Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 6

First paragraph

 * I reverted this change for several reasons. I don't see discussion and consensus on this on the talk page, though perhaps I'm missing it in the clutter. There are several problems here, beyond the obscure and difficult phrasing:
 * "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." This is actually a key phrase, and was removed.
 * "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute the weight of the criticism to the author's scientific qualifications or notability, or to the reliably sourced authority of the journal or book that publishes the author's view." Where to start? This is excessively prescriptive and, thus, an open invitation to wikilawyering. What are "scientific credentials"? Do you want to have 400 kb on whether a crank with a Ph.D. is a "weightier" source than a debunker without a degree? Any fringe theory worth its salt is promulgated by at least a handful of people with reasonable "scientific credentials". Likewise, "notability" is an inherently subjective concept with a Wikipedia-specific definition and a separate real-life connotation.
 * When policy gets this prescriptive, I can't escape the feeling that a handful of specific content disputes are being imported and argued through the medium of this guideline. I don't think that's a good idea, and I'm not comfortable with the proposed changes for the above reasons. MastCell Talk 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I put this in a new section because it doesn't relate to the section above. Personally, I'm happy with the version you reverted to.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks Martin. :-)


 * MastCell - the discussion about the 'Particular attribution' change can be found near the end of this section Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories just before the Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories section. it may be easier to use the latter link and scroll up.  as I say there, we do not as yet have perfect consensus, but among the editors who have been participating there is something very close to an agreement.  this with the exception of ScienceApologist, who is adamantly opposed to any change, and possibly as a result hasn't felt a need to participate much in the conversation.  sorry, that section is kind of a mess.


 * with respect to your specific points...
 * "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." which you call key, is grammatically suspect. it's a triple negative statement (no other sources does not imply that there is no consensus with the viewpoint), and that can easily be misconstrued as the positive statement that there is a consensus of agreement with the view.  it's just unnecessarily convoluted, logically speaking.  I believe the intent of the phrase is to make clear that a small number of sources on a fringe issue does not imply anything about the beliefs of other scientists, and should certainly not be taken as an indication of support for the fringe theory, or condemnation of the author's viewpoint.  I think that intent is presented much less ambiguously in the version that I edited in.  of course, if I've misunderstood the intent of this phrase, please correct me.
 * your second point has completely inverted the intent of WP:Fringe and of this particular section. the problem being addressed here occurs when a single (or small number) of credible authors are offering well-sourced comments on fringe issues; the 'Particular attribution' clause is intended to prevent those authors from being unduly minimized or dismissed by virtue of the fact that they are such small numbers.  this will never be used prescriptively to establish the relative merits of credentials, because it is an inherently protective measure designed to keep a well-sourced opinion from being unfairly dismissed.  seriously, that's built into both versions of the passage, not just mine.  you might object to the fact that it was also worded to prevent low-sourced opinion from being interpreted as generic to the field, which would be worth a discussion, but I think that's well in line with wikipedia policy...  in short, your fears about wikilawyering (new term for me, thank you) are really unfounded.


 * with respect to the other edit of mine you reverted (story of my life, it seems - lol), that edit addressed a particular interpretive problem that I have seen in action repeatedly. The phrase "Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is," while perfectly true as far as it goes, implies that the notability of a subject is something like a universal constant or Platonic ideal.  that's silly on the face of it. to borrow an example from a different discussion, Flat Earth Theory is obviously not notable enough for inclusion in an article about the Earth, but it is certainly notable enough to have an article of its own.  thus, the notability of a subject varies according to the context in which it finds itself trying to be used.  my edit merely changed the phrase to read "Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is within the context of a particular article,"  which strikes me as a mere acknowledgement of the situation as it is.  no one would be able to use this addition to argue for the inclusion of an already excluded fringe theory.  the only place where it might encourage 'wikilawyering' is in cases where there is, in fact, a serious question whether a theory should be teated as fringe or not, and that's not wikilawyering, that's effective content discussion.


 * I will note that (having looked more closely at the notability guideline), I think it might be being misused in the lead. what's there looks like a combination of features from wp:notability and wp:weight, yah?  regardless, we might want to fix that, if true.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I most definitely agree with your second to last paragraph. And I'd like to see your suggestions for the lead. On the other matters I don't care.  I think the first paragraph of Particular attribution section is good enough as it was/is, before the recent edit/revert. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue you're alluding to. Neither the article on Earth nor the standalone article on Flat Earth Theory should make Flat Earth appear more notable than it actually is. We don't say, "Oh, since this is a standalone article on Flat Earth Theory, we can exaggerate its notability." Actually, people do say stuff like that, which is my problem with your proposed change. If I had a nickel for every agenda account that came through and said: "This is the article on AIDS denialism. You can take your POV that HIV causes AIDS to the main page on HIV, but this is our place to expound on our beliefs." That's a problem, it's counter to everything I understand about Wikipedia and its policies, and I think that your proposed wording would give such editors more ammunition to subvert those policies. MastCell Talk 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a tremendous ambiguity here over the term 'notability' that desperately needs to be cleared up. it seems the the term is being used haphazardly to mean any of the following:
 * scientific acceptability
 * cultural recognition
 * relative prominence
 * as I understand it (which may of course be incorrect) notability guidelines (per wp:notability) "only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles." Flat Earth Theory clearly meets the criterion of inclusion in the encyclopedia. undo weight is a closely related issue, and the word 'notability' often seems to be used when talking about whether something is sufficiently important to use in an article (though wp:notability explicitly states that it is not about article content).  this clearly varies with context: FET does not meet undo weight requirements (i.e., is not notable enough) to be discussed in the Earth article, but by virtue of meeting the wp:notability guidelines, it is surely notable enough to be discussed in its own article.  scientific acceptability is a separate (but also closely related) issue - for instance, scientific critiques of the the FET would obviously meet WEIGHT standards for being included in the FET article - there is no clear understanding of FET unless it is also understood that it is not scientifically accepted.  however, even this is not an absolute: for instance, scientific critics of FET might or might not meet WEIGHT requirements for inclusion in an article about the Flat Earth Society, since the Flat Earth Society is (arguably) notable for its cultural standing, not its scientific one. see what I'm getting at, here?


 * at any rate, it seems to me to be a properly conservative move to specify "within the context of a particular article." it harms nothing, and it helps to disentangle this odd confusion around the issue of the word notability. -- Ludwigs 2  21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the 10 days silence on this issues signifies agreement? if so, I'll go ahead and make the change.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

proposed new lead
Per the disussion above, here, I'm offering the following as a proposed new version of the lead. Disclaimer: Please take it as a place to begin the discussion rather than a firm proposal to be shot down; obviously any change in this guideline is going to require a torturous process of revisions to achieve consensus. But we have to begin somewhere, so...:

not sure I'm 100% happy with it myself, but let's see what kind of feedback it gets. -- Ludwigs 2 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just a wide-open loophole to allow fringe theories to populate the project. Please quit pushing your POV.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's long, confusing, and fails to appreciate that this guideline explains rather than substitutes for WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ policies. In particular, it contravenes NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and NPOV: Pseudoscience. . . dave souza, talk 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OM - you'll need to explain your statement in more detail, since (of course) the wording I gave here notes that letting fringe theories populate the project is one of the potential problems. your comment doesn't seem to make sense in context.


 * Dave - I'll bow to the stylistic criticisms (told you this was just a rough start), but I'll beg to differ on the content point. the only reason we would need a separate guideline on fringe theories is that - as I said in this draft - it is more difficult with fringe theories to apply the standard wikipedia guidelines and policies that apply to all articles.  and what I've said here violates neither of the policy points you've pointed to.  in fact, all these two paragraphs do is note that:
 * fringe theories cause some difficult problems with respect to fair representation
 * it is important to establish guidelines to prevent fringe theory articles from becoming pawns in ideological battles.
 * I'm not sure which of those points you disagree with, but if you let me know which and why, I'll see what I can do about fixing the problem. -- Ludwigs 2 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * dave souza said it perfectly. I'm just not as nice to editors like you.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * noted and understood, to the extent that understanding a statement like that is possible. However, this does seem to fall in the category of things that are really not my problem. -- Ludwigs 2  20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I agree with Dave. It's not really difficult or impossible to apply NPOV, NOR, V, etc to fringe theories, and this guideline needs to be strongly consistent with those policies rather than setting itself up in opposition to them. The problem is really #2 on your list. The reason fringe theories have their own guideline is that they are a recurring area in which Wikipedia is abused. I'm going to generalize that this abuse largely, though not solely, takes the form of unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and their acceptance, and furthermore argue that errors in this direciton are far more harmful to Wikipedia's credibility as a respectable reference source. Wikipedia is already far friendlier to fringe theories than any of the comparable reference works to which it might aspire to be compared. That's not to say that the guideline shouldn't warn about excessive deprecation of fringe theories, but it is to say that these are not equally pressing issues in my experience. MastCell Talk 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * well, MastCell, it seems we agree that this policy is designed to prevent abuse of wikipedia articles. I happen to disagree with your assessment that the problem is primarily an issue of undo promotion, having seen a whole lot of abuse laden by opponents of fringe theories. but regardless, from wikipedia's perspective it is clearly better to have a guideline that simply opposes abuse of any sort, rather than trying to shade the guideline towards preventing abuse of particular kinds.  abuse is abuse is abuse, and whether it's pro abuse or anti abuse is irrelevant. both should be precluded.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This debate seems to have fizzled. it would truly surprise to have struck an acceptable version on the first try, but if no one is actually offering to modify it, or continuing to dispute any of its points, then I'd have to take that silence as a tacit acceptance. I'll give it through the weekend, but if no one has anything more to offer I'll ask to have it editprotected in. -- Ludwigs 2 03:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If people have stopped commenting without previously indicating that they have changed their stance to support, it's probably not fair to assume tacit acceptance. Antelan talk  03:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) probably not. but I'd prefer (as would we all, I assume) not to have the article sit in disputed, protected limbo for an extended period. since I can't go and make the edit myself (which would be sure to, uhh...  stimulate some discussion), this is the next best thing.


 * look, I understand the obstacles I'm facing here. I'm stepping on some people's toes (not because I particularly enjoy doing that, but because it's an unfortunate side-effect of something that I think really needs to be done), and I'm getting all the classic emotional responses to that kind of toemanship, one of which happens to be a studied refusal to engage the issue in the hopes that it will go away. now I'm perfectly willing to wait until people are ready to sit down and talk this issue out civilly, however long that takes, but (this being the internet) I do have to periodically remind people that the issue and I are still waiting.  I don't want them to get the mistaken idea that I've gone away, because that will just make things worse when they find out I haven't.


 * this is an ugly, difficult situation to navigate any way you look at it, and I'm doing the best I can (which admittedly may not be all that good...). I'd welcome suggestions on a better approach, if you have any.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What you take a tacit acceptance, I take as most editors like this just as it is. Ludwigs, please stop your attempt to add a POV that will allow Fringe theories to be easier to use in articles.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin - I would not mind discussing this issue with you, because you obviously have some strong feelings on the matter, but I'm not at all convinced that you understand the concept 'discussion.' at any rate, I will continue to hope for the best, and in the meantime file comments like this one under the heading meaningless expressions of bile. -- Ludwigs 2  04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not continue your passive aggressive personal attacks, an indicator of uncivil behavior. Also, please review WP:SOCK once again.  I'm actually counting the days until you do read it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * meaningless expression of bile... -- Ludwigs 2 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have two problems with the proposed wording -- (i) it could very easily be (mis)used in attempts to water down WP:DUE weight to a majority view that is scathing of a fringe idea (particularly where the majority view is not just that the idea is simply "wrong", but that its presentation or motivation is dishonest and/or self-serving). (ii) It appears to be more interested in giving behavioural advice than content guidance (which is the stated objective of this page). HrafnTalkStalk 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn - I can see where (i) would be a worry, honestly, and I'd like to get that clarified. I don't really want to get a phrasing that allows fringe theories can run amok over wikipedia like locusts.  I'm not really an advocate for fringe theories, you know (most of them are pretty dumb).  the reason I want a change of some sort here, though, is that in my short time on wikipedia I have seen WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDO used within articles about fringe theories to (pardon my bad language) s#%t all over the poor things to an embarrassing extent.  I haven't seen such flagrant abuse of power since I read about the Stanford Prison experiment, years ago.  I would like to see a wikipedia in which fringe topics were treated thoroughly and respectfully (which includes criticizing them thoroughly and respectfully).  wikipedia editors don't seem to be doing a good job of that on their own, which is why I think the guideline needs to go that way.


 * with respect to your point (ii)... I don't see it, though I suppose its possible.  this is just a lead section, and I was only trying to capture and express the problem as it appears to me.  I will admit that I think this is a perception/categorization problem - fringe theories are locked into a nebulous zone where editors simultaneously force them to be scientific theories for the purposes of criticism but deny them scientific status for the purposes of explanation - and perception/categorization problems have a psychological edge that can come across as behavioral criticism...


 * at any rate, all I want at this point is to have the problem I see recognized and discussed, so that some resolution can be found to it. I'm not all that attached to the actual wording, but I would like to get at the underlying concepts.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically, other than your attempt to anthropomorphize Fringe theories, this sentence causes me grave concern at both what was written and what is Ludwigs' goal in writing it: "opponents of fringe theories might use Wikipedia articles to stage attacks that dispute, demean, or belittle the theory."  Interesting.  In reality, scientists and those writers who verify scientific principles with reliable sources to resist giving weight to fringe theories.  With vast wealth of intelligence and writing backing the discrediting of the theory, there is little reason to dispute, demean or belittle the theory, although we might engage in that behavior with certain POV pushing editors.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OM, I believe that the general principle in wikipedia is to comment on edits, not on editors. if that's incorrect, as your comments seem to indicate, please let me know.


 * the tripe in your post aside, I do respect your concerns, and I'd like to know how we can fix that. I would personally like to believe that your last line was true, myself, but I have seen editors here go after fringe theories with a disturbing no-holds-barred attitude that shows no respect for the topic or for wikipedia as a whole.  respect is a key portion of neutrality.  I have no problem with a thorough criticism of a fringe topic so long as that criticism is done with some kind of consciousness that the people who believe these things - unfortunate as that kind of belief might be - still deserve to have their beliefs treated with respect.  this isn't just about being right, and wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs (like the fact that there are people out there who believe these things). or do you disagree?  -- Ludwigs 2  07:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think 'respect' is a word that needs to come into this, it is about aiming for accurate representation and avoiding misrepresentation. If there is no evidence a particular theory works or that it is incompatible with the laws of physics then how is noting that a problem? I second Mastcell's post above in that there has been more of a problem with promotion of fringe theories than otherwise, and hence making a guideline highlight th reverse is problematic. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Casliber, accurate representation is as much a question of presentation as of factual accuracy. for example, if we were discussing an extra-marital fling, the phrases A had an affair with the spouse of B and A scr@#ed the spouse of B are both factually accurate, but the first form is preferred as a more neutral statement (because it treats all parties with a degree of respect). no one is suggesting that factual accuracy should be compromised, merely that care should be exercised over how it is presented.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're talking about using appropriate language in the article, which I don't think has ever been in question. The parallel to the "had an affair" vs "screwed" would be more along these lines: "There is no evidence for X" vs "X is complete bullshit." Nobody is arguing for the latter. Antelan talk  13:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * granted, my statement was hyperbolic. apologies...  however, I still think that one of the major problems I've seen in the on fringe theory articles is that editors become so bound up in defending/attacking the effectiveness/facticity/honesty/etc of the subject that they forget it needs to be respected as a topic of knowledge.  that last point is the only thing that matters from the perspective of an encyclopedia, true?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some comments and change suggestions:

First, the edit protection seems to have expired, but IMO there is too much to discuss before changes are attempted. I tried to condense and balance statements. The first proposal seemed to define fringe theories differently than the following section, so I hope this wording is more consistent. I still think it is important not to make fringe theories a special case and separate from other policies. I would instead advocate for the neutrality of presentation of views on a fringe topic. If that doesn't help stop abuse on both sides, then I would be more open to establishing a special case. Ward20 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Incorporate suggested changes. Ward20 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular exemplar of the problem that these changes are meant to resolve? An article that I can look to and say, "Wow, for a serious encyclopedia, we're hammering the fringe unfairly here while the mainstream is actually getting too much credit?" Antelan talk 22:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out the Royal Rife article. In particular, look at the last two sentences in the lead for content and tone that are not verifiable to the sources provided. The last sentence in the lead is biased. According to the source, a terminally ill patient was sent home to die by mainstream practitioners. He went into remission briefly after using some sort of claimed rife technology (placebo?), yet when the person died later the death is blamed on a "rife" machine that no one knows what it did. There is obvious coatracking in the article as there is no substantial connection between Royal Rife and the critical sources that are used in the "Modern revival of Rife's work" section. Note the use of "Rife's machine" in the article. If you look at the sources, there appears to be no way to know how these machines compared to Rife's. I am not saying Rife's theories or machines worked, but am saying the content in the article is unencyclopedic because the reader can not verify the fairness of content from the sources. IMO such content in the Morgellons article violates policy similarly. Ward20 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The statements in question are backed by sources echoing what they say. I don't see the problem here. What am I missing? Antelan talk  00:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But they are not. Where is it stated in the source, (Royal) Rife's treatment has been unanimously condemned as worthless by mainstream scientists,[4]? A newpaper column cherry picked by a skeptical website does not appear to be a reliable source for this type of information. It has no attribution. According to the same source, there were claims of three case histories of cancer patients cured or in remission after treatment with a rife machine. None of this is pertinent to the lead on an article about Royal Rife when the devices or treatments may have had no substantial connection to the man.


 * The Royal Rife article states, "In Australia, the use of Rife's machine has been blamed for causing the deaths of cancer patients who could have been cured with conventional therapy.[6]." The source actually states one cancer patient was sent home to die, and the other person that died had a 60 to 70 per cent chance of living after conventional medical treatment. This was before they received rife treatment (whatever rife treatment means). This POV can unfairly bias the reader.


 * Here is a more NPOV attributable statement from a source in the article that was not used, "There is no credible scientific evidence to substantiate that Rife devices work, according to the National Institutes of Health." Why wasn't that used for an article about modern rife devices if it is needed, why the obviously biased coatracking in this article? That is just some issues, I am not going to dissect the whole article. Ward20 (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it to Talk:Royal Rife. It's actually a great example of a problem, though not for the reasons you suggest. Look at the year-long battle to keep utterly ridiculous promotional material and half-baked, unsourced conspiracism out of the article before you judge too harshly. Look at the sources, for Pete's sake. The only half-decent sources are those indicating that Rife devices are a dangerous fraud, and they include the American Cancer Society, the Seattle Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The sources "supporting" Rife's treatment are utterly and completely inappropriate and unreliable, consisting mostly of www.rife.org and www.rife.de, self-published websites which market such devices. WP:PARITY would actually allow the use of "skeptical" websites like Quackwatch - they're at least the equal of such ridiculous promotional material - but the article actually sets a much higher bar for sourcing the "negative" material than the "positive". So yes, it is a good case study of a problem with the handling of fringe theories on Wikipedia. The article is a disaster, and the least of the problems is that it states that "there is no credible evidence" without appending "... according to the NIH, FDA, American Cancer Society, etc." MastCell Talk 06:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I was asked for an example. Yes, there are a scarcity of sources, and there appears to be very little modern mainstream support. But is that a valid excuse the article is coatracked, and the most negative skeptical sources seem to be selected, and some views are presented in a more negative manner than the sources? You identified a major problem with fringe articles. When sources are abused in one direction it invites abuse in the other direction.
 * If the Royal Rife article sets a much higher bar for sourcing the "negative" material than the "positive", how come there is no positive material in the article? Why is it for example, the positive review of the Rife microscope (8000x) when compared to a Zeiss microscope (900x) (1944 Annual Report of the Board of Directors of the Smithsonian Institution, pgs. 207-216), is not mentioned? Ward20 (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're asking me. It's not my article, and I'm not aware of every 60-year-old source supporting Rife machines. I and a handful of other editors have spent a long time cajoling and trying to get actual reliable sources from the series of Rife-promoting SPA's that frequent the article. We've gotten basically nothing for our efforts. I'd be happy to look at the 1944 Smithsonian source if you have a link for it. The article is not "coatracked", because it deals only with Royal Rife and the machines bearing his name. The only "abuse of sources" going on is that promotional self-published websites are the basis for a significant portion of the article. MastCell Talk 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ward: your rewrite is definitely better than what I had. I might even go so far (given some of the concerns I see raised here) to add a phrase as follows to undeservedly promote, praise, magnify its importance, or remove valid criticisms so long as there was language later that defines and places limits on valid criticism to keep articles from being overrun by excessive criticism.


 * Antelan, MastCell: Again, I need to bring up the issue of respect here (and I guess I should probably carry this argument over to WP:NPOV as well...). it's one thing to say that the scientific community has concluded that Royal Rife's theory was flawed and his devices of no practical use but quite another to say that Rife's treatment has been unanimously condemned as worthless by mainstream scientists. the two phrases say exactly the same thing, but the latter indulges in an unnecessary expression of indignation, as though Rike's poor science were some sort of affront to the scientific community. why should we (as wikipedians) prefer the latter disrespectful version to the former?


 * My own example is actually more subtle, but more pervasive: namely the ongoing effort to attach the term 'pseudoscience' to every article possible, as prominently as possible. while I don't object to the pseudoscience construct in and of itself, and have no objection (for the most part) of placing obvious pseudoscience topics in the pseudoscience category, I do recognize that the term is primarily a pejorative (from the pseudoscience page: there is some epistemological disagreement about the extent to which it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way. The term itself has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science).  and yet many editors force the term into the lead of articles, often without decent sourcing (e.g. the ubiquitous references to Martin Gardner), solely, so far as I can tell, to make it clear that wikipedia frowns on this topic.  while I don't doubt that many of these topics are pseudoscience in one sense or another, the protracted efforts to make sure they are prominently labeled and dismissed as pseudoscience (as opposed to offering objective critiques so that readers can reach their own conclusions) is - again - unnecessary and disrespectful.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally agree with you re: the need to be a bit more stringent about using the label "pseudoscience". I'm also fine with your proposed tweak to the Royal Rife lead; it's accurate and probably an improvement in tone, so as far as I'm concerned feel free to change it. MastCell Talk 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what I don't like about this lead: it attempts to paint the picture that Fringe vs. Science is some sort of physical battle.  Most discussions are tense, but in the end, fringe theories are attributed as such through reliable sources.  Discussing abuse makes no sense.  We shouldn't encourage "warfare", but should encourage the use of citations from reliable sources to verify anything.  Everything else should be discussed elsewhere.  Also, I, for one, do not use pseudoscience tag on any fringe theory unless I have a reliable source to confirm its use.  That should be the standard.   Ludwigs, IMHO, you're overcomplicating the situation by trying to make a rule where one is not needed.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I can work on that, I will try some changes with OM's and Ludwigs' suggestion. Ward20 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OrangeMarlin - perhaps you're correct, I can't judge at this point; though I do think a well-crafted guideline can only help matters. At any rate, I'm glad that the idea is getting some discussion.  gotta have faith in the process.  :-)  -- Ludwigs 2  03:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ward - did this project get back-burnered? let me see if I can come up with something, because we had a nice start going here.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for removal of the "disputed" tag
What are the conditions for removing the "disputed" tag? This seems unclear, and is probably disputed, so I'd be interested to see proposals on how this should be handled. Antelan talk 00:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that when the dispute ends by consensus, then the "disputed" tag can be removed. I don't understand why editors are edit warring over this. ScienceApologist breached 3RR reverting/removing this tag a week ago and then - as one of his first edits back - he reverted/removed the tag yet again. I am confused why the tag is becoming more of a dispute than the underlying dispute which it represents. Anyhow, the dispute seems to be ongoing as of at least two days ago (June 29th) according to the discussion above. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For how many days would the discussion have to lie dormant before you would consider it abandoned? (Similar pointed questions will await others who respond here, with the solitary goal of understanding where the bar for removal can be set. No antagonism intended.) Antelan talk  01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No antagonism noted at all. I think it is a reasonable discussion which deserves a reasonable reply. Perhaps this would be a good conversation for Template_talk:Disputedtag. My opinion is that a dispute isn't resolved until there is a consensus saying it is resolved. Even if two weeks have passed by with no further dispute discussion, I would like to see a request on talk to remove the tag and agreement to do so before the tag is actually removed. The request to remove the tag might be fodder to jump-start the stalled dispute. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus is that outstanding disputes are resolved. Certainly there doesn't seem to be any pressing concerns: the appropriate summary for the above conversation is that some people with obvious agenda that we need not directly mention want to gut the guideline for rather transparent reasons. I'm pretty sure that the lead's wording is not going to be changed drastically: nor is the guideline likely to lose status as a guideline or gain status as a policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any such consensus and would formally like to request editors to state whether or not they think this dispute is resolved. I was under the impression that an WP:RFC was going to be tried. Further - and please take this in the spirit of good faith - I do not think it is helpful to assume that others have an "obvious agenda" with "transparent reasons". Let's not make this personal. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I call faker. We already know how the "parties" will respond. Levine/Ludwigs will say there is still a dispute. Ward20 or Neal may or may not join them depending on how the wind blows. The rest of the crowd who bothers to respond will say otherwise. Maybe a Davkal sock will show up. Maybe Tom Butler will decry the state of Wikipedia. Maybe an alert will go out on the Paranormal WikiProject. Those are all things that have happened before and are likely to happen again. Yet they do not give us any new information. What's the point in this beyond feet dragging and tendentiousness? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again ScienceApologist, I am requesting that you assume good faith in others and refrain from making this so personal. -- <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 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove me wrong, Levine. Tell me that there isn't a dispute any more. Assumptions happen when you have no evidence. Once a pattern is established, you propose a hypothesis. Now it's time to test the hypothesis. Falsify away! ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are forming such a negative hypothesis demonstrates your lack of good faith. Be open-minded. That's the path of a true skeptic. -- <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 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See my response below why I believe it is disputed (with evidence). Ward20 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution POV
Particular attribution can be used to bolster or diminish a positive or negative viewpoint, yet this section is written to be biased and concerned about supporting criticism. The present wording is POV:

A NPOV version would read like this:

If the WP:Fringe guideline is to comply with NPOV policy then the sections should be even handed about sourcing content. If not, then WP:NPOV needs to be rewritten to exclude fringe theories. Since the fringe theories guideline is not NPOV, it is used in endless disputes to marginalize one viewpoint and not another depending upon each editor's definition of what is a fringe viewpoint. Ward20 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just wondering if this version takes care of the problems? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe so. A fringe idea departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. The rejection or acceptance of the fringe idea should be represented fairly and without bias.


 * Even though there is some NPOV wording toward the end of the version, the beginning hypothetically talks about fringe topics thusly, "many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics"..."it may be the case"..."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." So, ""which" of the "many fringe theories" should we not "mislead" the reader, "that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim"? It suggests a POV, as does other content in the section. The section should respect WP:NPOV throughout. Ward20 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ward20: you're version does seem better than the version given. how about this variation?


 * That one looks good. One tiny problem would be that "The source should be given as a reliable source only" will cause people to go "The reliable source X says..." —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * lol - I hadn't thought of that. :-)  how about this? (borrowed something from the current active version...)

That one's good. I really believe that this had very good info in it, and should be further incorporated:

The claim that all or most researchers hold a particular view requires a reliable source: see Reliable sources#Claims of consensus. 

How about:



—— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the addition of the attribution elements. I'm a little worried that the last two lines unbalance it, though - it feels like you're pushing too hard against claims of consensus. the point here is that we don't know and can't say - can you pull it back to a 'not either or' position?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but of course that is one main issue, and it's already in that section of policy Reliable sources. So including it it far from pushing, just putting policy directly in the guideline. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Vassyana Martinphi appears to be suggesting those last two lines in order to further his position in a dispute. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this is just basic policy. Judge the position of the editor on it's merits, not the editor. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand how this would further his position. A statement "Scientists contend" shouldn't require a unique standard of verification quite apart from "Skeptics of the paranormal say".  The problem of conflating skepticist opinion with scientific consensus opinion, however, does warrant a discussion at some level.Professor marginalia (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Professor. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The source evidently discusses scientists, but Martinphi's arguments claim that you can't say scientists because there might be some that believe, so he insists it must be skeptics of the paranormal, whatever the source says. The penultimate sentence of his suggestion thus seems, in light of his simultaneous argument elsewhere, to be created mainly to bolster that argument. There's other evidence, but I'd rather not rehash old problems. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This argument has been going on for weeks or months. Stop that please.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A few tweaks and borrowing here and there: Ward20 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This statement implies that it is impossible to decide whether a fringe theory is a fringe theory or not. Wholly unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ward - what you called "the present wording" at the  start of this section is just fine.  I suggest we keep it. Cardamon (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * SA: this passage is not concerned with establishing what a fringe theory is - that's covered elsewhere. besides, I don't follow how this passage makes that decision impossible.


 * Cardamon, no. the present wording as you call it is biased and poorly written. -- Ludwigs 2  19:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, except I definitely like Ward's changes. It incorporates everything (?), in a more readable form.  The two principles of course are: don't imply anything by word choice unless it's impossible not to, and use good ATT.  As an example of when it's impossible not to, you could have one source, and then you have to just say "According to Dr. Jane, XXXX".  But I disagree that this implies that the opinion is isolated.  If it does so imply, however, we've just got to live with it. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ward, your changes were not good at all. I have reverted them. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you please explain what was not good about more NPOV wording? The content reverted addressed your concern about wording reducing an expert's viewpoint to a sole dissent or criticism. It also covers the converse so as not to be biased. The present content is biased in one direction as was discussed. Why do you think the biased content should remain? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the section never, ever had anything like consensus for inclusion in the first place. There is no need for it at all. I have templated the section so that people will know it is in under dispute, at least. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With all respect, whatever the problems, this shouldn't be decided between four people, which I believe are in major content disputes with each other. At least post a notice on WP:FTN and/or WP:VP to bring people in. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ward - Actually, if a theory (or wannabe theory or hypothesis) makes claims about a scientific field which would be significant if they were correct, and it is heavily criticized by one or a few of the scientists working in a field, while being ignored by the rest, you can conclude that the scientists working in the field have a low opinion of that theory (or wannabe theory). If they had a positive opinion of the theory they would either use it in their work, or at least place their work in context with it in the discussion sections of their papers.  If they had a negative opinion of it, but thought that it was a legitimate scientific theory, they would still mention it, even if only to say their results disagreed with it.  If you see a pattern where a theory is not mentioned in the scientific papers or by the scientists in a field except for a few attacks, it is reasonable to take the attacks as representing the opinion of the field.  For this reason, I disagree with your proposed change to this section. Cardamon (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cardanon, with respect, the statement, "If you see a pattern where a theory is not mentioned in the scientific papers or by the scientists in a field except for a few attacks, it is reasonable to take the attacks as representing the opinion of the field." is speculation and one possibility. Political pressures and other factors can affect publication of opinion, so the statement is not always true, but most importantly it's contrary to general consensus policy. Ward20 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ward20 - your reference to a failed attempt by political appointees to manipulate climate change science doesn't prove a great deal. Still I'll weaken my statement to: "In the absence of extreme outside interference, if you see a pattern where a theory is not mentioned in the scientific papers or by the scientists in a field except for a few attacks, it is reasonable to consider the overall opinion of the field about the theory to be negative." I would be surprised if you could find an example where scientist in a field mentioned a theory or wannabe theory only in order to attack it, and there was no outside interference with the scientists, but the overall opinion of the scientists about the theory was positive.  The inference that, if all scientists in a field either ignore or say bad things about a theory then most of them don't like it, will almost always be correct.  No care at all need be taken to keep the reader from making an extremely reasonable inference.


 * The sentence you reference to general consensus policy (first written by Shirahadasha, I believe) does have a point. Making wild claims of consensus without evidence is not a good thing.  I would be prepared to argue that it would be a bit silly to take it as an absolute commandment.  According to it, we are forbidden to say that, for example, most aircraft designers do not believe that airplanes are held up by invisible demons, without citing a statistically sound poll.  Be that as it may, your suggested change goes well beyond that.  If we were discussing a belief system that claimed that airplanes are supported by demons, your change would seem to tell Wikipedians not to write anything that might cause readers to infer that most aircraft designers do not believe that airplanes are held up by invisible demons.  This change, while it might be perceived as a boon by persons pushing fringe points of view, would be detrimental to the encyclopedia.  Cardamon (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, this discussion seems to be forgetting the definition of "Fringe theories" - by definition, they will be extreme minority theories with little favour in the relevant fields. IT is not necessary, to make this NPOV, to presume that we've ceased talking about fringe theories. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag
At first, I deleted this tag here by accident. Then as I was reverting, I wondered if there was a discussion about it. I cannot find anything. Why would we tag with a discussion at the minimum? Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think self-revert would be warranted. Even you were actively part of the dispute above as of at least two days ago (June 29th). I'd venture to say that the dispute is ongoing. -- <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 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe Nealparr posted a possible solution to the dispute that has not been discussed before the page was protected. Ward20 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When the wording was first worked out between Nealparr and myself we discussed the idea of "substantiation" as an alternative. It was agreed that the current wording worked well with this. WP:RTFA. I am of the opinion that certain people advocating for tagging are dragging their feet. I think it's time to move on from endless discussions. It is clear to me that there is consensus for wording regarding the particular attribution problem. I don't see any loose ends now that we've dispatched Ward20's suggestion of one. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be a reason for the tag...other than as a "ILIKEIT" from a couple of civil POV pushers. Shot info (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Levine, I respectfully beg to differ that I am an active part of a "dispute." This guideline has had a very stable verbiage for a long time, so the need to change is a bit troubling.  But if there is a compelling reason to make changes, then let's discuss it here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it is pretty decent although it gets a little vague and open to interpretation in the last sentences: If Dr. Jones is an reliable expert in the field in which she is writing, consider writing about the facts mentioned by Dr. Jones rather than the opinions of Dr. Jones. Facts need not be attributed in-text to Dr. Jones if they are not solely Dr. Jones's opinions. First, what qualifies Dr. Jones as a reliable expert in the field in which she is writing? If she is an MD is she therefore considered an expert in Homeopathy? If she is a professor of Astronomy is she therefore considered an expert on UFOs? Second, "consider writing about the facts" is linked to Npov which suggests quite the opposite; chiefly, attribution. Third, "Facts need not be attributed in-text to Dr. Jones if they are not solely Dr. Jones's opinions." Well, if Jones' opinions can be shown to be fact, then sure, there is no reason to attribute in-text. But how do we determine "facts" in terms of Fringe theories? Further, must we actually demonstrate that Dr. Jones' opinions are shared by others? How many others must agree with her before it doesn't have to be attributed? I hope you don't think I am nitpicking here, but these questions will arise again in the form of article-specific disputes if we don't resolve this apparent vagueness. -- <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 02:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Expert qualifications are concerns about sourcing. We take it as a given that Dr. Jones is an expert in whatever Dr. Jones is saying about the fringe field. People can argue over whether someone is truly an expert at talk pages with the appropriate understanding of WP:RS in mind. Totally irrelevant to our discussion here. You seem to be confusing the idea that facts can exist and can be reported by a source with the idea that sources only give opinions. The first idea is the way all reference writing is done. The second idea is the way journalism is done. If you want to consider everything to be an opinion, go to wikinews. There are facts. They should be reported as facts. For example: FACT: Homeopathy has not been clinically shown to be as effective in providing relief for the ailments homeopaths claim they can treat as pharmaceuticals. If you were writing at WikiNews, you'd probably report that as an "opinion". Here, it is a fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you've answered my questions. I don't think we should take it as a given that Dr. Jones is an expert in whatever Dr. Jones is saying about the fringe field. I think it is a good idea to question expertise, but I agree that we shouldn't be deciding expert qualifications here on this article. I completely recognize that facts can exist and can be reported by a source. I am just saying that these sentences leave it unclear about determining "fact" from "fiction". You say this is a fact: "Homeopathy has not been clinically shown to be as effective in providing relief for the ailments homeopaths claim they can treat as pharmaceuticals." I happen to agree with you. But if Dr. Jones was stating this as her opinion and we were using only her as a source, I would want some inline attribution. However, if Dr. Jones' statement was itself sourced to various experts and research, and was published in a peer-reviewed journal, I would see little reason to include inline attribution. My point here is that perhaps we should spell it out so there is no ambiguity about how to differentiate facts from popular opinions from minority opinions in terms of Fringe theories. -- <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 02:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't question expertise here. We know that experts exist. When experts say they are giving us a fact, we take them at their word unless there is a reason to doubt them. For example, when homeopaths say that they dilute their remedies ridiculous number of times, we take that as fact since no other experts dispute that. You are also making some problematic assertions regarding WP:FRINGE and other points that could be easily resolved by you actually reading WP:FRINGE and TAKING IT TO HEART. In other words, people who believe in stuff like alternative medicine are going to be treated unkindly at Wikipedia because they are treated unkindly in the mainstream sources. It's not fair, but that's how we do it. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:FRINGE daily for quite some time now. (Get a life, Levine. I know.) There seems to be a belief that Wikipedia is supposed to represent mainstream science or medicine or whatever. Regardless of my personal beliefs in various disciplines (I am truly a scientific skeptic after all), I believe that Wikipedia is more egalitarian as defined by NPOV. This means that our articles strive to represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. This means that there is room in every article article for the mainstream point of view and significant alternative point of views. Point of views automatically imply that we are not dealing with Facts, but rather Opinions. With regards to the current dispute, my questions remain: How do we determine "facts" in terms of Fringe theories? Further, must we actually demonstrate that Dr. Jones' opinions are shared by others in order to state them as facts? How many others must agree with her before it doesn't have to be attributed? -- <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 02:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've missed the boat. You think that there is a "Point of view" on everything. There isn't. Some things are simply facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am on the boat standing right next to you. My question - for one - is how do we determine whether Dr. Jones is giving us her POV or if she is giving us a fact? -- <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 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If Dr. Jones says it is a fact and no reliable sources contradict her then it is a fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the straightforward answer. Do you think we should include that in the guideline? If everyone agrees with you on this, I think adding it will clear up a lot of the perceived ambiguity. -- <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 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact:
 * 1) a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
 * 2) a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
 * 3) an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
 * 4) a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
 * Opinion:
 * 1) a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are ...
 * 2) a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
 * 3) public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
 * 4) the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
 * 5) the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
 * 6) impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"


 * Sure, why not? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) <sigh...> if this weren't so sad, it would be hilarious. maybe it is anyway...  :-)
 * every actual scientist in the world distinguishes between data and theory. Data's only purpose in science is to give evidence that theories are (or are not) healthy and functional.  no scientist would throw a heap of data on the table without a theoretical explanation for it; no one even collects data without a theoretical justification for looking for it.  not even the census bureau.
 * the statement that Some things are simply facts is perfectly true in one sense - some things are just data; meaningless numbers - but SA, you are using that phrase (consistently) to imply that some theories are just facts which is either patent nonsense or religious fundamentalism. there is no such thing as a theory that's a fact - there are theories that are supported by evidence, and theories that aren't, but that's the limit of it.
 * when it comes to fringe theories (where the factual evidence supporting the theory is slim to non-existent, and the factual evidence supporting mainstream theories is usually pretty substantial) then all you can do is give a decent explanation of the fringe theory itself, and then give a decent explanation of why mainstream science rejects it on the basis of evidence. trying to assert that the mainstream theory is right on some factual basis is absurd and meaningless.
 * you seem to think that it's your (and Wikipedia's) mission to stamp on fringe theories because they are factually wrong, but I can't for the life of me find any reasonable or commonsensical reason for believing either side of that claim. can you explain it to me?  -- Ludwigs 2  03:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More theory-versus-fact blustering. A common charge of pseudoscienc POV-pushers. I'm not saying you're one, only that you're adopting their rhetoric. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The dispute seems uncomplicated. Particular attribution discussions started in October 2007 about generalized attribution when summarizing points. Editors argued against extrapolating a generalized attribution from a particular attribution, saying it would lead to WP:OR. In April 2008 particular attribution was added to WP:FRINGE. It has again been disputed as encouraging OR, and has also been disputed as being biased because only an example of distortion of mainstream opinion was presented, but not the counterpoint.


 * Particular attribution is now being used to justify editing that  misrepresents the minority position described by a source. As was argued, particular attribution is being used to justify OR. It should be removed or changed to comply with policy. By the way, it's unacceptable to attempt to dismiss efforts to discuss policy by trying to discredit editors with a slur. Ward20 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong that it's being used to "justify" OR. In fact, the situation is an interesting example of particular attribution where chiropractors who want their discipline (I believe rightly so) to eschew pseudoscientific claims are trying to marginalize the fact that chiropractic was founded on pseudoscientific claims and early chiropractors were attracted to it because of those claims. The use of particular attribution in that instance was meant to make the reader think that there was only one person who ever thought that vitalism was connected to chiropractic. Highly misleading and the very reason this section was instituted in the first place. If you disagree with that, talk about it at Talk:Chiropractic. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:VALID gives us every reason to present claims that are in conflict with observable reality as such. We should not misrepresent a fringe idea by characterizing its viability as a debate between Notable Authorities with equal numbers of letters trailing their names. To fail to inform our readers that a particular claim is exceptional does them a disservice. Particular attribution just provides some guidance on presentation. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand. WP:VALID gives editors the right to imply the opposite of what the cited source describes in order to fairly characterize a fringe idea? I am trying to discuss a specific breach of policy (OR), that is being justified by Particular attribution so it can be fixed. Ward20 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was discussing potential improvements to this guideline. If the discussion at Talk:Chiropractic has stalled, you might consider seeking additional community input from the No original research noticeboard or the Fringe theories noticeboard. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, fixing Chiropractic OR should be a straightforward matter (or maybe not). The main issue is here. It has been discussed on this talk page for months that particular attribution may encourage OR and now an example was given that it has. We should fix particular attribution so it does not encourage OR. Certain sections above were discussing that issue, comments there would be appreciated. Ward20 (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe all of this goes to show that the "disputed tag" is still very much warranted on this section of the article. Does that seem reasonable? And I would hope that the presence of such a tag will attract more outsiders here to help work on a version which everyone can live with. -- <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 00:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It goes to show that there are people who are confused. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote to close
To wrap this up, I went ahead and fixed the particular attribution section to make it clear that we're suggesting substantiating with facts when it's misleading to attribute opinion, which is what policy recommends. There's nothing wrong with substantiating with facts. It's encouraged. This sideline question of what is fact and what is opinion isn't a discussion for this guideline. That discussion is appropriate for article talk pages where there's a fact-in-dispute. Fact-claiming is covered by neutral point of view policies, reliable sourcing policies, verifiability policies, original research policies, and so on. This guideline doesn't have to hand-hold editors and explain in lawyer-like detail what is meant by "fact". It only has to say there is a potential to mislead readers when one does a particular attribution, and then point off to other policies and guidelines on how to avoid misleading readers. The question of whether it is or isn't particular attribution, whether there's original research going on or not, whether something is a fact or not, all of that is just a circus sideshow that should be occuring at article talk pages, not here. I should should reiterate that. It's possible that someone may be misusing "particular attribution", but that doesn't have anything to do with whether "particular attribution" itself is in dispute. People misuse NPOV all the time, but the actual policy itself is not in dispute. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. I compared the current version with the version from June 22, and I agree that the current version is superior. It offers a more straightforward guideline as to how people should present information, and gives a nice primer on the particular attribution situation. As someone not extensively involved in this discussion (involved, sure, but not contributing much), I thought I'd voice my assent. Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk  18:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. sorry, I've been distracted by other things recently and haven't been paying as much attention to this discussion as I should, but I feel you've arrived at a version that leaves a wide-open door for editors to engage in synthesis, simply by finding some opinion that they can effectively masquerade as a fact. you'll end up with a situation where anyone with a PhD and an axe to grind will suddenly become the voice of the scientific community on an issue, without any real knowledge of what the scientific community thinks on the matter.  that's just plain wrong.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From my reading of the current version of the guideline, opinion and fact are explicitly and effectively distinguished. Antelan <sup style="color:#b00000;">talk  18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to be convinced. can we table the closure move for a bit, so you can show me what I'm not seeing?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that it's pulled from policy. If there is something that "leaves a wide-open door for editors to engage in synthesis", that's policy's fault. Honestly, it doesn't, no more than policy does. This is what I mentioned above about lawyer-like detail. No editor should take one guideline as the end-all, and that guideline shouldn't be worded as the end-all. Nothing here conflicts with WP:SYNTH. It doesn't encourage original synthesis (like policy doesn't), so there's no reason why it would leave a wide-open door for synthesis. It simply doesn't have anything to do with original synthesis. If some editor is at some talk page engaging in what you think is synthesis, that's an issue for that talk page. If someone is saying this guideline allows them to do original synthesis, they're on crack  they are mistaken, and again that's an issue for that article's talk page. This guideline is not in dispute because someone somewhere at some time might think it applies when it doesn't. That's my point above. Hypotheticals about misuse can be talked about forever, but if the guideline reflects policy there's nothing wrong with the guideline itself. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * if what you've written were actually pulled straight from policy, with no effort to explain of clarify, then - frankly - there would be no reason to write it; policy would be all we need. the only virtue to a guideline like this is to explain, expand, clarify, emphasize or otherwise highlight something that is implicit in policy, but not clearly stated, and that creates the possibility of accidentally generating bias. my concern with this passage is that while it makes a fairly strong (and probably useful) statement about protecting a reliable source from being discounted because there aren't many such reliable sources in the literature, it does nothing to keep a single reliable source from becoming a far more important statement than it would normally be in the scientific community.  the poverty of sources here cuts both ways, and leaves a lot of room for synthetic interpretation by editors in both directions.  plugging up the possibility of having a reliable source discounted is a good thing, but if it's done in such a way that it fails to plug the possibility that a reliable source might be magnified beyond its true position in the field, then it just begs for the introduction of bias.


 * I'd rather nothing were said at all (so that the discussions would all fall entirely on individual talk pages), than to have a statement that de-facto empowers one argument over another equally valid argument. -- Ludwigs 2  20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're really missing the point. The first two paragraphs explains what the problem is in relation to fringe theories, and the third quotes policy on how to address the problem. That's a guideline. You're talking about something this guideline isn't about, for whatever reason, and drawing broad "problems" related to the guideline that stem from that thing the guideline isn't even about. It doesn't tell you to ignore WP:RS, nor does it tell you to take a single source and inflate it, add synthesis and original research, or anything remotely similar to orginal research or synthesis. It doesn't talk about one thing you're talking about. You're talking about original synthesis, and the guideline is talking about substantiating with facts Dr. Jones mentioned. I think the glaring problem with what you're talking about, what you may be missing, is that Dr. Jones already synthesized those facts to the fringe topic. If you are talking about facts Dr. Jones referenced (like the guideline advises), it is never orginal synthesis. You're saying we should address things that have nothing to do with this guideline for a reason that will never occur. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * well, look, this is why I said I was willing to be convinced of the matter. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding something.  I have no problem with the third paragraph, as it stands - looks fine to me.  my problem lies with the framing of the problem in the first and second paragraph, which already contains what strike me as some unfortunate syntheses. e.g. 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: this asserts in the absence of evidence that 'almost no one supports them'.  while this may or may not be true - "in fact" - it is not something that comes from a reliable source (because of the poor sourcing), and so on a good day it's a synthesis: making an unjustified and unsupported inference from a very small number of sources to a large number.  on a bad day it's just OR.  this all goes back to a stale debate farther up the page, if you'd like to look over the potential changes to the first paragraph that were being discussed there.  if you mentally remove that synthetic element from the first paragraph (as well as the ones immediately following it), you'll see my point.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a guideline, meant to address situations where that occurs. It's not always applicable. When it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. In my opinion, nearly every case of "particular attribution" is really a case of "lazy research" because almost everything under the sun has a critique, but the guideline doesn't need to address lazy research because in those cases it's not a particular attribution issue -- it's a lazy research issue -- and proper sourcing guidelines cover that. In the case where there really are only a small number of sources that directly disputes the theory, although the theory is almost completely non-supported, substantiate with facts instead of making it seem like only one person disputes the theory. Pretty cut and dry, only applicable if that case scenario is the case scenario at hand. Someone saying it's applicable when it isn't, again, is a situation that isn't really a problem with the guideline itself. It's a problem with that editor. That editor isn't violating this guideline. They're violating other guidelines.


 * What you're saying is a problem, that of taking a single source and making it seem more important than it really is (the inverse of particular attribution, which is taking a single source and making it seem less important than it actually is), is not a problem. You're not sourcing opinion when substantiating. You're sourcing facts. Opinion suffers the issue of more important/less important, facts do not. Facts, by definition, have importance and weight by default. They're non-seriously-contested data. Sourcing some single individual saying the hollow Earth theory is wrong does diminish that view unfairly, because it reads as only his opinion when it's not. Sourcing the fact that the Earth is actually full of liquid and solid matter does not inflate that view unfairly, because that fact carries the weight of all the research that led up to that non-seriously-contested data. That's ultimately why it's a non-issue that doesn't need lawyer-like wording to address. Particular attribution is a fairness problem, solved by sourcing facts that carry the weight of research. Reverse-particular attribution, making a fact seem more imporant than it really is, is non-issue, because facts always carry weight. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (semi-undent) well, that's nice in cases like the hollow earth theory, where you have a whole bunch of scientists who've been trying to figure out what's inside the earth. but what do you do with a subject like Orgone? here you have some scientist who came along with a theory that the universe is permeated by this semi-living creative force/essence called orgone, and even gives some evidence for it, and the best other scientists can do is say "well, we don't trust this evidence enough to assume that this is real."  there are no cold hard facts that refute it, just an absence of sufficient evidence to make the theory seem reasonable.  now there might certainly be scientists who will go the extra mile and say that Orgone is completely bogus, but they are not doing it on the basis of research or 'facts' (since there is no effective research or 'facts' one way or another); they are just giving their opinion based on their general understanding of the world as scientists.  if we include one of those opinions as a 'fact', and imply that it is shared by other scientists without further verification, that seems to be a form of synthesis, no?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Substantiating with facts is what you do when there's an actual "particular attribution" problem (few to no reliable sources disputing it). Orgone, by comparison, is a case of lazy research. We found the same thing to be true when it was thought that remote viewing didn't have substantial criticism and that there was a case of particular attribution going on there. It turned out that was a case of lazy research as well, because there was a very notable citicism, from a NASA scientist, published in the Proceedings of the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, which is supported by this laundry list of scientific bodies . That source was "Heretical science - Beyond the boundaries of pathological science" by Bennett, Gary L. (NASA, Washington, DC) Note that this very reliable source for scientist's views on remote viewing also lists "Wilhelm Reich's theories on orgone energy" as heretical pseudoscience. 9 times out of 10 scarcity of sources is really lazy research. In other words, in the case of orgone, you don't need to take the substantiation approach (facts). You can reliably source that it is a scientific view (opinion) that orgone is pseudoscience. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * heavens, thank you. this is (I think)  a perfect example of the problem I'm seeing.  look what you've done: you've just taken a 'Nasa Scientist' - which I presume means an aeronautical engineer from the conference context (it's hard to tell, because the link you gave was to a single detached page) - and you've:
 * set him up as an expert qualified to render verdicts in psychology and/or some arcane branch of energy physics, and
 * claimed that he is representative of 'scientists in general', and psychologists and/or energy physicists in particular, not just of other aeronautical engineers.
 * further, you've done this without citing any particular fact that he has uncovered or evidence that he has provided, but rather by citing this NASA scientist's opinions about these things as though they were fact. or are you somehow suggesting that 'reliably sourced' equals 'factual' by definition?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what I said is that there is a reliable source for science's view. This is the problem "particular attribution" is meant to address. You are calling it his view (particular attribution), neglecting that the view was published in a reliable source which is supported by many scientific bodies. He reliably said it is science's view, and that was reliably published in a reputable science journal backed by all those scientific bodies. We have no reason to doubt that it is science's view. It is sourced as science's view, by a scientific journal, supported by scientific bodies.


 * When you make it out to be just his view, that is particular attribution, neglectful of the journal and bodies that support that view. Addressing your first numbered point, the journal is a respected journal that published his summary of science's view on the subject. It has nothing to do with his qualifications to render verdicts on a fringe topic. He's reporting science's view on the fringe topic and is completely qualified to report that view. Himself, the journal, and the scientific bodies are all reliable for reporting that view. Regarding the second numbered point, the journal, himself, and all the scientific bodies that support the journal are, yes, representative of science's view on the matter. Your sideline into facts demonstrates that you still don't understand what I'm saying. There is no fact claim. Nobody cares whether it is factually pseudoscience, factually not pseudoscience, or whatever. We are only interested in reliably sourcing views on the matter if sources are available. That source is a reliable source for the statement that scientists view it as pseudoscience. If you don't think so, that's an issue for RS/N. You can take it up there. What's pertinent here is that saying it's just his view is frankly misrepresenting the source, ie. a problematic particular attribution. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, how do you figure there's a scarcity of sources critical of "orgone" theory? If the above source doesn't do it for you, you can pick any of the books here that specifically call it pseudoscience. Or if you want to weed through papers that call it pseudoscience, you can sift through them here . Many of those are solid, reliable scientific sources as well. You can [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] all the sources, you can apply WP:RS and WP:V and pick a really, really reliable one that says it's science's general view (like the one I posted) and just take their reliable word for it, actually there's a number of things you can do, but what you can't do is make it out to be like it's one person's opinion, or the view of a small group, when it's clearly not. As I said, 9 times out of 10, "particular attribution" is really just lazy research. But back to the topic of this thread, closing out the "dispute", do you have an actual example of a fringe theory that doesn't have substantial criticism? One where particular attribution would be appropriate? If not, dragging on the "dispute" isn't constructive. If there's no valid hypothetical where it would be appropriate to make a particular attribution, then there's really no dispute. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * allow me to point out that I was complaining that you "claimed that he is representative of 'scientists in general'", and you responded by saying "No, what I said is that there is a reliable source for science's view," as though that somehow meant something different. I don't understand where you're seeing the difference, but either way I would still ask you what makes you think that this NASA scientist is qualified to give opinions about some abstract notion of science's view? the mere fact that one has a PhD in something does not grant one carte-blanche to give opinions in scientific areas outside of one's particular field of study (or do you want nuclear physicists and marxist academic historians butting in on your next gall-bladder surgery?).  if I can quote WP:NPOV itself:
 * and wp:reliable:
 * from the perspective of any topic other than aeronautical engineering, your NASA Scientist's opinion probably doesn't even meet the Undo Weight clause or satisfy this passage about reliable sources, much less pass muster as 'the truth' about scientific consensus. I mean, he is certainly a reliable source in his own discipline, but he's not a generically, all around, universally reliable source on science itself.  if you want that, there's an entire field of experts in the philosophy of science who study it for a living; don't just grab some random dude.  This NASA engineer has no specific training that makes him authoritative as an expert on the workings of science as a whole.


 * and let me be clear: if this is really what particular attribution is supposed to be about, then the entire section has to go. it would be a violation of wp:reliable to have a guideline that legitimizes the right of any schmuck with a PhD to be called an expert on things for which he has no specific training or skills. not to mention a ludicrous idea...  is that sufficient grounds to continue this dispute?


 * now... <sigh...> please don't confuse my desire to have a fair and unbiased presentation of fringe topics in wikipedia with an actual support of fringe topics.  I don't know why everyone seems to make that mistake, and I don't care to know; I'm just asking you to stop.  I have no problem with a fair and proper critique of fringe topics being introduced anywhere appropriate.  but I see no reason to extend that to including unfair, excessive, or patently pointless critiques.  I'm sure you can find a truckload of people who call orgone pseudoscience, and I doubt that I'd personally disagree with them for the most part.  but you and I both know that 'pseudoscience' is not an analytic term - it's a pure pejorative, intended to make a topic look bad, without adding anything meaningful or constructive to the conversation.  If you forced me, I could go through each one of your pseudoscience citations above and dispute them on reliability grounds as above, since I'm sure that most of them are 'Martin Gardner' type figures with no particular expertise in relation to the subject at hand that allows them to enter the conversation as reliable sources.  however, I would hope that you recognize that you don't need to stoop to name-calling to make something like Orgone look bad.  just say what it is, and let honest scientific critique handle the rest, and nothing more needs to be done. do you see what I mean, here? -- Ludwigs 2  20:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're sidetracking the conversation into a WP:RS and fairness of orgone dispute and the guideline isn't about claims of consensus or orgone. It's about what to do when there's a scarcity of sources. I explained to you that for orgone there is no scarcity of sources, there's plenty of reliable sources, and asked you to think of a subject where there really is a scarcity of sources. Again, so you're clear on what this guideline is for, it's for when there is a scarcity of sources. You can curb the "if this is really what it's about" rhetoric because I told you sourcing criticism on orgone is what you do when there are sources, and there are for orgone. This guideline is for what you do when there are no or few sources. I said very clearly that orgone needs no particular attribution, substantiation, or anything this guideline is about, because there is no scarcity of sources. I did say that pretending there is only one source, and attributing it as one guy's view, is particlar attribution, and that's entirely correct. That's also the only way particular attribution relates to orgone. If you list twenty sources who say it's pseudoscience, instead of saying there's a consensus that it is, that's fine too because that's not a particular attribution.


 * I honestly don't care if you support fringe topics. I never asked you if you do. Guidelines at Wikipedia are for editors who do care about fringe topics just as much as those who don't. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. You can be Wilhelm Reich himself and I don't care as long as you don't waste people's time sidetracking conversations or causing unproductive disputes like you may not be aware that you are doing here. If you don't want orgone saying "pseudoscience", I don't even care about that personally. I don't care about orgone. What I care about at the moment is ending this stupid weeks long "dispute" over a guideline that doesn't have anything wrong with it, especially when your argument that it does have something wrong with it involves everything but the guideline itself and goes off on a tangent about how orgone is being treated unfairly. I don't care about orgone. There's sources there. Give me something else to check or please stop wasting my time and admit there's nothing wrong with the actual guideline so we can all call the matter closed. You can discuss the ins and outs of orgone fairness at the orgone talk page. This is about how particular attribution is wrong, why, and how to avoid it. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nealparr, above you said, "If there's no valid hypothetical where it would be appropriate to make a particular attribution, then there's really no dispute." However, if there is indeed no valid hypothetical where it would be appropriate to make a particular attribution then there is no need for a guideline dealing with it.


 * You also seem to be completely unaware of what substantiation means. It doesn't mean remove the attribution and present the opinion as a fact. It means replace the opinion with different things that are facts. For example, you can't replace "Dr X says Y is pseudoscience" with "Y is pseudoscience". You have to come up with something else that is a fact to substantiate the opinion. Yet that is the only type of example you have discussed, and all you have suggested is that we remove the attribution by reference to other sources which, if the particular attribution guideline has any purpose, don't exist in the very cases you have written the guideline for. So, in a case where Dr X is in fact the only person we can find who says "Y is a pseudoscience", what do you suggest we write, if not, "Dr X says Y is a pseudoscience"? That is, what facts do you suggest we use to substantiate that opinion given that we cannot attribute (according to your guideline) and we cannot simply use the bald unattributed statement?74.208.16.55 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, quote one place where I actually said that and you may have a point. Nowhere did I say replace opinion with opinion as fact. In fact, I said the opposite many times. To misrepresent what I said is the reason for the IP edit I assume. This is where I gave actual examples pertaining to substantiating The only time I mentioned "pseudoscience" is in the above "orgone" example given by Ludwigs. That is not a case of particular attribution where you would need to substantiate with facts, because there are many critical sources. You can multiple attribute critique of orgone. Never said you couldn't. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't even mentioned the first point where I show that you claim that the examples the policy is intended to guide us on don't exist. That's kinda important. If they don't exist there is no need for a guideline. On the question of substantiation, you still miss the point. In the cases we are talking about, assuming you now accept that they might exist, there is a dearth of sources (there may be only one - written by Dr X - and it may simply say something like "Y is pseudoscience"). In such cases we may have nothing else, no facts from Dr X, nothing but the bald assertion which, importantly, may be a fact. The way the guideline is now reads very much as if we just write the "factual" statement "Y is pseudoscience". This is because substantiation is a way of dealing with BIASED statements - things that are obviously OPINION statements - such as "A is the best..." or "A is the worst..." - rather than potentially factual statements like "Y is pseudoscience". This is why it is so misleading to use substantiation here - when dealing with claims of fact rather than obvious opinion - because it suggests that we can simply treat DR X's statement as a fact because he's an expert and cite it as such without attribution. 74.208.16.55 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page is plagued by IP addresses from banned users. I've explained everything you're talking about, but if you want me to take you seriously and repeat myself you'll need a proper account. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent - plus, I've put a bar below this discussion to help separate things) + (edit conflict)

actually, no: I'm on topic (if the orgone example doesn't work for you, that's fine; we don't need it). let me spell this out clearly:
 * points we agree on
 * fringe topics often suffer from a poverty of reliable sources
 * what few reliable sources there are should be protected from being discounted just because of the small number
 * points of disagreement
 * I want the particular attribution clause to guarantee that viewpoints are not exaggerated or discounted just by virtue of their small number
 * you (so I'm discovering) seem to want particular attribution to lower the bar, so that sources which would not normally pass wp:reliable can be accepted as authoritative.

this isn't a WP:RS issue; you've strayed (whether you know it or not) into the territory of offering unreliable sources as though they were reliable, and you're trying to tweak the particular attribution section to give that error an appearance of legitimacy. we can't even get to the question of what to do with a slimly sourced topic until we deal with this unreliable sourcing issue - as long as you're offering up sources that don't pass wp:reliable, we don't even know where any topic stands here. -- Ludwigs 2 01:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

edit: I just noticed that I'm sleep deprived, and looking back I'm not sure I fully approve of my own tone in the above post. apologies if I came off as unpleasant in any way; this is an interesting discussion, and I'd hate to spoil it.. we can pick it up again tomorrow after I've had a nice, long, refreshing conversation with my pillow. :-) -- Ludwigs 2  03:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone else is going to have to talk to you because either you are not reading what I said, or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said. Either way, it's a problem. You're frankly mistaken that I'm saying lower the bar. I have repeatedly said all other guidelines and policies apply, including WP:RS, WP:OR, or any other guideline you can think of. I never said anything about putting in unreliable sources as a solution to particular attribution. If you want to blame sleep deprivation, whatever, get some sleep and read what I said, not what you think I said, and then talk to someone else because honestly you're past trying my patience.


 * It is not a reliability of sourcing issue. The guideline assumes there are few reliably sourced opinions. It assumes that right away, so if there are an abundance of sources it doesn't apply. End of story. When there are few sources, the "particular attribution" solution that I wrote says substantiate with facts, not unreliably sourced exhaggerated viewpoints or whatever it is that you misrepresented me as saying. If you don't like that solution, you're in the wrong place because it's core policy.


 * The only time I mentioned sources is on your example of orgone. Your orgone sidebar (shame on me for falling into it) is not a particular attribution issue because there are an abundance of critical sources. If you'd like to make it an issue of reliability of sourcing, in the interest of "fair and unbiased presentation of fringe topics in wikipedia" (your words), I'll address that once:


 * Please note: If people say in reputable sources that a fringe topic is pseudoscience, and there are no reputable sourced opinions that says it isn't pseudoscience, you've got a problem if you think the reputable "fair and unbiased" view of the topic isn't critical.


 * That is the last time I will waste my time addressing reliability of sourcing with you when the issue isn't about reliability of sourcing. That's not even posted for you because I'm sure you're not going to get it, or you'll misrepresent it, or go on some other sidebar about it. Anything but talking about the actual guideline. It's posted for the next unfortunate editor that is going to have to talk to you on this issue, because that's not going to be me. You've wasted enough of my time already. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Three things you'll have to explain to me for me to assume good faith with you:
 * Why are you continuing this conversation here, disruptively because it's not about that, and...
 * What makes you an authority on reliable sourcing when you say reputable Martin Gardner is unreliable, reputable NASA is unreliable, reputable journals are unreliable, reputable scientific bodies are unreliable, and over there you argue that primary sources are the only reliable sources out there (going on about "in the field" when all the reputable sources say the field is pseudoscience), and...
 * After all the above, the dozens of papers at Google Scholar and the dozens of books at Google Books that specifically say orgone is pseudoscience, you didn't self correct yourself and add that there is a notable view that orgone is pseudoscience to the orgone page. The word doesn't exist anywhere in the body of that article anywhere except in a "see also" section, and you were one of the primary editors arguing for its removal.
 * Granted, fringe topics don't need to go overboard on criticism (I'm always arguing that myself), but there is a point when denying reliable sources, or "I didn't hear that" is disruptive editing. There's a big difference between "fair and balanced" and removing criticism fairly presented in order to balance the topic favorly when it's not seen favorably by anyone other than adherents. That's exactly what the ArbCom explained in WP:PSCI, so there's no need to rehash it. Maybe you're not aware what you're doing (AGF), but please be aware that you are doing it. When called on it, you shouldn't continue doing it. You should self-correct. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Neal... two things first:
 * I accept your criticism above. I'm still not completely up on the wikipedia style of communication, and I can imagine it must be frustrating to work around.  again, my apologies for putting things badly, and I do hope I get better at it.
 * I tend to think in the big picture, so if I sometimes introduce things that seem off-topic, it's because I'm trying to get at an important ramification of the smaller issue. or it might just be that I'm misunderstanding, of course, but at any rate it's not an effort to confuse things.
 * now, to explain your points above (because I would prefer that you continued to assume good faith with me)...
 * I'm not continuing that argument here - it's the reverse, actually, because that argument was a specific case of what I see as a broader problem with misattribution of sources. It's an appropriate argument here because this is a problem that specifically affects fringe theory topics. more details below, but in a perfect world I should have started here (in the more general venue) first, and then expanded it to particular articles later.  but that's not the way life works sometimes.
 * I never said that Martin Gardner or the NASA expert, or well-known journals or anyone or anything else was or were inherently non-reliable. in fact, it's this very concept of generalized reliability (one way or the other) that bothers me.  in academia, we consider a source reliable by virtue of the particular education and skills that an author brings to the table when he writes.  the fact that the author has a PhD, the fact that an article is published in a reputable journal, the fact that it's peer-reviewed; these are all just reassurances that the author has the skills and education she needs to make an authoritative statement in the field.  and that's just getting a foot in the door; after that, the article still needs a decent argument and decent evidence.  A scientist is an authoritative expert within her particular field of knowledge, and on any other topic she is just an average person; maybe smarter than most, but just as fallible, opinionated, and misguided as the rest of us.  now I'd argue (and this would be worth debating if you disagree) that fringe topics are always on the fringe of some particular field or fields, and it is the purview of experts in those fields to dispute or debunk them.  the fact may be that few experts in the particular fields in question choose to discuss the matter; that doesn't mean we should go looking for opinions outside those fields.  to be succinct: one psychologist, one cancer researcher, or even one academic meteorologist saying that Reich's theories are pseudoscience (as it applies to their particular fields) is noteworthy, important, and utterly reliable, but a thousand mathematicians, engineers, or other scientists saying the same thing is pure opinion and unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (except maybe to note that Reich does not have a lot of fans among mathematicians and engineers).
 * to answer your other question, we could go into my personal qualifications if you like, but I'd prefer not to. suffice it to say I'm knowledgeable.
 * last, there are two reasons I don't 'self-correct' and admit pseudoscience on the orgone page:
 * per above, none of the citations I've seen claiming orgone as a pseudoscience came from experts in fields that might legitimately claim purview over the things Reich theorizes about. there may be some, and I'd be more than willing to open a discussion on that if there are.
 * more to the point, though, the term 'pseudoscience' (as I keep saying) is not an analytic term, but merely a pejorative. it adds nothing concrete to the discussion of the topic that can't be better addressed by specific critiques from experts, but just serves to make Reich's theories sound skanky.  granting that they may be, I (again, personally) don't feel it's right to indulge in mere name-calling.
 * I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. if not, I'm happy to answer anything else you might like to know.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In an effort to keep it civil, I'll skip to #3. Someone else can explain why your views on #1 and #2 may not mesh well in the Wikipedia environment and existing policies. There may even need to be an RfC about it, I don't know. But on #3 it's pretty cut and dry: You don't have to agree that orgone is factually pseudoscience. You're ignoring that it's a notable view and suppressing that view because you think it's pejorative to say it. ArbCom says it's not merely pejorative. That has already been determined. NPOV/FAQ is a part of core policy and the ArbCom ruling is included there (WP:PSCI), as core policy. If you have a problem with that decision, those are the guys you need to discuss it with. When there are reliable sources (many of them) showing that it's a notable view, not including that view is suppressing that view. There's not even a "Orgone is often viewed as 'pseudoscience' by critics" in that article. I don't personally agree with a lot of the really messed up views I've seen on Wikipedia (racism, hate groups, pediphilia and so on), but because they're notable they merit inclusion. The view that orgone is pseudoscience is not name-calling. It's term used in science to describe topics that pose as science misrepresentatively. ArbCom decided that, and it's in core policy. I'm assuming good faith that this may not be apparent to you, but please understand that such is the case. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with you or with arbcom. I'm merely asking that (1) the term be restricted to reputable sources within appropriate fields, and (2) that we start paying attention to the fair and sensitive tone clause of wp:NPOV.  I don't think you've every gone against that, mind you, but I'm worried that the changes you're fostering on this guideline might open the door for that kind of abuse elsewhere.


 * Now we can go to RfC if you'd like, though I'd really prefer it if you could read over my point 2 and give some comments on it. if I'm just flat-out wrong in my assessment of things, I have no problem admitting it, but I don't yet see that I'm wrong, and I think this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed if true.  it would just be a lot easier (and saner) if we could talk it through here, first, and resolve it.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is regarding ArbCom's ruling and #2. Pseudoscience, per reputable sources on the subject, is not within academia or science. The "field" is pseudoscience, not science. Orgone isn't in the field of biology or (scientific concepts of) energy. It's outside it. "Within appropriate fields", therefore really means "within the field of misrepresenting science" because that's the definition of pseudoscience. You need to go outside the group to get reliable information about how others see it, because anything in the field of pseudoscience is unreliable primary sources. Secondary sources are needed to establish reliable views on the topic. Does that help? In order to make the argument that commentary needs to come from the "field of science or academia", you have to first establish through reliable sources that the topic is in a field of science or academia. If you can't do that, the argument fizzles out before it's even started. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I still don't see how this changes what I said. :-( it seems like common sense to me that even though Reich's claims about biology cannot reasonably be considered to be in the field of biology (which I'd agree with), we'd still want a biologist telling us that.  a biologist is the only one who can tell us authoritatively that Reich's theory isn't biology, no?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I can address that as well. I would rather have a brain surgeon operating on me than an astrophysicist, definitely no argument there. But that's not the issue. A biologist can explain better than anyone else what is and isn't biology, but you don't have to be a biologist to explain what is and isn't science. Science commentators who publish in reputable science journals are qualified to talk about science in general. Martin Gardner is qualified to comment on what is and isn't science, but he says he's biased. Good source, not great. Someone independent (secondary source) who we have no evidence of bias nor any reason to suspect as biased, is actually a great source. He's outside the debate. He's not primary. He has scientific credentials and the commentary is published in a reputable science journal by science editors. Wikipedia drools over reliable sources like that, and they don't always exist in regards to fringe topics. Upon discovery of such a source, you don't call it unreliable because it's not a biology source. The question wasn't "is it biology?" (pseudobiology), it's "is it science at all?" (pseudoscience). You take that source and let readers know that an authority in science stated that in their view, the topic isn't science. That's in the purview of fully informing Wikipedia readers. Some high schooler who thinks orgone is a neat concept, having never read any other article about the topic but instead arrived at it by clicking the "Random article" link, may end up writing a paper on the topic for his science class never knowing that scientists think it's bunk. That article never mentions that anyone thinks it's pseudoscience at all. Poor kid gets an "F" and it's all because you (and others) argued for it to be removed. That's what the policies and guidelines are all about -- responsible editing. Not saying that you do endorse orgone, but let's say that I did. It's my responsibility to let readers know that my proposed theory that I support is not supported by others. Otherwise, I'm just being dishonest about it. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That, I have to say, is not something I've thought of before, and one heck of a good argument. I'm not saying I totally agree with the logic, mind you, but I can certainly see the need for viewing it that way.  you've convinced me (err... rights reserved to quibble at some point in the future, if needed.  ;-) ).  thank you, this was enlightening.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then, perhaps it was a misunderstanding after all : ) My apologies if I lost patience. A little more patience is apparently all that was needed. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * lol - well, I have a whole string of ex-girlfriends who would sympathize. I'm flawed, but I'm honest.  :-) -- Ludwigs 2  05:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really like your additions, Nealparr. Nice work! I think that "substantiation" does provide some insight and (despite what you may have intended) some much needed hand-holding and guidance. That said, I don't think the dispute here is or was a circus sideshow - for without it, we would never have gotten to this much improved version. Thanks for the patience. All that said, I think Ludwig2 has a legitimate complaint which should be discussed before any "vote to close" occurs. Wikipedia and its policies are living/breathing. There is really no reason to close a conversation. -- <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 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a vote to close the dispute. In other words, develop a consensus that the guideline isn't the source of the actual disputes people are talking about. Nothing wrong with the guideline, so the dispute must lie elsewhere (in other words, take it the appropriate places). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neal I think the third paragraph changes go a long way toward helping, but I still think the first and second paragraphs should be more even handed. How about something like this for the first paragraph:


 * Ward20 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That too, I feel, is unnecessary for this section. I don't think they'll ever be a sourcing issue when it comes to acceptance of a theory because if accepted and notable there will always be sources available. It's something one can reasonably expect, so the guideline doesn't have to address a hypothetical situation (accepted, notable, and few sources) that is very, very unlikely to occur. The scarcity of sources issue just concerns criticism, because it is actually very likely that few sources may take a fringe topic seriously enough to write a critique about it. If an editor is having trouble finding sources about the topic, one could reasonably conclude that it's not widely accepted. We, again, don't need to address situations that aren't likely while addressing situations that are likely or have occured, just so we can feel balanced. Fringe topics, by definition, are not balanced with accepted theories. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No to Ward's proposal. Seems to misunderstand the definition of Fringe theories: If there was a general consensus favourable to them in the relevant field, by definition they would not be fringe theories. There may be debate that something is a fringe theory. However, if it is a fringe theory - as we should be presuming by this point in the policy, then we need to, in the words of the NPOV FAQ (a policy) portray the majority view as the majority, and the minority view as the minority, and present any criticism of the majority on the minority view. Ward's proposal ignores this. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. If a weird scientific theory has been much debated, it remains fringe. DGG (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)