Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 3

Claim that is incompatible with policy
if u r reading this, i see you...

Mainstream?
you too

"Think" before editing mainspace!
Great--today we have more whack-a-word games played out on policy/guideline mainspace instead of talk pages. What does this even mean? "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications"? I'm serious. An idea is defined as mainstream because it's plausible? This is a useless definition. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest to replace the word "mainstream?" —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If t'were up to me, throw away "mainstream" because it doesn't help to use terms that need to be defined case by case depending on its context. Also throw away the term "plausible", same reason.  In some cases, a subject's "implausibility" is exactly why it's especially worth mentioning at WP.("No, this isn't a fish story, virgin birth has been confirmed-lots of them"). I want to hunt down some of the language used in sturdy discussions I've seen here and there regarding judging the proper framing of a given subject.  Also how to judge the noteworthiness of variously sourced claims found about a given subject, as well as the appropriate weight to give them. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit collision)
 * Heads up. :) Professor marginalia has misread the sentence (justifiably).
 * He missed that "mainstream" was relating to "major publications" (and not to "idea")
 * He missed that "plausible" was an adjective of "idea" (and not of "mainstream" ... "major publications")
 * The misinterpretation is understandable. The sentence's grammar is flaky, if not outright incorrect.
 * The sentence should also not be attempting to qualify an adjective of the previous sentence (in the previous para!), which is anyway tangential.
 * -- Fullstop (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to use mainstream or plausible to have a guideline of fringe theories. We have NPOV, V, and NOR, and a policy that discussed fringe theories needs to be framed within the spirits of these three policies. It can be done, I am sure of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the page now, after my edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good edits! Stays on topic and uses consistent language. Now do the RightThingTM and de-muddle NOR too. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"the media"
Current wording :Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed within in the media or in respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. Proposed wording: Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed within mainstream media or in respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. Alternatives: reliable media,  serious media,    conventional media,  news media ??? but not just media. DGG (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * bah, I wanted to suggest "mass media," but that doesn't work.
 * mainstream is evidently problematic too.
 * but since "respected" is already being used, why not put it before the "media", instead of after the "or"? "Peer-reviewed academic publications" kinda already implies "respected" anyway.
 * or, "reputable," "reputed," "representative," "with substantial following," "institutionalized," "unimpeachable," "esteemed"?
 * ah, hell. To a fringie, a fringie source is all of those things.
 * -- Fullstop (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We should avoid "mainstream" as it is a minefield. Let's stick with simple wording that will not be challenged:
 * Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed in the media, reputable publications, or in peer-reviewed academic publications.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * right. As I said, a fringie is going to interpret everything per his world view anyway. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Shorter and easy to understand. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I say drop "media" altogether. Conspiracy theories are often discussed in the media, but are fringe anyway. Paranormal topics, totally fringe, and yet every Halloween every newspaper has a ghost story in it. A UFO sighting, fringe, still makes it in the paper. All sorts of crazy health-related pseudoscience gets covered in the "media". It's not necessary. The sentence would read just fine as:


 * Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed in reputable publications, or in peer-reviewed academic publications.


 * I don't think the word really adds anything. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Think "guideline," not "enforcement." :)
 * That is not to say you don't have a point, but isn't what you observe is also true for "reputable publications"? Also, an April Fool's spoof on UFO sightings is intended to be a gag when it appears in reputable publications, but is intended to be taken seriously when it appears in "UFO Monthly."
 * As always, intent (context) reigns supreme: A magazine-style TV story on Roswell hype (as recently seen on Discovery) is a story about the hype, not a story about UFOs. Consequently, it would be legitimate for WP to have an article on the hype, but not on the UFOs.
 * Questionable article topics can always be nuked by redirect, AFD and CSD. Thats enforcement. :)
 * The insertion of pseudo-scientific nonsense into existing articles is far more pernicious, and far more difficult to protect again. There we can only trust that collective common sense will prevail.
 * -- Fullstop 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just spoof coverage that appears in the general media, and it's not just coverage of the hype. Theories that aren't accepted in mainsteam science gets coverage in general media as serious topics all the time. Mainstream media doesn't care if the theory is correct, per se, just that it generates ratings. The Face on Mars pic in this guideline often appears in mainstream media. The Oprah show, a mainstream media show, recently had psychic mediums as guests, had parapsychologist Dean Radin as an expert, and did another show around that time about The Secret and Law of Attraction, all fringe topics treated seriously on a mainstream media show. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of the word "media" is to allow articles on fringe theories that have gained a degree of notability. The theory may be absolutely nutty, but if it has been discussed in a serious manner by multiple press sources (even to disparage the theory), it is notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia.  UFO sightings are good examples... the theory that aliens from outer space have visited the earth is certainly fringey... but it is certainly a notable theory.  There are thousands of people who believe it.  Thus, it is a theory that deserves an article.  The crazy health related stuff is similar... if a pseudo-scientific cure has gained enough notariety that it has been the primary topic of multiple news articles (as opposed to passing references), then it is notable enough for us to discuss it.  Of course, if the medical community says that this "cure" is absolute hogwash, we can (and should) discuss that opinion as well. Blueboar 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't parse that sentence. Surely this guideline is about theories that reached the notability threshold, otherwise the guideline would be superfluous so that it should be deleted. But for me that is not clear enough from the definition. Harald88 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream" revisited
i do not revise things

Policy puts the line at notability and not at significance
I see that somehow the misleading term "significant" reappeared in the text, even in the intro. That is another misguidance concerning Wikipedia policy. I now replaced its bold first occurrence by the correct term that it substituted: the requirement for inclusion in Wikipdia is notability and not significance. In fact the banner at the top of the page should be adapted until this guideline is compatible with policy. A guideline with such major incompatibilities that are under discussion cannot be claimed to be "generally accepted". Harald88 10:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... From the lead of WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable (highlights as per original text):

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, Notability is a guideline and not a policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Harald88, I placed that in there. It's from the first line of WP:NPOV. If you read the sentence here as a whole, it qualifies significance as something that has met notability requirements. In other words, if notable, then significant. If we put the wording in the NPOV policy to the side for a moment, and just focus on what you're saying that Wikipedia "sets the line at notability", the sentence is still compatible because it sets the line for "significance" at notability.


 * It's bold because in the NPOV policy it's bold. I would assume that it's bold there because they want to emphasize that insignificant topics aren't covered at Wikipedia.


 * The reason why it's "generally accepted" is because the wording comes directly from the NPOV policy, which is generally accepted. I can only speak to the changes I made being generally accepted because changes I put in guidelines are either agreed upon on the talk page first or are copied from other policies and guidelines. I don't know anything about changes made by others. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I somewhat uncomfortable with the wording in the lead. NPOV does not speak of notability. If you have a significant viewpoint that has been described in sources that are reliable, then it implies notability. Significant - > As per descriptions in WP:V is all what is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think it's nitpicking. There's nothing wrong with using the word "notablility" and there's nothing wrong with using the word "significant". There was nothing wrong with the use of "mainstream" earlier. I think this back and forth on what words to use is really just personal preference, because the meaning isn't substantially different either way. I thought it was important to add a useful definition of what a "fringe theory" is, and that's in there now, so this other stuff you guys can work out without me. See ya. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I would argue that we need consistency between guidelines and policies. NPOV speaks of significance, and I do not see the need to introduce another concept in this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did add "with representation in proportion to its prominence", however, because this too is in the WP:NPOV policy and is directly related to WP:FRINGE. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is also needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Significance and notability are the same thing:


 * "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."


 * But because we have a whole guideline on notability, I suggest we use that word. Then it will be easier to understand FRINGE, and we won't have people saying "well, it doesn't seem very significant to me."  I'm going to override jossi's revert and put that change in, just so you guys can look it over and I won't lose the edit. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a circular reference is ? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Significance is not subjective as it defined in WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought it being circular was a good thing. It makes it impossible to get out of the definitions, which is what people try to do.  But anyway, since the two words are being used interchangeably (which is stupid policy-writing- I think NPOV should be changed), we should make it clear in the article they mean the same thing (unless I'm wrong they do?).  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV, the core policy, was written based on Jimbo's vision for Wikipedia, so it uses his terminology. Jimbo uses the word "significant" in his communications (linked from WP:WEIGHT). Like I said, it's all the same really, but I wouldn't want to see NPOV change too much from the Creator's vision, even if the alternate word is similar. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. But then we really should change Notability.  I mean, it is very stupid to have two policy words for the same thing.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:N is very clear that notability applies to the subject of an article, not the content. The content of an article does not have to meet WP:N, and that has been the case from the beginning. Jimbo knew what he was doing. DGG (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "..., with representation in proportion to its prominence."
 * Sorry for butting in, but there is something wrong with this clause, and I didn't want to fix it without being sure what it was.
 * Perhaps its the "its", which should be "their" if referring to the preceding "views".
 * And, if this is an allusion to WP:WEIGHT, is "predominance" (or "eminence"?) instead of "prominence" intended?
 * -- Fullstop 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "prominence" comes from "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." "Their" is correct; I fixed it. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"For sale" - just extra words?
In the section on self-promotion there is the phrase: "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as duplicitously offering self-published books for sale under the guise of "references", " I immediately wanted to edit out the words "for sale" as they do not seem to be needed. Aren't all self-published books "for sale." Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but given the commotion above, I thought I'd better check before removing. Smallbones 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of what this sentence is trying to prevent: A statement is made in an article about a fringe theory and cited to a website that sells the book in which the fringe theory is discussed. This is a false reference... The citation is essentially linking to an advertizing site who's purpose is to sell the book, and not to the book itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Parity of sources" section
This section seems a bit mixed up. It discusses "certain obscure fringe theories" but then uses creation science as an example, which is hardly obscure (at least in the U.S.). I think the point is that we can't expect peer-reviewed refutation for ideas that scientists dismiss out of hand as absurd, but it's not expressed very well. Anyone want to try a rewrite of that bit? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What holds true in the U.S. is not the end-all definition of what is a fringe theory. In the Middle-East, belief in djinn are quite common. Furthermore, you have to note what kind of fringe theory it is. In America, creationism is not a fringe theory among theologians. It is, however, a fringe theory among biologists. Zenwhat (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem that we seek to fix here (IMHO) is not with things like creation science. That is a sufficiently well known idea that plenty of mainstream scientists have written solid works to refute it.  We can therefore present evidence on both sides of the debate and proceed in a normal manner - just as we would in a discussion of Republicanism and Democratism in US politics.  The problem is when some nut-job claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine.


 * Our nut job typically writes huge volumes of text - he gets newspapers to publish rave articles about it - he files patents - he writes about it in the various nut-job journals and maybe gets a few sound-bites on local TV shows. He maybe even shows his rigged demo to some retired 80 year old NASA scientist who mentions that he's mystified by how it works ("NASA Scientists cannot explain amazing properties of machine!"...I have an actual example of this in one of our articles by the way!).  There is (on the face of it) a ton of references to back up the idea that his machine works.


 * But mainstream science takes one look at it and says "Pha! This clearly violates the first Law of Thermodynamics.  End of debate." - nothing whatever is published saying that the machine is bogus because there is no need - Journals don't publish that kind of thing.


 * So what do we do?  If we don't have some kind of guideline, proponents of this perpetual motion machine will come along and write an article, stuffing it full of dozens of references saying that the machine works - some from NBC News, others from Time Magazine.  We don't have one single reference saying that the machine is CLEARLY a pile of junk.


 * Over time, Wikipedia gains more and more of these articles - and comes out expressing an overall world-view saying that all of these kinds of machines and other kookie ideas are 100% true. Our reputation as a serious encyclopedia would (justifiably) take a nose-dive in the face of our very own WP:V and WP:NPOV policies.  Would any school teacher want their pupils reading Wikipedia when there are hundreds and hundreds of articles saying that "gyroscopic particles" or "magnicules" allow the First Law Of Thermodynamics to be violated?  I certainly hope not!


 * Worse still, if I try to fight this tide of crap by editing one of these articles to say "This machine claims to make energy from nothing and that is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics" - I'll certainly be accused of violating WP:NOR - and because I don't have a reference that says that this machine violates the first law, I'll get dinged for WP:V also.


 * The problem with all of this is the assumption that 'neutrality' is defined as taking all opinions equally (ie mainstream science gets the same degree of weight as some nut-job).  We ought to be treating "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" as our touchstone here - it's FAR more relevant to science articles than WP:NPOV or WP:V or WP:NOR as a practical guide to writing encyclopedia articles.  The further some theory is from mainstream science - the more evidence should be required.  The DEFAULT position of the encyclopedia in such articles should be that of the mainstream.  Hence, before the author of the article can claim that the machine makes more energy than it takes in - they should be required to come up with some SPECTACULARLY solid evidence.  MULTIPLE peer reviewed articles - the experiment should have been duplicated in a major university lab - there should be articles written by major experts in the field saying that they believe the results and are mystified as to how it breaks thermodynamics.  There ought to be discussion of how science was rocked to it's core by this invention.  Since none of those things are likely to have been the case - the statement that this machine actually works should be inadmissible.  All we should ever say about extraordinary claims with flimsy evidence is that "The Inventor claims that the machine does such-and-such"...which is a fact we can back up with newspaper articles, web sites by the inventor and pop.sci TV shows.


 * Theories that are relatively close to 'mainstream' science - but not universally accepted (dark matter, string theory, that kind of thing) are less extraordinary claims - and require less extraordinary evidence because they are less extraordinary claims. (But ironically - and tellingly - these are the very claims for which peer-reviewed evidence is easy to find!)


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no presumption that neutrality means taking all opinions equally--see WP:Undue But there are so many other presumptions at root in these conflicts that are flat out wrong.  The first idea that editors need to drop here is that is their responsibility, or the responsibility of this encyclopedia, to take the position that anything is TRUE.  We are not to mis-attribute views, but that is not the same as holding any view up as true.  We cannot mis-attribute views by giving them undue weight, or miscast them in the articles, etc.  But we cannot newly create claims here either, so wikipedians, sorry but we don't get to roll up our sleeves to see the job get done all by ourselves in making claims about what is or is not true simply because we think it is true, and because we think it must be said because it is important that readers not get "the wrong idea".  We are not to take it upon ourselves to do this if its impossible to attribute that claim of "truth" to references properly. Many articles I've looked at lately where these conflicts flare up I find becoming a tedious read, so heavily weighted with sanctimony that readers can only groan having to suffer their way through all the preachers editors ministering the "gospel of truth" around here.  And I'm talking both ways here--we have the so-called "fringies" banging their drums and speaking from scripts, but we have what I'm going to call the "skeptipedians" who think for some reason it's vital to the future of the free world to go around posting "pseudoscience" warnings on as many articles as they can find like they're sworn deputies from TAM or something.  Jeeze, it is not the job of the encyclopedia to reprogram people's thinking, it's simply to tell the story.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is cool saying to put on a bumpersticker (be sure to pick one up for $2.99 at TAM 6).  But it has no place in editing wikipedia because we aren't judging evidence!  We simply research published references and write it up. The fringe policy started out as a way to "weed out" content that isn't noteworthy, not because it isn't "true" but because nobody in the real world knows of or cares at all about it except the basement scientist or conspiracy theorist who cooked it up and rushed to the wiki to publicize it.  Then it grew to help deal with situations such as an editor using somebody like Dr. Dino as a source in an article about austalopithecines.  Lately though it looks like editors want to take this further to implement as policy a rule that all articles be vetted and approved by the "Department of the Magisterium of Skeptics Society".  Do we really need the overkill here?  Aren't we at a point where we can invest in some measure of confidence, both in the readers and fellow editors, that these disputes can be dealt with best simply focusing on good editing practice instead of what we think people need to told is true, or what we think people need to believe? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't something be fringe if "and only if" it is fringe within its own community? For example, for something to be a fringe astronomical hypothesis it would have to be supported by a fringe of astronomers. It wouldn't matter if 99.99% of dentists supported it.


 * Therefore creationism could (for the sake of argument) be a fringe belief in a scientific context if a fringe of scientists supported it, but a majority view if the majority of people support it. Where this leaves us, I'm not quite certain, but it does have some interesting implications. - perfectblue (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * no, I think that's backwards. a community of believers will never consider their own ideas as 'fringe' - if they consider the difference between their beliefs and others at all, they will tend to think that the rest of the world is clueless or deluded.  fringe clearly implies a judgement with respect to 'conventional norms' made by people who hold and defend conventional norms. to adjust your example, creationism would never be considered fringe by creationists; the only people who might see it that way are people who ascribe to current mainstream understandings of the evolution of life and the geological history of the earth.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Claims concerning mainstream opinion do not have to be WP:V in guidelines?
Would someone point to why guidelines do not have to follow other policy? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:V: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." In other words, policy applies to articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Obscured meaning
"In an article written on a well-known topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant" seems suggestive that WP:FRINGE only applies to articles on well-known topics.

As such, the original "If an article written on a well-known topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant" is more correct and far more clear.

The conditional if allows for the possibility that articles not on well-known topics can still be POV forks, can still be patent nonsense, and should still be deleted. Zenwhat (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for justifying the revert. I think the problem I have/had is that it is a run-on sentence that's fairly hard to parse, so I tried taking out the conditional aspect to simplify it.  I've now inverted the second clause putting the "if" and "then" aspects closer together, leaving the sentence object at the end.  The meaning is the same, but it's hopefully easier to read.  Personally, I had to read the original sentence a number of times before I could understand what it was trying to say. -Verdatum (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It can also mean that in some topics there is no mainstream opinion to be considered, or the mainstream opinion is not sufficiently covered for it to be any more advanced than the fringe view. For example in very young topic or a hypothetical topic there may be no empirical evidence or answers either way. - perfectblue (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources
After a day of looking at sources for various articles, I came across a general consensus among editors across many disciplines: independent sources are the best for establishing notability and prominence of a fringe theory. I wrote a trial paragraph in the guideline to this effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources used to establish notability tend to be TV shows and newspaper articles where some news reporter on a slow news day picks up the story ("Local man with no college education invents car that runs on water").  These can be quite notable sources - but they don't really mean much because the reporter merely goes to the inventor and writes down all of the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo he's told.  This doesn't truly constitute an independent source any more than the inventor's web site does.  If we were able to exclude such references as being just a reporting of the original inventors words - then many such fringe theories could be placed in a much more reasonable perspective. SteveBaker (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If the article is RS and notable and the inventor has a significant view that is different than mainstream, that may be written as a NPOV, inventor X said Y as reported by Z. If you want to exclude RS references on the basis of an editor deciding what is OR or fringe in an article, what is to prevent an editor from using the argument, ie, expert G said global warming (is or is not) man made because of foo, is original research or fringe and therefore the RS reference should not be used? Ward20 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:RS and WP:V already give guidelines on what weight to give to what types of sources.Ward20 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that newspaper reports, TV shows or anything of the sort should be used to reference global warming articles. They should be referenced from well respected, peer reviewed journals.  In the case of global warming, there is absolutely no problem in doing that.  The very definition of fringe theories is that they are not.  Consider the following two statements:


 * Joe Schmoe claims he has invented a car that runs on water.
 * Joe Schmoe has invented a car that runs on water.


 * Either statement could be shown to be notable by virtue of a newspaper or TV pop.sci show talking about Joe and his amazing car. If it's reported in a newspaper then we may assume that the story has notoriety.


 * But only the first statement can reasonably be verified by those sources since they do not apply any reasonable degree of scientific rigor to the stories they present. A reporter for a newspaper is perfectly able to say "Joe Schmoe showed me his car - and he says it runs on water" - and if it's a reputable newspaper, we should take that as fact.


 * In order to back up the second statement, we need some more solid evidence than a newspaper reporter is able to provide. At this point, we need something like a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a respected journal (like 'Nature' for example) before we should be able to put that statement into the encyclopedia.


 * This additional rigor is required in the case of theories that go against formerly established mainstream science (including things like global warming...at least in it's early years) because in general, scientists do not feel moved to write peer-reviewed articles saying that they are NOT true. A typical mainstream physicist will simply say "I know Mr Schmoe's car can't work because I trust the first law of thermodynamics more than I do Mr Schmoe." - and will certainly not attempt to write a formal peer-reviewed paper on the subject because doing so does not advance our knowledge of such matters.  In the absence of negative references - we must be extra especially careful to find fully peer-reviewed positive accounts or the encyclopedia will end up with a strong bias towards saying things that are not true.


 * Cold fusion is a classic example of this. It turns out (according to the mainstream) that cold fusion doesn't work.  However, when the phenomenon was first put forward, it seemed likely that it might well be an amazing and interesting new effect.  Papers (peer reviewed, in respectable journals) were put forth on both sides of the debate - and Wikipedia (at the time) might well have statements like "Cold fusions produces excess neutrons" - and be able to satisfactorarily reference it with an article in a journal we could all respect.  Of course, eventually, the weight of evidence did swing the other way - but we could write a NPOV article based on widely available, solidly referenced material.


 * Global warming had a similar start to Cold fusion. Initially, it wasn't clear whether it was true or not - then lots of papers (good, solid, peer-reviewed stuff) was written - and gradually, mainstream opinion in scientific circles came to the position that it IS true.  So either outcome is possible when scientific debate is engaged.


 * But most of the crazy theories that we'd currently label "fringe" are not like that. They've NEVER been considered reasonable enough to pass the "peer-reviewed" milestone - and they are sufficiently contrary to the mainstream that nobody even bothers to try to prove them false.  They are "obviously" false in ways that neither Cold Fusion, nor Global Warming were - even at the very outset.


 * So while fringe theories may well be notable (as demonstrated through reliable newspapers and TV shows SAYING they are notable) - we should not say (or even imply) that they are true. All we can say is that the inventor considers them to be true but mainstream science does not...until such time as there is peer-reviewed evidence on one side or the other and we can say something more definite.


 * I'd also mention Patents. Patents are frequently held up by fringe theorists as proof that a machine works - when in reality, the patent offices in the USA and Europe (at least) do not even attempt to show that in the vast majority of cases.  Hence all a patent really shows is that the inventor went on record as CLAIMING that his machine works - and certainly not that it actually DOES work (statement (1) versus statement (2), above).


 * SteveBaker (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything you say makes perfect sense, but what that is being discussed can not be addressed comprehensively by A note about publication attributions. and Sourcing and attribution? It seems to me those sections address the issue and are rigorous ways of assuring the proper weight is given to a POV that may be significantly different than the mainstream view. Ward20 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources must be appropriate for the issue. for example, a user cold hypothetically try to use tabloids to build a case for notability for something that has no notability in science, or they could equally attempt to build a case for notability by citing scientific journal entries for something that the general public has never heard of. Sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes it isn't.


 * For example, it would be appropriate to use newspaper entries to build a case for the notability of a local urban legend involving a genetic experiment that went wrong, even though serious scientific sources would never in a million year cover it. However, it would not be appropriate to try to build a case for the notability of a real genetic experiment using local newspapers because only scientific journals would accurately reflect the views within the scientific community. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Tabloids are discussing a fringe theory (beyond passing refferences), then this demonstrates that there is a mainstream recognition of the fringe theory. The theory meets the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia that is discussed in this policy.  There may be other threasholds that apply... but this one is met.  Once this is determined, this policy no longer is a consideration... how we discuss it, how to phrase the discussion, how much weight to give the theory in the discussion... all that is still to be determined.  We have other policies and guidelines that we turn to for those determinations.
 * This policy relates to whether a fringe theory is worthy of discussion in the first place ... it does not concern itself with how we discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to qualify howyu said it -- while tabloid discussion of a scientific theory would not  a mainstream discussion, but show merely popular interest, in the case of an urban legend as yo uare discussing, tabloids are the mainstream source. This is probably what you meant? DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Popular interest is a form of "mainstream", even for scientific topics. If the tabloids are discussing a Fringe scientific theory in a serious manner, then that shows that the theory has reached a level of recognition in the "Mainstream"... it passes the threashold for inclusion in this policy.  That said, I do think we need to define "tabloid" here.  The National Enquirer is a "tabloid"... but so is the New York Post.  However, the NYP is more serious in its coverage that the NE.  I could see making a distinction between the two. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yep, for science one is merely unsuitable while the other is absolutely impossible. DGG (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This "mainstream" business is one of the worst things in WP. It either promotes conventional science above any other POV, when interpreted to mean "mainstream science," or it promotes public opinion, or majority opinion in a particular field.  Thus, in a case like EVP, it comes out to either bash the subject, or to totally marginalize the mainstream sci POV, since either science is the "mainstream," and mainstream sci hates EVP, or the majority of those who know of the subject are the "mainstream," and they believe it is spirits. Or, you have no mainstream POV, because most people probably don't know about it except as fiction. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You either misunderstand what the guideline is saying, or are complaining in the wrong place. This guideline does not say that we should promote conventional science or the Fringe... it simply says is that a Fringe Theory has to have been discussed by the mainstream. It does not matter whether the mainstream dismisses the theory or supports it... all that is required is that it has been discussed by the mainstream. In other words, it has to have achieved a minimum level of recognition... an aspect of notability.  A theory can be fully in the Fringe and still pass muster with this guideline... as long as someone in the mainstream has discussed the theory beyond a passing reference.
 * In the case of EVP... because it has been discussed in a serious manner by numerous TV shows and news papers, it has achieved that minimum level of mainstream recognition. Thus, according to this guideline, we should have an article on it, and possibly even discuss it in other, related articles.  How we discuss it; what we say about it; and how much weight to give it... these are all questions that are determined by other policies and guidelines, not this one.Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability and reliability
My recent edit was mainly an attempt to decouple reliable sourcing from notability. The way the guideline was written, it didn't matter how many unreliable sources discussed the matter- reliable ones were necessary for notability. I don't think this is so. It may be true that often when a thing is notable it is discussed in reliable sources. However, a thing may be quite notable if it has been discussed by mainstream sources, but has not been picked up by reliable ones- that is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't think we should say this, because I think it is quite possible that a thing would be notable but not covered to any extent in any reliable as opposed to mainstream source. I just don't see how we can necessarily expect that a reliable source will pick things up when they are notable. For example, Psionics is notable since it is used extensively in games, but I'll bet there aren't really any reliable sources for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but please do a considerate revert, as not all my changes focused on this issue. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree... The need for reliable sources is a central part of several core policy statements (repeated in WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV)... we can not simply drop this requirement because a topic is fringe. I do understand your wish to differentiate between mainstream and reliable, and that to show that a fringe theory has achieved a level of notability we should focus on mainstream.  But Policy supercedes guidelines... we can not remove the need for those mainstream sources to also be reliable sources.  Both are needed. Blueboar (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're completely right, I was being careless. Bad way to go out, but what the hey (:.  I very much think FRINGE needs to be re-written for clarity.  Frankly, it nees a wikilawyer to understand it, and all the info should be right here and clearly explained.  I was totally distracted while editing, and thus got things the opposite of what I should have.  I came back to revert myself, but you got to it first.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 08:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Marin, please slow down a bit. Some of your edits may indeed improve the guideline, but because you make so many changes all at once, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and decide which edits are beneficial and which are objectionable.  The only option is to revert your entire edit chain and return the guidline to what is familiar.  Let's go through your suggested edits (here on the talk page) one at a time, so we can think about them and discuss our concerns. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Redflag needed a mention
WP:REDFLAG is a guideline that has direct relevance to this guideline. I included it in the note about publication. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This wording is slightly different and possibly broader than in WP:REDFLAG. There should not be different wording in a guideline from that already in policy. If the wording needs to be tweaked it should be done in WP:VERIFY. Ward20 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I might try to tweak it a bit more, but good edit! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Started discussion here on this topic, tagged as dubious. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem relevant. The tag you placed was inappropriate. See Template:Dubious for more on when that tag is appropriate. Resolve your dispute with WP:REDFLAG over there and then come back here. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear: Template:Dubious is meant for articles where a statement's fact is disputed. This template is to be used in article space, not on guidelines nor policies. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then go make it say that. It doesn't. You have this wrong, and should not be edit warring, as always. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The template is explicitly about articles. It says so in all the documentation. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ithin SA is right, but according to Template messages/Wikipedia namespace there is a suitable tag, which is  {{Disputedtag|section=yes} . Rather than adding it immediately, I'm making what may be some generally acceptable changes in the section. DGG (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your changes, DGG. I think that tag is at least appropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks about the tag. I agree with the changes.  Don't really see why the disputed tag was such a fuss, tho.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-negotiable
For all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content WP:NPOV is non-negotiable per WP:NPOV and Foundation issues. Ward20 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for fixing that. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That wording should be put back.  You could consider looking in on the discussion above, quite relevant.  Either I'm missing something, or REDFLAG needs adjusting. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are conflating issues. Ward20 replaced "non-negotiable" for "core" in the appropriate place. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have that backward . But I was wrong in the edit summary when I said you reverted it .  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In American English the phrase "replacing A for B" means "removing B and putting A in its place". One might also say, "replacing A with B" which means "removing A and putting B in its place". ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. You're right there, also (: Please discuss changes to this article before putting them in, and get consensus with other editors.  Making a change and then edit warring to keep it in is against Wikipedia policy. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing I've removed other than your removal (which you did without discussion) was the inappropriate templates you have placed on this guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When you edit a page, and your edit is reverted, then go and discuss it instead of inserting it again. If you don't achieve consensus for your edit, don't insert it again.  That's the way it works. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tutorial. Thankfully, since there is consensus, we don't need to worry about your posturing. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * in practice at WP, there are in my view core policies, but nothing is non-negotiable. The people here can change the purpose and intent of WP in any way they choose if there were sufficient consensus--Not that they are going to change NPOV. Core is a strong enough word. DGG (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Content needs discussing
I was not involved with arbitration committee inclusion in here, but generally I do not think that the arbitration committee rulings deserve to be in guidelines or in policy. They are the opinions of a singular group of Wikipedia editors and are not binding in the same sense as consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted here below:

Arbitration Committee rulings
In December of 2006 and again in July 2007, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines concerning the presentation of topics which are fringe, questionable, or pseudoscientific. The two cases are Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. The rulings set forth the following guidance:

Ruling on pseudoscience

 * Neutral point of view as applied to science: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
 * Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such.
 * Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
 * Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.


 * Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.


 * Appropriate sources Verifiability and Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Ruling on the paranormal
Appropriate handling of epistemological status It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy.

Adequate framing Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Editorial judgment regarding reliability Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise. Exceptional claims should be supported by strong sources. Sensationalist sources, when used at all, should not be the sole sources for an article. Topics for which no reliable source can be found are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Generally considered pseudoscience Theories which have a following, such as various manifestations of the paranormal, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may, with adequate sourcing, properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Status of parapsychology Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.

Cultural artifacts "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.

Subjects without referents Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier.

Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

Three layer cake with frosting In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

ArbCom is the last and final authority except maybe Jimbo. That is to say, ArbComs are not the same as consensus, but consensus is formed around them. They are thus highly necessary and relevant. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? What policy says that "ArbCom is the last and final authority"? Where does it say that consensus is formed around "ArbComs"? Who agrees with you? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution. They are the final word (except Jimbo) on matters of user conduct. They have traditionally avoided matters of content, on the rationale that this is an editorial and community concern. I don't they would position themselves as the final word on matters of content, notability, and so forth, and this is a notability/content guideline. That doesn't mean that related ArbCom decisions are irrelevant - just that they should not be enshrined as something they're not. MastCell Talk 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no wish to enshrine their decision. However, they are the final word till they speak again.  Thus, rather than enshrining them, we must include them till that time.  Because that's the way it is till that time. We can either remove all the ArbCom stuff on fringe, or we can include both ArbComs.  But we can't include only one. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is Cornerstone, Fundamental principle
Description of NPOV corrected/updated to "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia", for symmetry with current lead in to WP:NPOV as reached in discussion on WT:NPOV.

Spotted this change reverted once, I guess they missed the discussion. Please check NPOV talk before updating either page. Saves a lot of time. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is the discussion indicated above, I don't see a clear consensus, but note "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" was removed from the first sentence of NPOV within the last few weeks. I accept the logic in harmonizing the articles in this mannor. My main concern is that NPOV guidelines for significant non-mainstream views (fringe or any other view) not allow support unfair and biased editing. Any edits I make will try to be directed toward that goal. Ward20 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, well, it's kinda unfair. Try convincing people that no, wait a second, NPOV is not a fundamental wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of wikipedia.  Not gonna happen ;-) Are you trying to tell me that that doesn't have clear consensus now? O:-)

Basically Wikipedia_talk:NPOV was a short continuation, after which it looks like everyone agreed.

I'm of the old fashioned nerves-of-steel I-got-no-ego-to-lose-anyhow "Put it up under live fire and if no one reverts even then, it's gotta have consensus" brigade. It worked out. :-) Hence the short and sweet talk page discussion, typical of that style.

For the record: are you stating that you will edit a guideline page to push your personal point of view, regardless of what would actually be descriptive of consensus? ''Just checking! O:-)'' --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe we were talking about exactly the same issues. I only had some reservations about removing "non-negotiable", as apparently did others, but that's what collaborative writing is about, right?


 * As I indicated, the wording was removed and it's logical that the same wording should be harmonized between articles. Be assured the wording and principle of NPOV being a fundamental wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of wikipedia has my complete support. Foundation issues was also referenced in my discussions on NPOV.


 * It was not my intention, "that you I will edit a guideline page to push your my personal point of view, regardless of what would actually be descriptive of consensus?" Rather, I wished to inform on the talk page a basis for my edits, "My main concern is that NPOV guidelines for significant non-mainstream views (fringe or any other view) not support unfair and biased editing, and edits I make will try to be directed toward that goal." Is that a problem? For the record, pushing any point of view is something I try to avoid, and if consensus were to change to support unfair and biased editing, I would just not participate on Wikipedia. Ward20 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)