and reindent as needed.) Mathglot (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Examples
The list of examples - several notable, one non - was recently removed from this page. I'm wondering if that was a good idea. While I understand the desire to remove bloat or excessive verbiage, some people need examples to understand a concept clearly. I think this merits at least discussion. Killer Chihuahua 15:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As the remover of the examples, I am here to defend my edit. It is my opinion that these examples add bloat while providing very little clarity. Additionally, the examples of non-notable fringe theories will require continuous maintenance because non-notable theories can become notable at any time. We probably don't need more than a few examples of each, but the article contains an excessive number of examples of notable fringe theories and only one example of a non-notable fringe theory. While examples are often helpful, I think that in this case they are more trouble than they are worth. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument sounds like a solution in search of a problem. There is one non-notable example; it's unlikely to become notable but if it does we can choose a new nn example then. I understand that you don't need examples; but many people do. I don't learn well from lectures - I learn from reading and doing. Different people learn and comprehend differently, and just because you personally don't care for examples does not negate that many of our readers and editors do benefit from such examples. Killer Chihuahua 15:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not state that I don’t care for examples. I stated that examples don’t produce much (if any) clarity in this particular case, and may also be difficult to maintain. Determining the notability of or non-notability of a subject requires a comprehensive list of all reliable sources, and sources used to in these examples are not obvious. Additionally, none of these examples sheds clear light on how fringe notability guidelines differ from GNG. And there is some bloat. Even if you don’t want to delete the whole list, we should at least trim a few of the notable examples. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My poor phrasing, then. You don't find they add anything. They do add something for those who need examples to fully understand. We keep the examples for them, not you. As far as maintaining - I've been here for 15 years, I've seen no issues with maintaining. If upkeep is a concern, the entire encyclopedia is a washout, because it is always changing. I'm not seeing merit in your arguments at all. Killer Chihuahua 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I would be happy to compromise by just cutting "Paul is dead". We three examples of notable fringe theories should be plenty. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's not the best example. If the examples are to be trimmed, that's the one I'd cut. If nothing else, it's horribly dated, and runs the unfortunate risk of possibly suddenly not making much sense - "Tupac is alive" would at least not run the risk of suddenly becoming nonsensical, as Tupac will remain dead, and Paul will not remain alive. Killer Chihuahua  20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we agree on that much, I will go ahead and make the edit. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I know it's not as much trimming as you'd have preferred, but it will take out the most problematic, or shaky, example, and will reduce size/bloat some, without removing the "examples" which IMO are important to have. Killer Chihuahua 02:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Now that I look back on it, that one example was the biggest issue here. I'm quite happy with our compromise. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An absolute pleasure working with you on this. This has been a textbook case of BRD, with CON and mutual civility being the order of the day. Thank you for this; you had no way of knowing, but while we were discussing this here, I was also trying to get two contentious, hostile editors to cease their edit warring and discuss their desired changes with each other, and finally had to protect the article they were warring on to get them to make any posts on the associated talk page. This interaction with you is the other end of the spectrum; Wikipedia as it is at it's best. Thank you for that. Killer Chihuahua 13:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)