Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 4

Wording
Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. Describing critiques of a fringe theory should not be done in a way that implies more acceptance for the fringe theory than there actually is.

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertedly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject. As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view.

Disputed wording
ScienceApologist's wording, disputed by Nealparr:
 * To that end, using a wording that implies particular attribution (e.g. Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable.) in place of a common knowledge critique (e.g. This idea has not received acceptance within the scientific community.) may be problematic.

Nealparr's wording, disputed by ScienceApologist:
 * If Dr. X's viewpoint is worded as a "specific example" of the viewpoint, we avoid the problem of "particular attribution" and the implication that the criticism is a minor view. See Npov, Avoid weasel words, and the essay Describing points of view for "specific example" wording examples.

Discussion
I have finally incorporated a wording that takes into account all the comments that were made in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 2. I was surprised when this issue came up again at Talk:Parapsychology. "Mass attribution" was being heralded as problematic. It may be that mass attribution is problematic in some cases. However, it needs to be made clear here that particular attribution of critiques can in some cases be problematic due to the parochial nature of fringe theories. I can find dozens of websites that support certain fringe theories and only a handful that dispute them. This does not mean that only a handful of people dispute the fringe theories and we should not be implying as much at Wikipedia. Intelligent design's lead is used as an example of this. Please discuss my bold inclusion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The particular wording you chose may not be compatible with Npov (specifically the part about "mass attribution" and being clear on the size of the body holding the view), Npov, and Npov, which of course are core policy. I posted the wording here so that editors can determine if it's compatible, make changes as necessary, you know, discuss it. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the opinion is indeed general, it should have sources which say so. In the example you give, Intelligent design has been spoken on by the scientific community.  You therefore don't need the passage, because mass attrubution can be sourced.  In the example you give at Parapsychology, you are trying to basically assert that science educators hold an opinion in general, based on one source, the California Board of Education.  But in fact, though you might say it is "generally not taught in basic science classes" which would not be in dispute, what you are trying to assert is in deep dispute.  First, because educational standards vary greatly over the world.  Second, there are parapsychology departments or else parapsychology is taught or studied at some universities, so the opinion is not universal.  Third, because it is more than likely that BOAs have generally never given parapsychology a thought- and the fact that I don't know may mean Wikipedia has no source to assert.  So, while mass attribution is not a problem especially in uncontroversial areas of Wikipedia, and especially in leads, what you are proposing would gloss over disputes in fringe articles.  Looks to me like you can't source your sounds-like-a-generalization at Parapsychology, and you're trying to modify FRINGE to help.  I have no idea in that specific case why you think it is so important to talk about science educators, except you are one.  Read the essay you talk about, Common knowledge.  It applies to your edits, and would generally seem to militate against mass attrubution. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the issue I have with it is that I don't believe that it is 1) compatible with core policy, nor 2) an accurate description of what happens when one "Attributes through specific example" (rather than "Appeal to a particular attribution"). Granted, especially in an edit dispute, it may appear that one is implying that the opinion is marginalized by giving a specific example, but that's not actually what's going on (and core policy reflects this). What is actually happening is that one is giving a statement authority, if done properly that is (and again, core policy shows how to do it properly). By way of example, let's take the separate issue of the parapsychology article that led to this clause being added. In that article it said "science educators at the California State Board of Education have called the subject pseudoscience". One may (especially in an edit dispute) see that attribution to a specific example as saying only the California State Board of Education calls it pseudoscience, but that's not what the statement says; it doesn't say "only". It's only perceived as saying that by biased editors involved in a dispute. Rather, the statement is actually saying "According to the California State Board of Education, parapsychology is pseudoscience". The implication there is that it is pseudoscience, because presumably the CSBoE is an authority on the matter, unbiased, neutral, and an opinion you can trust as such. That's essentially what the core policy addresses -- lending a statement it's due authority.


 * The example provided in this clause, Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable, never occurs, because it is an unverifiable fact. How do we know he's the only one? It's not problematic because it is an appeal to a particular attribution. It's problematic because it is an unverifiable attribution. If we drop the "only" from the statement it is still not fully parsed, because if compatible with core policy it would read "Dr. X, a neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health, says this idea is untenable." That's a correct formatting of the statement, according to policy, because it reflects Dr. X's authority in making the statement. In other words, Dr. X's authority is exceptionally trustworthy, so the reader should consider his opinion as fact. That's how it actually works. There is no appeal to a particular attribution when all the other policy and guidelines are properly used. There's no "only" involved, and the source's weight is properly conveyed by giving his credentials. It's the same thing newspapers and magazines do, demonstrate the source's authority in making the statement.


 * I support inclusion of the clause if heavily reworded to reflect the actual problem and a guided solution, rather than the perceived problem and a solution that uses examples that never occur. The actual problem that occurs when an "appeal to a particular attribution" takes place is that the particular attribution is not fully described to show their authority on the matter, thus marginalizing the statement and upsetting the weight the statement is supposed to carry. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's worse than that, Neal. The appeal to authority is actually in part the issue. We appeal to authority at Wikipedia because of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. However, that does not mean that our writing should engage in appeal to authority. You are getting the meta-issues of how to judge quality of sourcing confused with the actual issues of how to write plainly. That's the point that this paragraph is getting at and it is the point that you somehow missed. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We can come back to the principles in a moment, but what do you think of the specific problems I pointed out in it? You have to at least agree that the Dr. X example is bad. If someone posts an "only" statement, it's already going to be edited on verification basis. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is the example bad? It is simply a suggestion of contrasts. Verifiability is ultimately what we are talking about here. If it is verifiable that a subject is fringe, it is not verifiable that only Dr. X disputes it. That's the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the example is that it doesn't imply anything, it clearly states that Dr. X is the only one who feels that way. You're saying that the problem with an appeal to a particular attribution is the implication that Dr. X is the only one who feels that way. Maybe if the example said the following, it would be a better example:


 * A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that "only" Dr. X shares this view inadvertedly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject. As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view. If Dr. X's viewpoint is worded as a "specific example" of the viewpoint, we avoid the problem of "particular attribution" and the implication that the criticism is a minor view. See also [blah, blah blah] for specific example wording guidelines.


 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it! But I will say, Neal that there could easily be cases where saying "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is perfectly verifiable.  Even if it is verifiable, if Dr. X is a PhD physicist and the fringe idea he is disputing is a perpetual motion machine, it is improper for Wikipedia to have wording to the effect that only Dr. X thinks this particular perpetual motion machine is impossible. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way to honestly make the statement that "only" one person says anything, but I'm glad we agree on the wording. The second part of the wording that I disagree with is the other example, the one that asserts that "common knowledge" wording is preferable. I believe that actually conflicts with the WP:CK guideline that says common knowledge is often not as common as one thinks it is. I believe it conflicts, but even if it doesn't, common knowledge claims are handled on a case by case basis and shouldn't be used in a guideline as a carte blanche "good idea" to defer to. The "good idea" to defer to is the simple formula spelled out in the NPOV policy, which calls for specific examples. Since that's what the above wording calls for as well, with a note that when using specific examples one shouldn't make it appear that the example is the only case, the problematic phrase can be dropped entirely. In short: it is conflicting and unnecessary. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Luckily, Neal, honesty is not the issue. Verifiability has nothing to do with honesty other than honesty to the sources. One can, in principle, verify whether someone is the only person to make a certain kind of statement. I also think you are reading a lot into the common knowledge aspect of wording. The fact is that there are tiny little common knowledge leaps-of-faith made all the time at this encyclopedia. There was a discussion of this at WT:NOR not too long ago. We aren't beholden to a simplistic view of interpretation for sources. We can make editorial judgements and write prose that sticks to the spirit though not the letter of sources. If we weren't allowed to do this, we'd have no way of summarizing anything, for example. That's the sense in which this point is made. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * SA, you can't say honesty is not an issue beyond honesty to the sources when talking about a guideline that describes what to do when there aren't any sources to back up what you want to say, because that's what this clause is about -- an absence of sources. We can't knowingly post dishonest information, especially if we don't have to or just for the sake of driving home our assumption that a critical point of view is more widespread than the sources available on it. We certainly can't advise to do that in a guideline. And you can't appeal to a guideline that says common knowledge is not really common when trying to assert that something is common knowledge. You can make editorial judgements all you want, and everyone does, but Wikipedia says that free reign stops once the material is disputed, at which point you have to back up your claims with sources. This clause is, again, about an absence of sources. What you do when there is an absence of sources is not say it's common knowledge. You describe the viewpoint and provide specific examples that give the statement its due authority. That's entirely honest, and a good faith way of dealing with what you feel is common knowledge or what everyone should know. Obviously if it's being disputed, it's not common knowledge to the person doing the disputing, if they themselves are being honest. And most of them are. Not all advocates of fringe theories are snake-oil salesmen (bad faith). They just don't know any better (good faith). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, we aren't talking about an absence of sources at all! We're talking about recharacterizing mainstream sources as peculiar rather than a la mode. You seem to be stuck deep in this fantasy world that someone is trying to criticize a subject without any sources. That's not the issue. The issue is when someone takes a source and tries to claim that what it says is only the opinion of the author when that's not the design/intention of the source. Advocates of fringe theoreis aren't necessarily hawking their wares, but they are fundamentally advocates and as such will clambor to portray their ideas in the best possible light while mitigating criticism to the greatest extent. This is the point of this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * @ScienceApologist. I reread the wording that I suggested, that you're now disputing, and I'm not exactly sure why you're disputing it. It's almost verbatim from the NPOV policy, whereas your wording is a shift away from the NPOV policy. If I didn't paraphrase it correctly, please point out where I made the mistake and offer different wording compatible with the NPOV policy. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is it is overly prescriptive. There are other ways to deal with the issue than using examples. Sometimes using an example can be a problem. (E.g. who do you choose for your example and why?) ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That part's easy, the most authoritative. The subject-matter expert. List several even. These are all established Wikipedia practices. Eg. "Scientists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained in parapsychology". That's a very clear sentence and carries more weight than "Scientists(weasel) are critical of both the methodology... etc." To reach Featured Article status (like parapsychology) such wording is even required. When we applied for FA status, that was what the reviewer told us to do, provide specific examples. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * FA-reviewers are not the be-all and end-all of editorial policy, nor do they speak for Wikipedia in total. The point is that your final two sentences are too demanding: they claim that you have to give an example in the text though reasonable people may conclude that this isn't necessary. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, look at it this way: The two sentences of mine that you consider to be too demanding are what's expected of Featured Article review, which is itself a demanding process. If you'd like to just leave off my two sentences, that's not a big deal for a guideline. I won't object. However, your examples are problematic too, for all the reasons I listed above. Split the difference and leave them both out. Add just the agreed upon wording which is entirely compatible with policy. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'm fine with leaving out my examples in favor of the wording that is not disputed above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have lost track, which particular example are you in favor of? Thanks. Never mind, I see the one that was added.  Ward20 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy break

 * I agree with Neal's points. The Dr X example seems a verification issue. The regional POV example is a good one because it illustrates that attributing to a certain group eliminates the problem that most editors edit from the perspective of their own language sources which may be skewed from the rest of the world.
 * Edits must attribute who believes what, WP:V requires it:


 * When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion....
 * It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.
 * I also agree that some guidance could be useful when RS are scarce. I believe it can be added to the existing Reporting on the levels of acceptance section and keep it simple, perhaps, "Many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics and there may only be a small number of reliable sources that discuss them, care should be taken to attempt to fairly represent the mainstream opinion of a fringe claim." Ward20 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is when people try to make particular attribution of an opinion that is general. A designation of an idea as "fringe" automatically makes the opinion that the subject is fringe general. Otherwise we would be stuck unable to write anything. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me I am wrong, but what I believe you are implying in the last few posts above is that, a lack of mainstream consideration or acceptance "fringe" implies mainstream rejection that can be asserted due to common knowledge. Is this your position? The first three paragraphs of Reporting on the levels of acceptance do not seem to agree.


 * By the way, I note the header above this section says Notability versus correctness. Possibly a better title would be Notability versus acceptance. Discussion on that wording before I change it? Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, SA not trying to give you a hard time. Just trying to establish common ground in order to work out an improvement to the problem. Ward20 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're slightly off in characterizing my concerns. I'm saying that when a fringe subject is discussed, there is a tendency for certain advocates to try to mitigate criticism by replacing an attribution of the criticism to a general group (so-called "mass attribution") with an attribution to the particular names/institutions associated with the sources. In other words, they try to avoid summary statements in place of particular statements in order to make it seem like only a few people dispute the subject when in fact every person who is a reliable independent source disputes it. More often than not, however, the implications of the actual wording in the sources are toward general attribution and so including the wording the fringe advocate would like is effectively misrepresenting the source. When the source is reliable (say, a professor or a statement of education standards) we can just take the statement as plainly verifiable and should not attempt to frame it as the opinion of only a limited few. That's the major problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for mischaracterizing your concerns. I still agree with Neal that many of the situations being discussed fall into a case by case basis with no one size fits all solution. If sources are being misrepresented, correct the misrepresention, when every person who is a reliable independent source disputes something; cite them. I have a problem with taking one professor's POV and using it to frame the opinion of many. Even the perpetual motion case is not clear cut. A PhD physicist can make a mistake (highly unlikely though) and not evaluate a process properly to account for all energy inputs and outputs so the process may not actually be a perpetual motion device. Identification of all inputs and outputs is difficult sometimes. Ward20 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as "correct the misrepresentation" when the misrepresentation is being done through particular attribution which is technically correct. The issue is that misrepresentation of a source can be done by appealing to particular attribution in the way that the current wording explains. The issue you have of "one professor's POV" is a hallmark POV-pushing argument by people advocating for the kid-glove handling of fringe theories. Such arguments are used to marginalize what is often the best sources we have on a topic. "Science can be wrong, experts can be wrong, you don't know everything" are all very tired and irrelevant points. If Professor X says a particular fringe theory is contradicted by material reality, science, etc then it should be plainly stated in the article "Particular fringe theory is contradicted by material reality, science, etc" without the bogus caveat (implied or explicitly stated) "This is only Professor X's opinion, child, so keep in mind that it's not the end of the story". Amateurs A, B, and C may very well dispute Professor X. That does not mean that we should characterize Professor X's statement as merely his "POV" since Professor X might not have the "opinion of the many" properly framed. It is, in fact, the most reliable statement we have on the subject and we should simply state it in the article with proper citation. We are ultimately called to make an editorial judgement because Professor X is deemed more credible, more reliable, and more representative of mainstream understanding. That's a good source and one that does not need particular attribution. If we allow the appeal to particular attribution of Professor X, we mischaracterize not only the Professor but also the state of the dispute which is between inherent unequals. You are making highly argumentative claims about the unreliability of experts which flies in the face of WP:V and WP:RS. Those who can be reliably judged to be the experts in a field are verifiably the best sources we have for information at Wikipedia. They should be the ones providing content. Whether they are wrong or right is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (<Back out) It was not my intent to make highly argumentative claims about the unreliability of experts. WP reports opinions of experts (and I agree they can be right or wrong) from RS to show acceptance of every type of content. But we try to attribute opinions to specific groups or individuals. If opinions are wrong, WP is simply reporting who said what published by a reliable source. When the information is wrong and verifiable.... well it happens.


 * If WP takes the opinion of an individual expert and says it represents the mainstream or majority view without a source saying that, IMO that is not verifiable and would be original research and endorsing a POV. If the opinion turns out to be wrong WP has actively promoted faulty information. It seems to be a core principle that is not acceptable. I do not see a consensus here that WP should go against a core principle, and can understand if other talk pages also disagree with OR. If that makes me in agreement, on this particular point, with others you say have an agenda there is not much I can do about it when I believe no original research has consensus at WP. Ward20 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is, sometimes attributing to individuals or groups is inappropriate. You wouldn't say, "According to the American Physical Society a force is a push or a pull." Similiarly you wouldn't say, "According to Carl Sagan, astrology is not scientific." The problem with particular attribution is that people use it to obfuscate clear consensus facts about the fringe-status and dispute of the fringe topic. By definition the fringe topic is an opinion that is contrary to the mainstream so attributing the mainstream to a particular individual or group essentially misrepresents the fringe topic's status. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very cogent observations. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem with extrapolating a general point from a single example occurs when different single examples contradict one another. For example, if one professor says "P" and one extrapolates the general point "P" from this, one will be faced with the contradiction P and not-P if there is another professor who says "not-P" and one extrapolates the general point not-P from that. Proper attribution ensures no such contradictions occur. That is, P and not-P is a contradiction, whereas "some say P while others say not-P" is not.

Please note that the solution here is not simply to portray one half of the contradiction and leave it at that.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to "P and ~P" being in contradiction: this is true, but in the particular case being discussed, there is no "P" - there is only "~P". There is no source that indicates that any educational boards disagree with California's on this topic. Antelan talk  19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to see the full claim. If you have access to the source could you cite it here and then I will endeavor to find a "P". At the moment it is unclear what the "not-P" is.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As ScienceApologist noted at the beginning of this thread, the full issue is available at Talk:Parapsychology for your viewing pleasure. Please respond to the question I asked you on your user page. Antelan talk  19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't see the actual quotation anywhere on that page.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's here. Thanks, Antelan talk  19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the quotation that provides the "not-P". I can't find it.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Case example (separate issue from the proposal itself)
The separate issue from whether the above is incompatible or not with core policy is the specific disagreement on Talk:Parapsychology -- which wording was more compatible with Wikipedia:


 * "...science educators have called the subject pseudoscience in their academic standards literature."
 * vs.


 * "...science educators at the California State Board of Education have called the subject pseudoscience in their academic standards literature."

The source being, of course, an academic standards book published by the California State Board of Education: ''Science Framework for California Public Schools. California State Board of Education.'' They say "science educators must be careful to separate science from pseudoscience and to explain the criteria for distinction" and include "parapsychology", "the study of unidentified flying objects", and "astrology" as examples where such a separation may be justified. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh. Those are both fine. The second is maybe a bit better, since it specifies which group of science educators has made this determination so the reader doesn't have to click on the footnote to find out. The first is also acceptable so long as it's footnoted. Is this really the level of dispute at the parapsychology page? MastCell Talk 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'd like to see an essay written about minutia. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The second is acceptable, and has been generally accepted as consensus on the talk page. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The second is not acceptable for a lead. There is no consensus for it on the talk page that I can see. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From a total outsider's perspective here, I tend to agree that the second one is better. Attribution is very important when something is declared a "pseudoscience". The first one is bit deceptive and made me think that either all science educators or at least most have declared it to be a pseudoscience. Another option might be to include some vague quantifying term such as "some science educators have called..." but I would still prefer direct attribution as will the second example above. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Levine2112, you are hardly a "total outsider" here as you yourself have run afoul of the very problem I'm describing here. The fact is that most science educators, when they even bother to discuss the subject call it pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ScienceApologist, but I don't consider my position here to be a "problem" which I have "run afoul" of. I have never edited on Parapsychology to the best of my knowledge, so yes, I consider myself a total outsider here. You say that most science educators, when they even bother to discuss the subject call it pseudoscience. If you have attribution for such a statement perhaps you could just say that. Can you attribute that to a reliable source? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that we have plenty of reliable sources from science educators describing the subject as pseudoscience. However, this "plenty" is on the order of five and they are not exactly dramatic statements because parapsychology has not been as politically active as, say, creationism. Nevertheless, the statements are made by perfectly reliable sources. Also, Levine2112, you should be aware that FRINGE applies to alternative medicine articles just as much as to parapsychology. So that does make you an interested party and not an outsider. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you truly have reliable sources supporting that "several" science educators describe the subject as pseudoscience, then you could even say that with proper attribution. But we can't account for something not being called and out-and-out pseudoscience just because it doesn't have large media exposure (unless we have a reliable source which does account for this). Yes, Fringe applies to some alternative medicine articles. And I have edited some alternative medicine articles before. What's your point there? NPOV applies to all articles right. Does that mean I am never an outsider in an NPOV dispute? Not even on article which I never edited before? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We are asking a question of policy here, Levine2112, not a particular dispute. If you want to claim outsider status, go to Talk:Parapsychology. The statement: "But we can't account for something not being called and out-and-out pseudoscience just because it doesn't have large media exposure (unless we have a reliable source which does account for this)." is almost indecipherable to me. I think it's hopelessly weaseled to say that your opinion on whether something is pseudoscientific is just as good as anyone else's. My point is that it isn't. Stephen Barret's opinion that a certain alternative medicine is quackery is better than your opinion that it isn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to decipher my quote because I believe it to be at the heart of the matter here, and I feel that your initial interpretation is one of misunderstanding based on a lack of good faith in myself. So here goes: "But we can't account for something not being called and out-and-out pseudoscience just because it doesn't have large media exposure (unless we have a reliable source which does account for this)." Essentially, this is in response to your position that when there are only a few critics or educators or learned scholars calling something "pseudo" (-science, -history, etc.) that they must be speaking for a silent majority who wouldn't bother to discuss the subject because it doesn't get much media play, but deep in their hearts they agree 100% with the vocal critics. This, in some cases, may be true. And then again, in some cases, it may not. If there aren't many people discussing it, then we can't be sure. And if we are not sure, we can't make an assumption either way. All we can do is report on what is verifiable. That may be that we can only state, "According to Dr. X, foo is pseudoscience." Or if we have Drs. X, Y, and Z, we might say, "Several critics have called foo' a pseudoscience." Or if Dr. X represents the opinions of some notable group, we might say, "According to the American Skeptics Society, foo is a pseudoscience." And finally, if it is attributable to some source which makes this claim, we might be able to say, "Though foo is only considered a pseudoscience by a few people, the American Skeptical Society attributes this to a lack of coverage of foo in the media." And yes, me being but a humble layperson of very little public notoriety, Dr. Barrett's opinion is certainly more reliable of a source than my own in terms of Wikipedia policy. However, his opinion alone, or even that of his Quackwatch network, is not reliable enough to declare something an out-and-out pseudoscience. Make sense now? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. And it's a ludicrous claim. Editors are allowed to make judgement calls based on reliablility, verifiability, etc. See the section below this one for more. You are trying to see who is "speakin" for whom. This is irrelevant to the question of how to describe topics. For example, if Dr. X says something like "there is no evidence that chiropractic care aids in cancer remission" it is not necessary to attribute that reliably sourced and verifiable fact to Dr. X as though it is solely his opinion and not representative of general consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it is necessary to attribute. Also, without sources saying so, how do we know that Dr. X's opinion is representative of general consensus? If we are only relying on editors' judgments then we will be doomed to argue endless about POV issues with editorial judgment. Further, I disagree that there is a consensus to add this to the policy as of yet. -- Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your question is one that has to be made as an editorial point-of-order and is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We aren't here to decide what is and isn't general consensus. That has to be done when determining that something is a fringe theory or not (other parts of this guideline describe this). Your disagreement is noted, but since you haven't specifically disagreed to any part of the suggested wording, I reverted your removal in good faith. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think that if the new wording is going to be used to justify broadening the specific authority of a source to a mainstream authority it is OR, and does not agree with the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section which states, "Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." To me, that indicates the specific authority of a source should be included with the reporting of the criticisms. New material about levels of acceptance should be in that section anyway. The fact that the new material is going into a different section does not make any sense. Ward20 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "authority" of the source is relevant to the reliability of the source. If you have an issue with how reliability is judged, please argue at WP:RS. What you are missing is that after the determination of the reliability of the sources is made per the section you quote, fringe POV-pushers have historically maintained a desire to continue to marginalize the source by appealing to particular attribution. This is why we have a separate section: to make it clear that this kind of behavior is problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a fair depiction. Who you call "fringe POV-pushers" may actually be pushing for NPOV. For if just one independent critic is calling something fringe, it would be an NPOV violation to such a thing fringe in its Wikipedia article. Rather, if the criticism is mentioned at all, it should be attributed to the critic (if the criticism cannot be shown to be representative of anything but the critic's view). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And if "ifs and ands" were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers. What is your point? So what if the goal or intention of the individual is to support NPOV. If their editorial actions push away from NPOV in favor of promoting fringe POVs then they are fringe POV-pushers. You are missing the major point: fringe POV-pushers believe that there is only a small number of critics disputing their particular bag of hokum. They are wrong and it is easy to show that they are wrong if we allow reliable sources to speak for themselves. As soon as we start making commentary on the number and type of reliable sources (attacking the messenger, as it is done with Robert Carroll and Stephen Barrett) then we begin to pander to the minority in defiance of WP:WEIGHT, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(<Back out)Reply to SA. Even though you say fringe POV-pushers have misused a source it is no reason to advocate OR to combat it. I did not say I had an issue with how reliability is judged, so that was unfair. I am not missing anything, I understand your argument and I reject it. Any issues with reporting on acceptance should be in that section not a new section. I don't know that there is much more to say because it seems we are now just repeating the same issues. Ward20 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is advocating original research. I'm advocating removing particular attribution when it is used inappropriately to try to imply or explicitly state marginalization of the mainstream idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you seek opinions if the opinions that you validate is only used to reinforce your pre-existing thoughts upon the subject? seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you follow me from place to place? If you're going to ask me loaded questions, maybe you should do it in more appropriate venues like my talk page, for instance. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a parody of wiki process. We have consensus at Parapsychology, a consensus clearly based on WP standards and one user in dissent. Nothing more. That same user managed to get the BOA thing in there in the first place, without any real discussion of whether it's notable. That was a compromise. Why all this discussion? It's not up to us to defend our positions. It's up to the user who wants to include something to convince us they're right. Stop being defensive, and start requiring good reasons, sourcing, attribution and editing behavior. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know Martin, it seems like some interesting issues and viewpoints have been discussed. There has been a meeting of the minds on a few points, and you never know when someone will come up with a real jewel that can be used to solve an issue. Ward20 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, yes. Doubt there is a problem with current policy, but anyway... —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses

 * The CBE may be taken as an acceptable proxy for the general view of educators, barring conflicting sources from other major educators' groups that have taken an alternative stance. If you think there are major educators' groups that disagree, sources would be helpful. I don't think there is controvery here; there is certainly no need for us to manufacture any or to pretend like the CBE's stance is the exception rather than the rule. Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk  06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I told SA on the parapsychology talk page, it's not like every science educator shares that view ("mass attribution"). For example, Coventry University (accredited and reputable) offers a Master of Science course in transpersonal psychology and parapsychology. As the parapsychology article indicates, the UK has a more tolerant view of the topic than perhaps the US has. What would you say to Martinphi's contention that using a California source has geographic issues? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, since California has a stereotypical reputation, in the US, for welcoming and embracing trends and beliefs which other parts of the country might consider out there. But that's neither here nor there. :) MastCell Talk 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * During my undergrad years at Edinburgh university I learned that we had what was effectively a "parapsychology" department. Apparently it was set up in order for the university to benefit from the will of a wealthy proponent of psi. The department itself had absolutely no credibility with the rest of the faculty. I can't say that Coventry has a similar situation, but I would be surprised if the faculty of that university had a particularly pro-psi belief. Just a point to bear in mind that UK universities have a lot of historical whimsies. Jefffire (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you go up the heirarchy of administration, attitudes toward parapsychology grow more negative. I have little doubt that in general parapsychology is held in low esteem, at least within the opinions which would be outwardly expressed of higher faculty- if they gave it a thought.  That isn't the issue.  That's OR on my part.  The issue is what you can say and have it be within our policy. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another example
To keep this discussion generalized and avoid getting into specifics about the Parapsychology article... let's look at another example, from a different field: History. Here is a typical situation:

In recent years there has been a lot of pseudo-historical "speculative history" written about the fate of the Medieval Knights Templar after they were arrested by Philip the Fair and supressed by the Church... that they survived in some form (the usual tale is that they fled to Scotland, just in time to assist Robert the Bruce at Bannochburn). This core theory then spins off additional theories about what happened to them after that... how they discovered America, years before Columbus... how they evolved into the Freemasons, or the Illuminati, or the Priory of Sion, etc. ... Theories also spin backwards in time... how the Knights must have discovered some important secret in the ruins of the Solomon's Temple to warrent their fame, influence and prosperity: perhaps it was a vast treasure... perhaps it was some sort of secret writings containing "proof" that Jesus did not die on the Cross, or that he had children, or containing the wisdom of the ancient Egyptions, etc. etc. A good example of all this is the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"... the book that inspired Dan Brown's purely fictional "The DaVinci Code".

Now, because so much has been written, these theories are notable enough that we can not simply exclude them from Wikipedia. They may be Fringe, but they are notable Fringe. The problem comes when attempting to write accurate articles about them. These theories and speculations are routinely dismissed by historians as being entertaining but fundamentally flawed pseudo-history... even pure fiction. However, because the theories are considered so absurd, few serious historians have ever bothered to even comment on them. There is a distinct lack of "counter argument" or refutation. This makes it difficult to include the majority view of historians when writing articles about these theories. Fans of the theories ask for verification that the theory is dismissed, and there is very little out there that can be cited (and, as SA points out above, the POV pushers will argue that the few refutations that do exist mearly represent the opinion of the historians in question and are not proof of a general dismissal by the majority.)

The point of my example is that Fringe theories are often met with bemused silence by the majority of scholars in any field of study... be it the humanities or the hard sciences. Few scholars bother to publish refutations of fringe theories. So what are we to do? How do we represent the majority view, when the only evidence of that view is silence? Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good non-science example of the core problem that ScienceApologist is hitting on. Sorry I don't have a solution yet. Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk  16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * well, there isn't silence on that general example. It's enough to find something that can be said to represent the scholarly consensus. The problem comes only with the really minor works that nobody bothers about refuting. Here, we may have to go to a scholarly consensus about the subject as a whole, not the book specifically. And this applies to parapsychology as well. DGG (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. There is a problem for SA here, in that the general scholarly consensus -or at least the consensus among the major critics like Randi and Hyman- is that parapsychology is science, not pseudoscience. Not to bust your careful generalization (: —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the right place to start debating contested details of specific examples. If you want to try to see if people agree with your view, you could bring that to the Parapsychology talk page, for example. Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you'll read above, you'll see we moved the discussion on the parapsychology talk page here. My point was that what DGG says would have the opposite effect of what some editors on this page would like.  Personally, I think current policy is fine.  The thing is that scholarly view is a) not usually majority and b) different from the skeptical view and c) in a few cases not expressed at all, in which cas people often want to portray the skeptical view as the scholarly view.  My point with parapsychology is that even the skeptical view is less skeptical than some here would like.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that your opinion is not uncontested, and this isn't the place to be starting up an argument about the claims you've been asserting. Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk  17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep this section about the "other example", not parapsychology. If we're going to write a guideline to address this that sticks, it will need to be applied to a number of topics. @Blueboar, what do you think of the wording examples above? Do you think it will help address the problem? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, you are using what I said out of context in a number of ways:
 * 1) The problem was about the presentation of evidence when there is little or no discussion among scientists, not over the general status of a subject
 * 2) I disagree with your statement of the scholarly consensus on the irrelevant matter you raised --at most it's a failed attempt to try to make something into a science
 * 3) most important, I think it lame to argue over labeling, and a debate on this is about as useless as we can possibly get.

DGG (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see if I'm understanding right: you feel that one scholarly source can be generalized, even if sources addressing the subject from mainstream scholars are not avaliable. In other words, A claims fringe THEORY, and there is mainstream scholar B who says it isn't so.  So, we say that "the mainstream view of THEORY is that it is not correct." and source to B. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The solution to this dispute is common sense. If an article on a fringe topic is written neutrally and accurately, then it will be clear to a reader of average sophistication that it's a fringe topic. If it's not clear from the article that a topic is fringey or non-mainstream, then the article is not neutral or accurate. To go back to favorite example, if a reader comes away from the article on AIDS reappraisal thinking, "Boy, there's a real scientific debate about whether HIV causes AIDS!", then the article is inaccurate and non-neutral. That doesn't mean that we need to beat people over the head or assign a "mainstream" view where none exists. When people resort to "the mainstream view is X", it's often because the article is written from an overly credulous or sympathetic POV and does not make the real status of the subject clear. This is an art, not a science (if I may). MastCell Talk 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the proposed text
Sentence by sentence:


 * Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories.
 * Absolutely. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them.
 * How would we know that "almost no one supports them"? This is an assumption which can be skewed by editorial POV. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Levine, that's the definition of a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely. But my point is that if there is only one independent critic, then how are we suppose to know that the theory is fringe. There's an assumption being made which would compromise WP:NPOV. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're reading too much into the example and adding content that isn't there. There is no indication that there is only one independent critic.ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I am reading too much into the example, then know that other will too. We need to make it clear, because the way I am reading into this is completely valid. One critic doth not make a subject fringe. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to guess at the subtext and innuendo readers will force into wording. If you have an alternative wording you can propose to avoid your misconceptions, let us know. But as I've clearly explained that guideline is not saying what you are believing it implies, then I have no choice but to wait for you to offer a counterproposal. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim.
 * Why not? If we can only attribute criticism to one independent source unrepresentative of the community at large, then how can we to assume that this one source is representative of the community at large? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See above, Levine. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic.
 * On the same token, if there are only a few sources actively disputing a theory, then perhaps the theory is not fringe after all. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue being addressed by this part of the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that issue should be addressed then. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is addressed, elsewhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? Please quote. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the guideline yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Describing critiques of a fringe theory should not be done in a way that implies more acceptance for the fringe theory than there actually is.
 * On the other hand, describing one source's critique should not necessarily be done so that it misleads the reader into thinking that this one critique is representative of the the community at large. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that if a source is representative of the community at large because it is reliable and says so, it shouldn't be taken to be a singular opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the the source is truly representative of the community at large. But we should clarify that in this policy - that the source must truly be representative of the community at large. Otherwise, if it is a singular opinions, then that must be attributed as such. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is truly representative because it is reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a source is reliable, does not mean that it is truly representative of the community at large. It may only mean that it is a reliable source of the critic's opinion. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition of a reliable source is that what the source is saying we can take to be reliable. So if a source says, "This machine violates the second law of thermodynamics" then we can say, "This machine violates the second law of thermodyanmics" and cite our sources. It's that simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertantly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable".
 * Why not? If the only source we have of the the criticism is Dr. X, then how do we know that Dr. X's viewpoint is representative of the community at large? (Also, "inadvertantly" is spelled wrong. It is "inadvertently".) -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We know it because Dr. X is a reliable source and said so. The spelling is corrected in the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If Dr. X is only a singular opinion and not representative of the community at large, then we must attribute this as such. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that this isn't a singular opinion. You are making exactly the bad arguments that this part of the guideline is explaining. Read it again. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the policy should make it clear that this isn't regarding singular opinions but rather opinions representative of the whole community. Otherwise, Dr. X is only speaking for Dr. X, regardless of his/her reliability. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear. That's what the wording is about. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject.
 * Why is it likely? We can not make this assumption without violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we know it is fringe then? We would be making an unsafe assumption. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not relevant to this discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that this strikes at the core relevance of this policy. If there aren't very many if but one source calling something fringe, then how are we to rightfully call it so? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an issue for demarcating fringe: this occurs elsewhere in the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view.
 * Certainly. But this goes two ways. If the critic is representative of a large body or the community at large (and this can be documented), then there isn't a problem. However, if there is just one independent critic, we shouldn't represent the critic's view to be representative of more than that what it verifiable. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the critic is a reliable source for the topic she is commenting on, then the critic's statement can be taken to be a verifiable and reliable source for a statement properly framing the article's subject in light of the general topic, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The critic's opinion needs to be shown to be representative of the community at large before we make any such assumption. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By virtue of the fact that this critic is a reliable source who is explaining a topic, this makes your argument about determination of the representative nature of the critic's remarks irrelevant and exactly why this wording needs to go through. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the critic is a reliable source of his/her own opinion does not make that same critic a reliable source of the opinions of the community at large. This needs to carefully explained. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's an editorial judgment the authors must come to. We are not equipped to explain when one source is representative or when another source is representative. Researchers for the articles have to do this. In other words, your point is not something on which we can guide editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If Dr X's statements are indeed "Well sourced" - then we may assume one of three things about these sources. Either:
 * The source backs up the fact that he holds this theory - but not that what he said was in any way demonstrably true. This might be true of (for example) an interview with Dr X in a reliable newspaper article - or an article on Dr X's website or that of some unqualified layman supporter.
 * The source backs up not just the fact that he said it but because the source is a trusted, peer-reviewed journal - that Dr X's views are not 'fringe theories' - they are at least sufficiently reputable for his peers to accept the article.
 * There is not only Dr X's peer reviewed article - but multiple positive references to it in other peer reviewed articles by other people in Dr X's field.
 * In the first case, Dr X may still be a nut job and his theory is very likely 'fringe'. In the second case, he may be in a small minority - but he's not a nut job, but a moderately well respected scientist who merely has an alternative theory.  The latter is something we should at least mention in our article (although without giving Dr X undue weight if there are few qualified people agreeing with him).  In the third case, his views may still not be the "accepted view" but they are so strongly supported that our article should give a balanced view of Dr X's theory and that of the mainstream.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who screwed it up and why?
The rationale behind WP:FRINGE is supposedly "Therefore other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims."

This screws up the idea behind FRINGE, and by that definition nothing is ever fringe. ID for example has plenty of "well-known", "reliable" (to someone who believes it) and "verifiable" sources. Much esoterica does too, and summarizing the cruft would not make WP a "primary source." (by any definition). Moreover this page is not for carrying on that asinine "primary source" debate for frchrissakes! These clowns are no better than the blockheads who are convinced that their sources on XYZ is "reliable"; its all just another shade of the notion that their mission/idea/position is TheRightOneTM The pox on them and their pathetically tiny minds.

So, would someone please wikitrout the behind of whoever put that cruft in there and fix the page accordingly. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Burden of proof
As I understand it, a claim like "X is not supported by organized science" is pretty much outlawed, because the need to cite sources requires skeptics to prove a negative. If a scientist criticized X, that can be proven, but if no scientist bothers to discuss X, that can't be proven. Outlawing "X is not supported by organized science" makes it difficult to explain that a subject is not scientific. And that difficulty, in turn, helps explain why there is a tolerance of, um, extreme countermeasures. So has any thought been given to changing however many rules we have to change in order to reverse the burden of proof, so that believers have to show that their subject is supported by organized science instead of vice versa? Art LaPella (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that's the case at all. You can say "X is not supported by organized science". In fact, something very similiar is in parapsychology ("To date, no evidence has been accepted by the scientific community as establishing the existence of the paranormal."). Similar wording exists in many fringe topic articles, and it's usually easy to source. I haven't seen any editors seriously argue that you can't say "X is not supported by organized science".


 * The reason it's not controversial is because one must prove a positive to state the opposite. If one were to want to say "Organized science supports X", they would need to find a reliable source backing that up, from organized science. The burden of proof rests with them. What editors seem to have a problem with is when someone wants to say "No one supports X", either directly or by implication, especially when they have sources that say something else. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If something is merely not written about - then perhaps we should say nothing. The difficult ones for me are when (for example) a particular gizmo is clearly in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (I'm thinking of Perpetual motion machines) - and it is indeed the case that nobody has written "This gizmo is in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics".  This is the tough one.  It's not just that it hasn't been written about - it's that it's so blindingly obvious that it can't work that no scientist will take a second look at it - much less write about it in a peer-reviewed journal.  Yet anyone with half a brain and a science education can look at the inputs and outputs of the machine and see that it's in violation of the 1st law.  The difficulty is that if you explain in the article the reasons why it's in violation of the 1st law, that's Original Research - but if you just boldly assert that it's in violation of the 1st law, then you have an unsourced statement that you'll never find a reference for.   What I've been doing is the latter and simply tagging it with a reference to the laws of thermodynamics - but I feel that's doing our readers a disservice when a simple explanation of WHY it violates those laws would make things much clearer. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there may be something to be said for deleting many perpetual motion machines. Presumably, the only ones that are notable are the ones that have been criticized. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am, by nature, an inclusionist. It bothers me that someone, seeing a claim by some fraudster to be able to produce free energy, might look to Wikipedia to discover whether this claim is true.  If we don't have an article - then they are at the mercy of a clever sales pitch.  We have the unique opportunity to be the first place to contain all of human knowledge - which includes clear descriptions of why each even mildly notable perpetual motion machine doesn't work. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The major problem is when the only sources out there are the couple fringe sources promoting it. We certainly can't use just them to make an article. I suppose that one of us could figure out what's wrong with the machine and publish it in an equally reputable or better source - parity of sources, after all - but then we're back to SA's point =) Also, we can,of course, use general sources. "This machine, like all perpetual motiion schemes, violates the fist law of thermodynamics"  For examples of this being done, see Arsenicum album  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Not supported" is different from "rejected," and is also different from bland and bald statements of fact based on specific narrow sources. In fact, "not supported" and "not investigated" and "not accepted" are fine. It's when you get into "rejected" that you really have to have sources. That's because "rejected" is a positive claim, while "not accepted" or "not investigated" is often a) not controversial and b) anyone who wants to say differently can easily get a source if they are right. The same applies to "no evidence." That's a positive claim which needs a source. Also, any statement about the "scientific community" needs a source if it makes a "postive" claim, by which word I mean a claim for which the burden of evidence is rightly on the the person making the claim. "The scientific community rejects the efficacy of arsenicum album" needs a very good source, while "The pharmocological and medical community has not accepted the efficacy of arsenicum album" does not. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. MastCell Talk 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom cases are not case law
I have removed this text: '' It is Wikipedia's convention that arbitration committee rulings are considered precedent and carry the weight of policy. Those editing articles dealing with fringe theories and pseudoscience are bound by these precedents.'' That is incorrect. ArbCom cases are not policy, but application of policy in a specific set of circumstances to address a specific editing behavior. ArbCom does not define, set, change r otherwise propose changes to policy, let alone set precedents for policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution
Also deleted that section that is very much in contradiction with existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain what's wrong with it, because I picked through it piece by piece, discussed it heavily with the contributor who added it, removed the parts that were contradictory, and what was added was only the condensed compatible version. I don't feel there is anything contradictory with existing policies in the condensed version. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The removal seems to be a bit pointy. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It violates WP:NPOV. All what you need in this regard is WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. Describing critiques of a fringe theory should not be done in a way that implies more acceptance for the fringe theory than there actually is.


 * No one can add the WP:SYN by stating that "only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim". If there are people that dispute it, we describe these without making further assumptions of consensus of sources or lack therrof.


 * A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertantly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject. As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view.
 * We cannot say in an article that Person X is the "only" source for claim Z. We can only say that Person X claims Z. (unless, of course, the statement that person X is the only source for claim Z is reported in a reputable source, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, Jossi, either you don't understand the guideline because you have a problem reading it or you are deliberately obfuscating for the sake of obstructionism. Neither of your points are valid. You are assuming that we are directing an editor to say "only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim" or "Person X is the only source for claim Z" when in fact we are saying that editors should not do that. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be misreading it Jossi (I reread it several times myself). It is actually stating that we can't do that and why. It's saying no one can add the SYN that "only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim" and that we shouldn't say "Person X is the 'only' source for claim Z". Those were actually the reasons for adding it in the first place, I disputed certain wording, and that was the condensed version resulting from the dispute. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If people are misreading it, then it's obviously unclear. I've had a go at a tweak for clarity. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with a clarification, after all, guidelines are there to provide these type of clarifications. The problem is that the explanation in that section was not reflecting policy, and it needs to be framed as such. E.g. based on the wording of existing policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree here with jossi and Shoemaker. Shoemaker, thanks for the clarity tweak. jossi, the suggestion you have to frame it within the wording of existing policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN will most likely solve the issues I enumerated above. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This section is actually fairly new, having been added in the last week or two, so I think we should expect it to be rewrote and rehashed a fair bit. As for my opinions on the section itself, per Jossi's suggestions: I pretty much agree, though I'd add in a dash of WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPOV/FAQ to help delineate why fringe theories need extra care. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the alternative to "Dr. X says this idea is untenable"." ? If the alternative is "this idea is untenable," we should just drop this section- and in fact state that one must use attribution.  As someone who knows how this kind of thing is dealt with on the ground, I can tell you that the alternative mentioned is actually how it is done, and it's very bad.  Want diffs? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Boldly rearranged paragraph so redundant sentence can be removed. I believe it is more readable and stronger this way but I could be wrong. Ward20 (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for second paragraph:

Suppose source X states, "Scientist Dr. Y says Z is untenable". A statement such as "Dr. Y is the only scientist who says Z is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". In order to present a neutral view, it may be stated, "Source X states, scientist Dr. Y says Z is untenable." In this way the reader may decide for themselves the authority Dr. Y's view represents based upon the reputation of source X. Ward20 (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's certainly a lot closer to NPOV than what we have now. Good job. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that if Dr Y really is the only guy who says this then we may be guilty of giving him undue weight if we don't qualify his statement as being in some way and extreme minority position. I agree we can't say that he's the only scientist to say this - there is no way to know that, yet alone produce sources that prove it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, I am confused. Dr. Y is a scientist published in a RS that criticizes fringe theory Z as wrong. Other scientists have not published criticism of fringe theory Z in RS for what ever reason.


 * So are you saying, "if Dr Y really is the only guy who says this then we may be guilty of giving him undue weight if we don't qualify his statement as being in some way an extreme minority position."? Ward20 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. SteveBaker (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That will never be the case. Wikipedia doesn't consider self-published sources to be reliable, so Dr. Y will never be the only one who says something, by proxy the publisher is saying it too at the very least. Wikipedia also doesn't consider singular opinions to be notable, so Dr. Y's opinion will never make it into Wikipedia unless it is shared by others. This is kind of getting off point. The point is not to make widespread opinion look small by attributing to a particular attribution, not the other way around. Tiny, unnotable opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Ward20 has a good idea here.  Not sure how well it would work in leads where you want to keep the word count down.  But basically, this idea is about right. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps SB has a very valid point. There appears to be consensus concerning SA's issue about abusing a scientist's view through particular attribution. However, there seems to still be loggerheads about NPOV; not making widespread opinion look small, or a singular opinion look mainstream, when addressing fringe issues. I keep referring back to the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section, and in particular, "However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." This is a complex issue and all the information we are trying to convey is spelled out in Wikipedia Neutral point of view and its tutorial.


 * What if we say:
 * Suppose a reliable source states, "Scientist Dr. X says fringe theory Y is untenable". A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". For guidance on how to present criticism from a neutral point of view, refer to: Wikipedia Neutral point of view and its tutorial. Ward20 (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Undent.... Well that would certainly work fine. But I think the whole point of putting it in the article was that people like, ah, me were insisting that we say stuff like "Scientist Dr. X says fringe theory Y is untenable" instead of "fringe theory Y is untenable". I've never seen someone try to say something like "Dr. X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable." Perhaps it happens. But since we've just decided that NPOV and ATT require that we say directly where we get controversial information, I'm not sure anyone wants to leave the whole section in the article at all. I thought that the idea to say what publication Dr X wrote in was good. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But that is the entire problem. WP:NPOV says (quoting from Jimbo himself):
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * ...but that is precisely NOT the case for fringe scientific theories. Suppose John Q. Nutjob claims to have invented a car that runs on water...the majority scientific viewpoint is that this is bullshit because it's a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics and not even worth considering.  Now - per Jimbo in WP:NPOV - how easy is that to substantiate with a reference?  Well, I'm sorry Jimbo but it's completely impossible.  Not one serious scientist is going to write a paper in a peer-reviewed journal saying that water fuelled cars are impossible.  But we're still OK if the nutjob doesn't get much publicity - if his claim is non-notable, we just delete the Wikipedia article and we're done.  But what if his crazy claim gets reported on a mainstream TV show or published in a mainstream newspaper (think Stanley Meyer) - and if that story takes off as an Internet meme (as virtually every "Car that runs on water" does) - then we have J.Q.Nutjob's claim (which is definitely notable and sourced) versus...what?...nothing.  Then - enter onto the stage an established scientist who backs up these crazy claims in print.  Now what?


 * Somewhere we need to say that this thing can't possibly work because thermodynamics says so. How do we do that?


 * Incidentally: This is business of an established scientist backing a crazy theory is certainly not a theoretical possibility: Dr. Rustum Roy is an established scientist, working at Cornell University with a long history of really solid science (and a biography on Wikipedia). He is also a strong and vocal supporter of John Kanzius's fringe theories about the combustion of water and also believes that homeopathic preparations change the structure of water.  So what happened?  Is there some truth to Kanzius' bizarro theories?  Nope.  Sadly, Dr. Roy is now 85 years old - since retirement as a working chemist 20 years ago, he's "lost it" - he's taken up bizarre eastern religions and started working on magnetic whole body healing and all sorts of other bullshit pseudo-science. I've spoken to one of his ex-colleagues (via email) and he believes that Dr Roy is no longer to be considered a creditable source as he's suffering Altzheimer-like symptoms. Sadly, Dr Roy's credentials as "A Scientist at Cornell" and "An established chemist with a strong reputation" are trotted out at every Kanzius press briefing - and journalists too often swallow things like that without checking them.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some mainstream source will have dealt with it, or it would not be notable. So you have a scientist who backs it up.  Well, here is what you can do.  First, you say that the claims have not been accepted by the mainstream.  That's established because no mainstream journal has published the research.  Now, if it's really that notable, there will be at least some refutation.  And it will say the basics for you.  However, if it is you who are saying "pseudoscience," while reliable sources say otherwise, then you'd have a problem.  As with your example .  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. But here is my problem: User:Martinphi says:
 * First, you say that the claims have not been accepted by the mainstream. That's established because no mainstream journal has published the research.
 * But User:Ward20 says:
 * A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution"..
 * So how can I say (and produce references for) the fact that "no mainstream journal has published the research"? None of us have read ALL of the mainstream journals going back (say) 5 to 10 years.  That's exactly the same problem as saying that "Dr X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable" when I don't know what every scientist has said.
 * Hence Ward20's assertion that I can't say that no other scientist said it is in direct contradiction to Martinphi's assertion that I CAN say that no journal said it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are several solutions in this sort of case:
 * Go up a level: If we have one or more RS saying that all schemes of type Y are nonsense because of fundamental scientific principle Z, then we can say that "Like all Y, these claims violate fundamental scientific principle Z, and thus cannot work unless centuries of work on Z are wrong.
 * Go up a level then back down: Go up a level for general discussion, then use Dr X's specific discussion to fill things in. This changes it from "Dr. X says that Y is untenable because of A, B, C and D" to, "Like all claims of type Z, Y is untenable under mainstream science, because of A, B, and E.[1][2][3] Dr. X investigated Y specifically, and found that it has problems C and D as well.[4]"
 * Parity of sources: While reported in a few newspapers, the main information about claim X comes from the author's website. Hence we may use such resources as ScienceBlogs, James Randi, Quackwatch, and other, similar high-end skeptical sites to discuss claim X. Indeed, even publication in most fringe journals, such as the so-called Evidence-based Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (which publishes some downright bizarre stuff), probably rank below many good-quality websites.
 * Secondary expansion on sources: High-quality RS X dismisses these claims, but doesn't go into much detail. Source Y is still reliable, but not on the level of X (say the aforementioned ScienceBlogs and James Randi.) We can use Y to expand on discussion in X.
 * Check for problems with source: Claim X about pseudoscience Y is published in Z. Z is described by sources A, B, and C as merely a platform to allow advocates of Y to have an uncritical say. Z is hence a questionable source, and falls under the restrictions of WP:SELFPUB (I know, it sounds like it's about self-published sources. It's actually about Self-published and questionable sources.)
 * Stubify: WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPOV/FAQ are clear: Minority views must be presented as minority views, and the majority views as the majority. If insufficient sources exist to discuss X under these guidelines, then X should be cut down to whatever size allows it to be presented in an NPOV manner using the sources available, not allowed to expand indefinitely using unchallenged fringe sources. Even if that means trimming it down to a stub or fairly short article for now, it is a breach of policy to let minority views be presented uncritically as the majority, so that may be the only way. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with Shoemaker's response is that as soon as you start treating blogs by people with no scientific background (e.g. James Randi) as more scientific that peer-reviewed journals published by one of the world's foremost academic publishers (e.g. the OUP) then you undermine the whole notion of RS to such an extent that it creates a kind of free-for-all.Queue Pea Are (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On 1. we have the problem of it being original research most of the time. On a perpetual motion machine, the machine will almost never be described as such except by critics, but will claim a new source of energy, for which specific fefutation will be required.

On 3. We already do that. If attributed, it's fine. But we don't rank them below the alternative sources you speak of- no justification, as both are highly partisan sources, and only Occam's razor to distinguish between them.

On 4. that is the definition of WP:SYNTH

On 5. We already question sources. Fine. But we don't shrink away from using the best sources in the field, properly attributed. For example, a personal or organizational website on a fringe claim.

On 6. Boy, does we have ourselves a problem: Guess what? The skeptical view is very very often in the extreme minority. Wanna go there? Or would you rather keep ignoring the "majority/minority" clause when talking about fringe theories?

On the whole, this doesn't seem to present a solution. And the problem is not with current policy, but with simply a failure to trust the reader to look at the context and digest the mainstream scientific sources and the critical sources. We don't ever actually need more than we have.

To SteveBaker, I think it is generally a non-controversial statement to say that a thing is not considered accepted by mainstream science. We don't need a source for that, because it is the default: if it weren't so, there would be sources to say it is accepted. So "not accepted" is non-controversial unless accepted can be sourced. Even if we can't determine if a mainstream journal has published, we can at least say this, and that should be enough. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 may sometimes be, but certainly is not always OR. An article on a specific homeopathic remedy is still covered by the mainstream view on homeopathy's tenets. 4 is not at all synth if source Y is also talking about the same subject: My intended point was that if we have sources showing that the mainstream view is that the concept is bunk, but don't go into much detail, then we don't need to worry as much about parity of sources in order to bring in more detail. As for 6, WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPOV/FAQ define majority and minority as being in respect to the mainstream fields of research they belong to. As well, to quote the recent arbcom case on Pseudoscience: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." and "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." Hence, yes, I do want to go there, as it's highly relevant. 6 is certainly not an ideal solution, but it may be necessary in some cases where fringe theory proponents have created excessively detailed sets of pages on their fringe theory, more than any mainstream source will cover. If there's 63 wikipedia pages on minor fringe theory C, it will be difficult, and often impossible, to find mainstream sources that go into similar detail, and the coverage of the theory has far outgrown what Wikipedia can cover while staying within policy.  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * of course it's generally non-controversial, but we are dealing with the problems when it's otherwise. For a similar example, there's an article where I want to make the statement that: "There are no completed level II trials for this therapy, and the only reported level I trial is thus-and-so". Now, I am personally capable of doing the research for this and probably accepted as a expert for such searches (I've done them for my University's Human Research committee). But I have not inserted this statement because it would represent original research. Similarly I think I am qualified to say there are no mainstream papers on a particular subject--I've been giving that as an expert opinion to researchers for many years. I would have no hesitation saying this at an Afd, & I certainly have done so many times by now. But I do not know how to say it in a Wikipedia article. DGG (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the NPOV FAQ is the only place where there is a direct link between science and "mainstream." It has not been accepted as policy.  If you feel that this is the case, then you need to have a policy discussion about it: policy should directly state that "when discussing claims of reality the term 'majority view' is used to mean the scientific consensus in the relevant respected mainstream scientific field."  As it is, "mainstream" however flawed a means of sorting out WP, does not mean any such thing.


 * REDFLAG needs help as well: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." That's in conflict with the Notability guide.  We should take out hundreds of articles by that standard. Also, I don't see any equation of "mainstream" and "mainstream science".


 * Further, the Pseudoscience ArbCom was talking about pseudoscience as it appears in mainstream scientific articles. See the locus.  This context cannot be excluded.  For an ArbCom talking about fringe articles, the nearest thing is the Paranormal ArbCom.


 * Not sure what you mean by this: "coverage of the theory has far outgrown what Wikipedia can cover while staying within policy."


 * If you mean that some of the pages should be deleted, delete them. If you mean WP can't adequately cover it while staying within existing policy, that might have something to it.  So, go change policy, and then come back here and change Fringe.  That would be fine, it's just a longer haul than you were probably expecting.

1. It's true what you say, but it's not OR because the source is talking about the subject, which is Homeopathic remedies in general, and the subject is one of those.

4. Right. Would have to be very clear. I basically thought you meant what I've seen people want to do: Fringe theory A states B, and skeptical source C says "not B," and textbook D says a lot of stuff about the general subject area of A but is not talking about A, so we go and augment C with D to criticize B (for example, you might have a textbook on chemistry used as a source for refuting in a Homeopathy article). That's SYNTH. Sounded like what you were saying. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, the NPOV/FAQ has been accepted as policy. That's why it has a policy label slapped on top of it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems to be a recent development. I remember quoting it and having it called "fishy" or something.  So are you really saying that "mainstream" always means "scientific mainstream?"  As I said, if the FAQ applies to articles on fringe subjects, it looks like it could use some more explaining, because it contradicts itself, saying "Pseudoscience ... should not obfuscate the description of the main views" when the main views on may topics are either non-scientific or pseudoscientific.  "Mainstream" is a very funny word to use in such a way.  For one thing, it requires us to do original research to fill in the non-opinions that scientists might have if only they knew about the fringe subject.  It requires us to take the opinions of, say, James Randi, and make them out to be the opinion of the "Scientific Community," when said community hasn't said a word.  Is that really what you think? Kinda makes more sense to me to think that the ArbCom on Pseudoscience was meant to apply mostly to fringe ideas within mainstream articles- where it makes perfect sense. Notice also that the ArbCom does not use the word "mainstream."


 * If everyone were just willing to follow this, we'd have no problem. Because, all we have to do there is report on the level of acceptance, which is generally not in dispute, and we are not requiring ourselves to present information which has not been generated by the sources. With a couple of links, we can make it quite clear that idea X for going faster than light is not accepted.  But we will have a very hard time saying it is rejected, or even saying specifically why it is false if we are not going to do OR.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, Martin? IT's been policy from the point that FT2 split it off the main policy page on. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a response, nor was it important to my post. The original  section confirms my suspicion about it:


 * "However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article."
 * See? It's about pseudoscience within mainstream articles.  You haven't dealt with how you are going to present the "majority" view when it doesn't exist.  That's your problem that you're trying to fix.  How are you going to do it without OR?


 * Yes, that wording has always caused problems. People have taken it to mean that WEIGHT says that the majority of an article on a fringe subject is to be taken up with mainstream science (read the opinions of professional skeptics).  That's pretty silly interpretation, both presenting those views  as "mainstream science," and taking up most of the space with those views instead of describing the subject.


 * So, if you don't want to deal with that, at least say how you are going to avoid OR. You also haven't dealt with some of the former points I made.  Logic and common sense do have their place here.  We sometimes get too caught up in the wikilawyering to see beyond the ends of our noses.  It just doesn't make any sense to make most of an article on a fringe subject about mainstream reactions, even if they exist; thus, I interpret the FAQ to be about pseudoscience in mainstream articles.  It does make sense to do OR to refute a fringe theory, when no other refutation is avaliable.  That's why I've advocated that we change basic policy to allow it.  But that is not policy, and you will have to change policy before you put it in FRINGE.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't make up your own meaning to get around policy, Martin. This is a key part of the policy relating to the discussion, denying it will make this discussion go in circles. I accept you don't like it, and looking at the FAQ, see you have attempted to remove it a few times and been reverted. I think that you're just going to have to accept it's policy, has been policy since at least 2004 and is probably not going to change. If you're willing to work in that framework, that's fine, if you're going to insist policy doesn't apply when you dislike it, that's going to be a problem.  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Talking like that won't help. You didn't respond.  Also, you forget that I pushed just the interpretation of policy you are trying to use, and I couldn't get it in.  You didn't join me at that time.  Other editors roundly rejected SPOV -that is, having a policy that the mainstream scientific view is the view of Wikipedia and always has WEIGHT- which is essentially what the FAQ says if you don't interpret it they way it was obviously meant (to apply to fringe ideas in mainstream articles).  So, there is more than ample room for discussion here.  I think that we should put that in policy in a more explicit way: we should say here at FRINGE just what that FAQ is saying, and what I just said above: the mainstream scientific view is the viewpoint of Wikipedia, and always carries the greatest WEIGHT in articles.  Where the scientific POV cannot be determined through non-partisan sources, it may be derived from logical inference from standard textbooks on the general subject of the article.  Make it crystal clear, and also put it in the NPOV article itself.  I'm with you all the way on this.  What I'm not with you on is saying that NPOV is the same as the mainstream scientific POV.  That is just fooling the reader.  Go and change it, and you have my support.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that general consensus was that the section does not meet the standards of WP. It has been edit warred in, and needs to come out. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are completely wrong. Good try, though. What we have are two known problematic editors dragging their feet with regard to this issue. You are one of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump request for feedback regarding pseudoscience FAQ
I posted a request for feedback at the Village Pump regarding a proposed revision of the second paragraph of WP:PSCI. That request can be found here. It was made following a discussion on the NPOV talk page here. Please chime in if you get a chance. Thanks! -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

request for new section in the article
I'd like to add a section immediately after the "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" called "Unwarranted criticism of fringe theories." the content I suggest is as follows: "The primary purpose of WP:FRINGE is to maintain proper encyclopedic style by preventing articles from becoming overburdened with a plethora of small, disorganized discussions about minor or tangential topics. WP:FRINGE is not intended to permit critical attacks on viewpoints within their own context, nor is it a tool to enforce evaluations of the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts." alternatively, this could be worked into the preceding section, changing its name to something like "Unwarranted promotion or criticism of fringe theories." my phrasing might be better, of course, but I think it's important to note that Wikipedia is not here either to defend or refute fringe theories, but rather to give them neutral coverage within the limitations of encyclopedic style. -- Ludwigs 2 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Might have something here. Are you aware of the whole debate around the NPOV FAQ page, section on pseudoscience?  That section is used sometimes to mean that the WEIGHT of any FRINGE article is mainstream.  That is, mainstream opinion has more weight (thus space) not only in mainstream articles but in articles about the fringe subject.  Obviously, the section is talking about fringe ideas within mainstream articles, but it is argued differently.  This might apply here, because what you describe is often defended in terms of WEIGHT. But let me look into this more later. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This substantial change to a guildline should be widely reviewed. Please notify the relevent venues and seek comment from all affected editors. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the primary purpose of WP:FRINGE. The statement "WP:FRINGE is not intended to permit critical attacks on viewpoints within their own context, nor is it a tool to enforce evaluations of the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts." is misleading. Fringe does permit the exposition of critical attacks of fringe viewpoints within the context of the subject of a fringe article. No guideline is ever a "tool": it's a description of best-practices in editing. More than that, WP:NOT covers the objection that WP:FRINGE shouldn't be used to "evaluate the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts" so that's something of a red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Poupon (great handle by the way...): I would happily comply with your request (which I think is excellent) except I have no idea how to do so. can you point me in the right direction(s)?


 * Martin: I have seen those debates, but I haven't had time to digest them properly yet. I'll get there one of these days...


 * SA: <sigh...> I feel that is the primary purpose of WP:FRINGE, and I can back it up with good arguments if you would like to debate the matter. and in terms of 'best-practices in editing,' neutrality is key; thus, if there is a specific injunction against promoting fringe theories, there ought to be a specific injunction against attacking fringe theories.  no one is trying to prevent critical elements from being introduced into fringe theory articles, but unconstrained criticism is as damaging to wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia as unconstrained pandering.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it already say something of the same thing?


 * Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

I have observed the dynamic closely, and feel that it is a matter of weight, and that the following formulation, if put into policy, would solve many problems with fringe and mainstream articles. It's taken from here:

''There is a big problem with fringe advocates pushing their POV in fringe articles. But personally, I've seen much less of this than justifiable outrage at the highly negative way the fringe articles often sound, and the huge areas of the articles (40% in Homeopathy) taken up by mainstream-scientific analysis or derogatory opinions. This outrage is itself portrayed as fringe POV-pushing, which is why I have that reputation. Mainstream science is a notable view, it is usually the truest view, and scientific literacy is totally abysmal. But it isn't Wikipedia's mission to correct social ills (there should be such an area, IMO).''

''"Minority" and "majority" viewpoints are relative to the subject of the article. For example, the prominence of science in an article on Young Earth creationism is quite low but significant, and should receive enough coverage that the reader will go away knowing that creationism isn't the scientific mainstream view, and with a basic understanding of the argument. In an article on scientific Evolution, Creationism is a significant minority view, and it is mentioned. These articles properly interpret the policy as being relative to the subject of the article. If they interpreted the policy to mean that the majority mainstream view always predominated, then the Evolution article would be covered mostly from the perspective of Creationism, as that is the majority mainstream view of most people. ''

Let me emphasize that this does not mean that mainstream views would be sidelined. It is actually nothing more than is said "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints […] in proportion to the prominence of each." WP:WEIGHT. Any other interpretation of that is subject to reductio ad absurdum. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This guideline should be redundant with existing policies, chiefly WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV and give particular guidance on those areas which are problematic in fringe topics-WP:UNDUE, WP:N, etc. It should not be carte blanche to adopt any so-called "mainstream" position regarding the topic; it is a requirement to accurately describe the most prominent positions of the topic, which may or may not be (as is usually the case) meaningfully characterized as "mainstream".  We need to put away this useless terminology for good.  It's a lazy way out of an article dispute to invoke the "mainstream" in essentially the same manner one plays trump cards in a bridge match.  It's not only unnecessary to write but tiresome to read encyclopedia articles written in a voice that says "this view is what's real/true/valid and the view of these fringe usurpers is not."  See Flat Earth, which has some interesting information while at the same time demonstrates [something we need more of at WP] confidence in its readers that they don't need reminding of contrary opinions about the shape of the Earth every second sentence.  Returning to the opening statement, "WP:FRINGE is not intended to permit critical attacks on viewpoints within their own context, nor is it a tool to enforce evaluations of the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts."  That's not what WP:Fringe is.  If there are prominent critical attacks on viewpoints, from whatever the context, they should be described appropriately.  The guideline is not a tool to force evaluation at WP either.  That's not the role of an encyclopedia.  The role of the encyclopedia is to describe-describe-describe, not assess.  But if there are sourced and prominent evaluations of the topic, then wp describes those evaluations of the topic.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said, as always. What do you think of my formulation: "Minority" and "majority" viewpoints are relative to the subject of the article? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * agreed, well said, and I can see what you mean. just to put this out there, I happen to think a well-formed article on a fringe topic should run something like this, and I'm really just poking around trying to find a way to make this clear to others.  so, a fringe topic article should have:
 * a clear, unbiased description of what the fringe topic is, in neutral terms.
 * an explanation of how the fringe topic appeared in popular culture (what social or political effects it had, how widespread it was, etc.).
 * a clear, concise critique on scientific or academic grounds, sufficient to remove any unjustified impression that the topic is overtly scientific, but not so intrusive that it starts looking like an attack.
 * I think the key element in dealing with fringe topics in an encyclopedic way is to see them as belief structures (often deeply held ones) that have their own internal logic, and that may make more-or-less unsubstantiated scientific claims. we are obliged to point out that the scientific claims are unsubstantiated, and to explain where such claims violate scientific principles, but we should avoid attacking the belief structure itself.  I mean seriously - we can say on a Christian Scientism page that there are no significant findings in medicine that show that prayer can cure disease (that's probably a reliably-sourced fact), but we should stop well short of trying to imply that prayer just doesn't work. that shifts from being a scientific critique to an attack on their beliefs, and we have no reliable grounds for telling them their beliefs are wrong. -- Ludwigs 2  02:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, you two do put things well. We often run into trouble when (as maybe with prayer) the science is actually ambiguous, with some studies showing an effect, others not.  It is very difficult to get editors to just portray the ongoing debate as a debate, without taking sides.  That is, without bringing in their larger, (unsourced) picture of the world.  All sorts of arguments get brought up on the talk pages, such as "Don't you think that if prayer really worked......" or "These pseudoscientists who think prayer might work aren't reliable sources even if mainstream journals do publish them once in a while," and many others.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle. When the article goes so far as to spout edicts or closing arguments as if presenting a case to a jury, it has overstepped into polemic.  In terms of the suggestion which opened this section, "Unwarranted criticism of fringe theories", my thought is that wikipedia needs to accurately present the content and views as represented in the most prominent or central body of literature about the topic.  What would be unwarranted criticism would be cases when editors at wp take it upon themselves to assemble criticism of the fringe theory to make up for an absence of references to sources which have done so.  WP is not a consumer protection agency.  It's not a publisher of original claims.  It's not Debunkers.org where hobbyist Do-It-Yourself types get to set the record straight with Synth.  However, if critics have attacked the theory in reliable sources then those attacks should be described as well.  But I admit, one problem I find in articles sometimes that are so aggressively criticized is that the criticism is detailed ad nauseum but explanation of the subject itself is either neglected or caricatured.  A sketch of the problem goes something like this: Spectral Discontinuity Effect (SDE) is a pseudoscientific theory developed in the 19th century by the Equanorian Rafnapurian guru, Sub Sup Sun Moo.  Its proponents claim that by analyzing SDE they can accurately predict the weather.  Their claims have no scientific basis and violate basic principles of science, chiefly wave-particle duality, Shermer's Last Law, and the Infield fly rule.  Cornwall Kermujeon calls it, "The largest load of hokem wooing cranks since the Y2K scare."    Billy Blogblab calls it "Quackery".  Marjory Doodowdy wrote, "More crackers than a box of saltines." And on and on.  In such articles, the tone is "we don't think you can be trusted with descriptions of the theories or ideas underlying SDE unless it's packaged in snark.  You might hurt yourself with it."  And the problem is, as in this hypothetical case, the article's an essentially useless source of information about SDE.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle. When the article goes so far as to spout edicts or closing arguments as if presenting a case to a jury, it has overstepped into polemic.  In terms of the suggestion which opened this section, "Unwarranted criticism of fringe theories", my thought is that wikipedia needs to accurately present the content and views as represented in the most prominent or central body of literature about the topic.  What would be unwarranted criticism would be cases when editors at wp take it upon themselves to assemble criticism of the fringe theory to make up for an absence of references to sources which have done so.  WP is not a consumer protection agency.  It's not a publisher of original claims.  It's not Debunkers.org where hobbyist Do-It-Yourself types get to set the record straight with Synth.  However, if critics have attacked the theory in reliable sources then those attacks should be described as well.  But I admit, one problem I find in articles sometimes that are so aggressively criticized is that the criticism is detailed ad nauseum but explanation of the subject itself is either neglected or caricatured.  A sketch of the problem goes something like this: Spectral Discontinuity Effect (SDE) is a pseudoscientific theory developed in the 19th century by the Equanorian Rafnapurian guru, Sub Sup Sun Moo.  Its proponents claim that by analyzing SDE they can accurately predict the weather.  Their claims have no scientific basis and violate basic principles of science, chiefly wave-particle duality, Shermer's Last Law, and the Infield fly rule.  Cornwall Kermujeon calls it, "The largest load of hokem wooing cranks since the Y2K scare."    Billy Blogblab calls it "Quackery".  Marjory Doodowdy wrote, "More crackers than a box of saltines." And on and on.  In such articles, the tone is "we don't think you can be trusted with descriptions of the theories or ideas underlying SDE unless it's packaged in snark.  You might hurt yourself with it."  And the problem is, as in this hypothetical case, the article's an essentially useless source of information about SDE.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * no disagreement. I think I'm going to table this particular section addition for the time being, because it obviously needs some more consideration. but I think I am going to pursue a different addition based on what I said earlier - a guideline for proper construction of an article on a fringe topic.  that's much more to the point.  I'll add it in as a request down below where we can clean it up, but how do I suggest this for general perusal? (I'm thinking of PouponOnToast's phrase above - This substantial change to a guildline should be widely reviewed. Please notify the relevent venues and seek comment from all affected editors. - which isn't very descriptive of the process).  -- Ludwigs 2  15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)