Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 8

Upping the inclusion criteria for fringe claims
Right now the guideline includes this statement, which is also contained in the "Fringe theory in a nutshell" at the top of the page:


 * 1. "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

Our notability requirements are one thing, but we are dealing with exceptional ("fringe") claims, and therefore the notability inclusion requirements for these cases need to be upped accordingly, in light of the due caution and logic expressed in this modification of a classic addage:


 * 2. "Exceptional ("fringe") claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources." If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

I suggest that we modify statement 1. above to read "two major publications", and add "mere mention is not enough" to the end. Let's discuss this. Maybe it's too radical, or maybe it can be used if tweaked. -- Fyslee / talk 00:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure - if a fringe theory is non-notable then we're done. Delete the sucker.  The problem is that many fringe theories are EXTREMELY notable.  Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell gets 5.8 million ghits.  It's been reported on in many serious TV shows and established newspapers.  Excluding an article on the topic is unthinkable.  Sadly, none of that makes the theory true.  So we're back to being pretty much forced to write about some theory that's certainly not true or correct.  There are plenty of topice about which there NEEDS to be encyclopedia articles...take Mood ring for example.  They sell in their millions - people widely believe that they change color in accordance with your mood.  It's not at all unreasonable to expect large numbers of readers would come to Wikipedia to find out about them.  We can't (reasonably) exclude the article on grounds of non-notability.   So - we're faced with writing an adequately sourced, informative article about these rather silly gadgets that tells the truth and excludes the bullshit.  It turns out that they are really liquid crystal thermometers that measure (very poorly) your skin temperature - which does not relate to your mood - but rather to your general health, what time of day it is, where you are in your menstrual cycle, what the temperature of the air around you is...all sorts of thing - but not your mood.  This fact is easy to demonstrate as a scientist - you can look at how they are made (from thermochromic liquid crystals) - you can do double-blind scientific experiments to prove that they don't show someone's mood - you can demonstrate that they respond to body heat and there are plenty of resources that show how body temperature depends on too many external factors to measure "mood".  But there's the problem.  You can get sources for all of those separate facts - but it's so far proven impossible to find a scientific paper that says that mood rings don't work.  It's almost impossible to write the article fairly and accurately without falling foul of WP:REF, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and probably a bunch of other guidelines and policies.  For that reason we need these guidelines. SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve. I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm all for inclusion of all kinds of nonsense, as long as it is notable, even if that notability is only provided by the criticism it gets from skeptics (i.e. "or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.") and its coverage in the media. Those are considered RS. A "major publication" doesn't necessarily have to be a scientific publication of any kind. The writings and criticisms from scientific skeptics are a notable form of mainstream POV that often qualifies as a RS, in lieu of the obvious silence from scientific research. -- Fyslee / talk 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another example of widely (and thickly) spread bullshit is the oeuvre of Alex Chiu. We have less problems, of course, with Chiu's obvious pseudosciences than monied interests like the homeopaths and the energy quacks.  The phrase "high-quality sources" reminds me too much of Dana Ullman's lengthy obstructionism - which led to Homeopathy - it is too open to gaming, especially when combined with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Anyone can claim that their source is better than yours, especially when these low-profile altmed and "scientific exploration" journals are proliferating.  I'd really like to see a guideline that prioritizes academic sources by journal impact factors and number of times a particular source has been cited.  Of course, this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting consensus - too bureaucratic and difficult to game.  Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if an enhanced set of sourcing restrictions needs to be codified, or if we should simply clarify what constitutes acceptable sourcing in light of the extreme claims behind fringe theories. Nice as academic source prioritizing sounds good, i agree that it won't pass. Further, because of the exclusivity of access, I'm not sure that it should. as that really would deliver a wide range of fringe articles into the hands of the scientific side almost exclusively, which would be bad. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify - I was only talking about academic sourcing - there have been some ugly POV-pushes on homeopathy and related pages over how much weight we should give to articles from fringe journals like Homeopathy and Journal of Alternative Medicine. Now that I think of it, prioritizing academic sources by citation numbers is not a good idea.  I've seen some horrid mainstream papers that were highly cited - usually due to the primary author's pre-eminence than anything else.  There are also mainstream specialty journals that cite each other a lot, creating a clubby "you cite me, I cite you" atmosphere that distorts a paper's importance.  I'd rather not get into arguments that paper W published in the New England Journal of Medicine with X cites is better/worse than paper Y published in Homeopathy with Z cites.  Skinwalker (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A very good point. ThuranX (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Truly? Do you actually know what happens with this "publication requirement"? First, they'll argue about it didn't come from a "major" publisher". Secondly, it wasn't an "objective" publisher (solely of the opinion of the guy who doesn't like the publication). Thirdly, if it was even published there will add some other requirement (then spend at least another week arguing the other requirement). You can ask for only one publication, and they'll still be warring. As designed by the stallers. Disrupt, stall, wear down the editors, and then call for a RFC. Any more "requirements"? Letters of recommendations from bodies that are impossible to acquire? Dead bodies even? You know this won't be enough, there will be more "requirements" not written (like a lot of unwritten rules at Wikipedia). The evidence can be 20 citations from the best publications on Earth, they would be still argued it as worthless, much like a cheap political debate. If you're going to require publications, it's going to have to be the "law", no disputing them if produced. Otherwise, this is a folly. FResearcher (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * Whose calzone are you? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Paranoid, uh? Well, I AM a person none of you know (thank goodness), and a person who cares about knowledge (I careless what, but knowledge itself). A person who has watched for months how this sausage is being made, and seeing the recipe repeated in batches across Wikipedia in the name of "truth". What I don't see, in this zest to label, and to remove self-promoters, is the same light shined on the accusers who setup shop as self-promoters themselves as a self check (you know just like the scientific method to ensure objectivity?). Wikipedia will never be a research source if this is where the time and energy is spent, setting up political camps between debunkers and whoever else. Because it's not "labels" that is needed to be addressed, it's the environment for editors to do their jobs to attract and keep experts (not harbor anything that the cat can drag in, as that is all that is willing to work in this hell hole). You only get what you have with editors who thrive in such an environment -- and pages like this is the result -- zero professionalism, not much knowledge of the topic, let alone the label itself! Tomorrow the definition requirements will change in the "field" (as countless other rules that get violated by this bunch, almost daily). Why have rules when they won't even be enforced? If I see that dude (you know the one that's being protected?), for the nth time get his punishment reduced for acting like an nub, I know this page has been a folly, as he'll just come back and abuse "FRINGE" over and over and over like a racist with the "N" word. BTW, this mess has gotten to be what it is because folks like you have made it into a combat zone, complete with the instant camp accusation for posting about the subject at hand (FYI: I'm mostly pro-science, but I never bitten the poisoned debunkery apple, one that has the potential to turn science into the 15th century Church). But, thanks for illustrating how paranoid it has gotten. When objectivity is lost (e.g., the checkers not being checked), that's the result. FResearcher (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * ROFL. What, pray tell, is "this bunch"?  "[f]olks like [me]"?  "[N]ot much knowledge of the topic"?  What topic? Which topic?  I'm sure you were trying to make a point, but you missed it.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 11:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can't respond appropriately, just don't respond at all. Have no time or interest to babysit 15 year-olds. FResearcher (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * I would strongly oppose using anything other than Wikipedia's standard notability critera as the basis for deciding whether or not to have articles about views and theories. This is a separate issue from whether the view should be included on any other article other than itself ("significance"). Notability is no evidence of truth, or even non-wackiness. WP:NOT strikes me as a critical requirement and something we should stick to here as elsewhere. I see no more reason to exclude subjects because the hard-nosed science sub-constituency finds them scientifically embarassing and unrespectable than to exclude because people find them blasephemous, too sexually frank, or any other of the many other reasons why various Wikipedia sub-constitutiencies sometimes find inclusion embarrassing and not respectable with respect to their frameworks. It they're a notable human phenomenon, include, and truth has nothing to do with it. Scientific prudishness and hang-ups does not strike me as a legitimate basis for censorship any more than prudishness and hang-ups of any other kind. We include false, rediculous, and highly offensive subjects all the time. If it's notable in the usual sense, inclusion comes with all the usual baggage, including noting that the academic community thinks it complete garbage if this is so. Use of self-published work etc. can be addressed through WP:RS. However, I would oppose "heightened" sourcing for anything except BLP where we're legally compelled. A source either is reliable or it isn't. Notability always requires independent sources. If science people feel they can't show the encyclopedia to their colleagues because they'd be embarassed if their colleagues found it has an article on X, join the club of people embarassed by Wikipedia's plethora eof mbarassing articles, from the bizarre sexual techniques to the articles on minor athletes, pornographic actors, and minor TV, comic book, and video game characters. One person's embarassment is no better or worse than any other's. Notability has got to be the measure, equally and fairly applied to all. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly mere mention does not suffice is perfectly in line with N, and I would support making it more explicit as Fyslee suggests. Stating at least two sources instead of the current requirement of at least one major publication seems a little arbitrary. If there is not sufficient material in the only available independent source to write a properly unbiased article, we should exclude it on those grounds. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not unbiased, concensus. Topics like this are edited by two warring camps, and what survives the war is what's left to present. That doesn't mean it's unbiased (as the two political forces are doing the editing in the first place -- it can't be unbiased, as they're too blinded by their own dogmas). Have to understand subjects like this are being policed by a debunking "skeptic" group, along with a parapsychology group (and some others interests). Each has their own agendas, and they sure don't want the "other side" getting a leg up. All anyone can do is get some type of sausage out of it, and hopefully one worth eating. FResearcher (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * Remember that the whole point of notability for fringe theories is that they are notable for things other than their "scientific merit". The criterion Fyslee has proposed actually serves as a pretty reasonable start for a notability guideline for serious scientific work, but for fringe stuff, the standard notability criterion should apply until we get a handle on the two unique needs of fringe theories, both scientific and nonscientific. Secondly, words like "major", "serious" and "extensively" might actually cause the opposite of what Fyslee is looking to accomplish to happen. If a fringe theory generates a body of literature with decent readership and with one or more "peer reviewed journals", it can still be junk science, but junk science with all the robes and trappings of serious science, which provides a wedge for edit warring. We need a better way of handling that. HatlessAtless (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to HatlessAtlas, there is an interesting clause we already use once that could be included twice (to bring this up to our "third party" sourcing requirement): "that is independent of the theory."
 * It could be included here (as underlined):
 * "in a serious manner, in at least one [or two...] major publication[s] that is independent of the theory ." That might be an effective method of dealing with fringe groups who attempt to "stack the deck" by creating their own notability. Multiplying fringe sources doesn't equal non-fringe or make it any less fringe. "The plural of anecdote is not data." - Roger Brinner
 * As I wrote above, this thread is for discussion. "Maybe it's too radical, or maybe it can be used if tweaked." Whatever happens, this discussion is productive, except for the gross violations of NPA and TALK. Otherwise people are coming up with some interesting thoughts while they discuss this. We're all learning here and this is a good way to do it. -- Fyslee / talk 05:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's some interesting ideas in this; including specific requirements for independent verification is nice, but unfortunately, I think that it might lead us right back to the same problems with sourcing covered all over this page. I wish we could include the Brinner quote on the page, it's certainly a fitting quote. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically this is all about how mainstream science deals with information and judges whether it is fringe or not. It's all a question of definition, and that definition is always in relation to "mainstream". "Fringe" cannot be defined in isolation. Therefore various mainstream scientific skeptical quotes from notable skeptics and scientists would be perfectly appropriate. Just attribute them properly. My user page has a number of significant skeptical quotes. Maybe some of them can be used. -- Fyslee / talk 05:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My issue isn't so much about the publication requirement itself, it's that when folks do provide good cites, folks bicker about if it's valid or not (despite it is a good cite; does come from a respectable publisher; and maybe even reviewed). Went back and read some of the what that dude was editing awhile ago, and saw exactly that tactic (and it is a tactic -- did that dude take debating in high school or something?). If folks don't follow the rules that already exist -- or Wiki lawyer articles to a standstill to wear editors out [basically hijacking articles] -- all this is really a folly. The Law must be the Law and editors follow it to the letter, not find loopholes (or certain editors are protected from breaking them). Neither side is going to win this war. Sure some battles will be won on either side, but the war itself won't be won. All the crying and moaning and acting like asses won't change that fact. This is why a conductive environment between the parties is needed. You may not like the subject as much as I don't like mustard greens, but folks eat those mustard greens and love it regardless. I read a lot about "professional and respected" here, and if that's the will, then please act the part, not just talk about it. Talk is real cheap. FResearcher (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)  [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * The current guideline handles this very well... it allows for discussion of fringe theories that have achieved a certain level of notice (or perhaps notariety is a better word) by the mainstream. It does not matter whether that notice is positive or negative, accepting or disparaging.  All that is required is that the mainstream has taken serious note of it's existance.  This is a good ballance between "report anything no matter how fringe" and "don't report fringe".  If no or little note has been taken of the theory, we do not mention it.  On the other hand, if a particular theory has achieved enough notice, then we do.  Assuming a given theory has achieved enough notice ... we then have to move to the issue of how to word things when we report it.  That can not be dictated by a policy or guideline, because it will depend on the individual theory.  In other words, I see little reason to change the existing guideline. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Fyslee. We have to be careful not to let a bias on the topic color our evaluation of the source, but we should hold such extraordinary claims to extraordinary standards. I will say, however, that this needs some tempering. For example, some 'fringe' has a longer history, sometimes a history where a much larger part of the world adhered to something, like 'flat earthers'. In such a storied historic coontext about a fringe topic, the 'extraordinary sources' thing may not be needed, the long historical context can be adequate sourcing for the basic belief, and only a write-up of the 'proof' of a flat earth needs to be held to the higher standard. My understanding is that Plasma Cosmology] had a similar wider following at a time. Similarly there, the historic context of the beleif and debunking could be covered by normal sourcing; only the 'this is still true' section, countering the debunking, would need extraordinary sourcing. My point, to sum up, is that while the 'extraordinary sourcing' is good, it must be applied ONLY in the context of the claim itself, not the article, to become a viable and responsible addition to FRINGE and to our general ideas of good sourcing. Think of it as a scalpel, not a claymore. ThuranX (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because one author years ago claimed that "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" doesn't make it a Law. It's like here, it's one man's opinion. Just because, for example, Bach may have said something about music in A minor is superior than music in B flat, it doesn't mean that only music in A minor is important and correct -- nor to dictate music composition and theory. The danger of debunkery, compared to actual Skeptism, is that they take things so literally and have a tunnel vision on quotes and quips. Then they wrap everything around this framework, and refuse to see anything but this scripture. You guys are trying to wrap things around that guys idea (it's nothing more than the Bach example above), and trying to force the rest of the universe into it. Much like the Church with the belief that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Step back and look at the larger picture, as you're not helping science (science actually doesn't need it's own Blackwater anyway). You're pushing a man's personal view about science and your own biases about a subject, not the principles of science itself. FResearcher (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * WP:NPA. This is a formal warning. Comparing those who support serious sourcing rules are not a paramilitary hit squad, nor are we fascists about what we're supporting. Next NPA vio will be reported for a block request. ThuranX (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is a formal warning to you: if you take things out of context as you did, I will ask for a block request on you, as you're trying to start war, by doing so. I'm very careful in how I write, and that is misconstruing it way beyond what I wrote to cause a stir -- and you know it. You know it, because you went for the big guns right from the start. You don't issue warnings (as you're no admin). Get back to the topic, or let's get the admins in. Because you have to answer for your second commentary below, too. Want to dance? Let's go. FResearcher (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * From a certain perspective science as a whole is simply one aspect of human culture and scientific therories are beliefs with cultural impact, as are ideas derived from philosphy, religion, fiction, or elsewhere. A belief's notability is a measure of its influence -- how much people of different kinds have discussed it and to what extent it has been part of the culture. This is independent of what realm the idea comes from or what people's basis for believing or discussing it is. (An idea that people have discussed substantially is notable, whether or not anyone believes it). I feel this guideline could better take into account the cultural aspect of notability. It could be more helpful in dealing with pure culture subjects (For example, how do we determine when an interpretation of a novel, or a political or theological perspective is fringe?) In addition, when an idea has both cultural and scientific aspects or has potential notability (or not) in multiple circles, it might be useful to talk more about the cultural aspects. Many historical ideas came to have a significant impact on society independent of later rejection on scientific grounds. For example, to this day we still say "the sun rises" and the "sun sets", and use many other phrases refering to the sun with vocabulary based on concepts originating in a geocentric worldview. This cultural influence of geocentric thought on language, among other cultural impacts, deserves mention in the Flat earth and related articles. As another example, the Logic article indicates that the question of whether the rules of logic are independent of or determined by empirical observation is currently a hot topic in Metaphysics. Whether Logic can best be regarded as a science or as some other kind of human knowledge depends to some degree on which side of the debate one takes. The very question of what science's proper boundaries are is sometimes still an open question.  Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How can one know whether something is fringe withing some area of knowledge? One needs to actually do some research and figure it out. How many people actually do that before putting a label 'fringe'? Why require more exceptional sources for something one thinks is fringe than for something one does not think is fringe. Why not require exceptional sources for everything. For non-fringe ideas they will be easier to find, so there is no contradiction here.
 * How many books are indexed in Google Book search -- commonly used tool for finding references? There are more than 30 million books only in US libraries . How do you determine fringe from non fringe authors? Lets make an A PRIORI list of conditions one needs to meet to be non-fringe, and than lets exclude all others even when they support mainstream ideas.
 * How many scientific papers are in Google Scholar search? There are hundreds of thousands of papers published only in open access journals. What about 15000 selected journals in the ISI database many of which are unaccessible for search to general public? How do you figure out which of these are fringe journals as some of you are doing that too. I suggest lets make a big A PRIORI list of these fringe journals so that Wikipedia editors don't waste time and energy reading and citing those. In the same time, those won't be able to be quoted even for mainstream ideas. In the same time, if non-fringe journal talks about fringe idea, it won't be able to be disputed as a reference.
 * EDIT: even open access journals are not entirely searchable, nor indexed by Google, like for example this random paper
 * How can you claim something is extraordinary claim and fringe until you actually do Assume Good Faith and show some Scientific Open Mindedness and actually try to see if idea is fringe within the topic and who writes about it. Even then, how do you do it without having access to most of this human knowledge?
 * Even news articles cannot be searched fully, as they disappear after a while from mainstream websites like CNN. Therefore, after a while certain news can only be found in less popular news sites.
 * Lakinekaki (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because that's how the "game" is setup. First, if you question the status quo, you must provide the evidence. Then when you do, they have the luxury of just discounting it, because they are the status quo. They really don't need to have any rules of engagement, as the status quo can change them to meet their needs. As the point is -- "don't question the status quo". The whole debunkery movement is to stall time, and wear those who question convention down. What started as an effort to self-correct one extreme, turned into yet an extreme in it's own right (much like any political movement). You can see here, how it works in a nutshell. All talk about rules of order; "professionalism and respect"; and unbiased coverage. But just pull back the curtain, and you'll see the real story -- arguing over the very things they even asked for to be evidence. Once that's finished, onto another tactic. If you survive this process longer than six months you're a hero, because if the status quo doesn't break you, they'll run you out of Dodge (but they'll still won't win the shoot out, as time has a funny way of self-correcting the extremes. The only saving grace for the trouble). FResearcher (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * Remember, however, that the "prestige" or "goodness" of sources applies to any science, and notability is established by impact. What I mean is this: mainstream science or not, we have to be careful to cite secondary sources to establish notability in the first place. The Awesome Peer Reviewed Journal of Junk Science may be defensible as a good solid source, but its a primary source. Take homeopathy for example; the fact that it is easy to substantiate in secondary sources the number of practitioners and how many people use it and believe in it, as well as its impact, is what drives its notability. The "truth" or "quality of research" behind it is irrelevant to its notability. Now, the argument comes in as to whether or not it is taken seriously in scientific articles is another matter, and one that gets ugly since it really takes subject matter experts to wade through the arguments and sources and sort it out. The problem with sorting through sources is this: if we label a claim as "extraordinary" and then demand extraordinary proof, are we risking applying a double standard to things that do or do not fit our own preconceptions? Granted that in certain subjects I am an SME (Subject Matter Expert), I am only one in a narrow range of fields, and this is true of everyone who is an SME. HatlessAtless (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember also that conventional medicine has just started to research alternative medicine, and it's sub-specialities like homeopathy (only within the last decade opening an office at the NIH, even). Heck, it finally relented on the chiropractors. It even had to rely on research from Germany on St. John's Wort, because American medicine just didn't persue it. Because of this, and because US medicine is just exploring non-conventional medicine, there will be a shortage of documentation in these journals. Debunkers know this, and is another reason they stress it (and boy, they sure don't like publications from foreign countries). And if someone does bring up something about St. John's Wort used to treat, say, depression, and drags resources from German publications, you can rest assured this group will declare it invalid. That's my point. Nothing is good enough. There's a lot of good talking about "fairness" and "good faith", but when the history is a mile long otherwise, it takes a t-a-d more than written assurances now. FResearcher (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * FResearcher, stop painting the supporters of fringe as martyrs to a repressive regime. All that shit about the 'status quo' being an immovable object and a game against you is nonsense. As for Lakinekaki's claim that "nothing is fringe until we prove that it is fringe, but we can only prove fringe by treating nothing as fringe, and if we can prove it's fringe, we've done things wrong so we have to start all over' is asinine. It's very simple. Covering some subjects as if they had credibility when they demonstratively don't, and justifying it by invoking NPOV, is not how things ARE done, and it's not how things SHOULD be done. Most fringe topics exist in WP:WALLED GARDENS, and if we were to treat them seriously, we would pretty much have to write from within such a garden, and hope that people outside would be able to see the invisible walls. That's not reasonable, as we write for the REAL world, the one outside those gardens, where science is based on repeatable results, hypothesis and experimentation. We're simply trying to make sure that there is a reasonable formulation for fringe topics to be presented in a neutral way while being clear about the fact that there is no science which does not discount them, no proof that they work that isn't from the advocates, and so on. You know all this, but continue to disingenuously protest and assert that there's no such thing as fringe and we're all biased. At this point, I think you know your behavior is obstructionist in nature, and not interested in helping formulate solid reliable standards for good sourcing. As such, I see no reason why, after the obstructing and personal attacks, we should bother to listen to you at all anymore. ThuranX (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Either provide evidence I'm, "painting the supporters of fringe as martyrs to a repressive regime", or retract it and apologize for again exaggerating my words. You can't have it both ways, ThuranX, and especially without evidence. FResearcher (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * "Because that's how the "game" is setup. First, if you question the status quo, you must provide the evidence. Then when you do, they have the luxury of just discounting it, because they are the status quo. They really don't need to have any rules of engagement, as the status quo can change them to meet their needs." there ya go. Your words. Now stop it, and address the actual problems and how to improve them, or get out of the way. ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? Because that isn't what you accused. Now, either find that evidence that I said I supported "fringe as martyrs to a repressive regime" or pull your accusation. Don't let that paranoia become your prisoner, and certainly don't pigeon-hole me into, again, what YOU believe. That, again, isn't facts. Now you either find that evidence as you wrote, or start housekeeping and pull this accusation. If you don't, this will be taken up with whatever maze Wikipedia has to fix it. As that libel stops here. Again, no double standards. FResearcher (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * Please drop the personal attacks FR, and take this tedious exchange to your talk page or somewhere else more appropriate. Your claim of libel is getting close to a legal threat - I suggest you strike it. Verbal   chat  10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! A WP:LEGAL Violation! Strike it now, and drop the personal attacks you're making all over this thread, or I'll find an admin to follwo up on your legal threat. ThuranX (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and please escalate it to whatever Admin noticeboard. I'm new, so don't know which one to pick! It's about time this is duked out at a more appropriate venue. Want to see the latest conspiracy theory, anyway (it maybe even better than the X-Files!). FResearcher (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]

(unindent) Note that FResearcher been given an indefinite block for blatantly misrepresenting himself at WP:ANI as a newcomer and then showing that he/she obviously was not a newbie. Would troll be too strong a word? Doug Weller (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New relevant ArbCom ruling
The ArbCom just passed "Discretionary Sanctions" on pseudoscience topics. This guideline should probably be updated to reflect that.

4) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

It was passed as an addendum to the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case, but I believe it applies to all editors who participate in pseudoscience articles, as that is what the discussion (including complaints) centered around. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support its inclusion. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support inclusion.ThuranX (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The request in which it was filed was a request to amend two cases (that one and Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). Coren, who is clerking it, is contacting the committee to sort out which case it really should be under, as there is a subtle difference in which admins can enforce it between the two cases.  It does indeed apply to all editors on all sides of all fences that edit in these topic areas.  Reference probably merits inclusion here, but with what wording?  GRBerry 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't support because of this is what happens. When most editors are shown the door for much less, one protected editor can continue to abuse the system at will. Making such a guideline really worthless, as the bleed of editors will continue to be one sided. FResearcher (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)  [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * Don't impose because ScienceApologist gets blocked for incivility a lot? That's a lot like this, isn't it?ThuranX (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the nucleus of the dispute is over the "purpose of Wikipedia", I'm not sure it will be easy to consistently enforce. Still, it's relevant to the topic and as long as we're listing ArbCom remedies, it should probably go in. MastCell Talk 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't support it when it was proposed and don't think it will solve anything now. It'll probably create more (my admin is bigger than your admin) problems. Still, if it's meant to apply to everyone it should be included as fair warning (whatever text that may be, the above is just copy and pasted from the decision). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please place it here rather than on the main guideline page. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Without any reference to any particular person, it seems unproductive--the ordinary sanctions which require consensus of administrators have failed, because we don't really had consensus about when to impose them. ArbCom has similarly failed to agree on definite sanctions that do any good. So now they propose letting individual administrators who may be unaware of the problem impose them individually. A recipe for wheel-warring if followed literally, or at the best for continued non-consensus. The one thing which is positive,is to endorse the current feeling at AN/I about the usefulness of topic bans, rather than total blocks--except that the people most involved regard them as identical if broad, and they arent all that useful if narrow.  DGG (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

draft version of complete reconstruction up and running
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HatlessAtlas/fringe_rework

Please take a look above or in the guideline history (included for ease of diff) of my proposed rebuild of this guideline. I created it to address what I see as some aspects of the way this guideline is built that prevent it from being a useful barrier to editors who are using fringe pages to POV-push. I have preserved much of the material in the existing guideline, but I have made it more internally consistent and presented it as a specific reading of wikipedia policy in terms of fringe theory rather than as a set of specific guidance points that are obviously hindsight solutions to edit wars. In particular, I have done the following:


 * The extant guideline harps on quality measurements of primary sources. This puts editors in the bad position of having to evaluate "peer reviewed journals" for validity, which is beyond the expertise of most wikipedia editors. This doesn't help anyone. I have recast this guideline to be more in line with the core policy WP:NOR, in particular, the part where it explicitly states Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources..


 * The extant guideline approaches different topics at different points with different degrees of emphasis. This opens the guideline up to argument and wikilawyering since the different emphasis can create apparent conflicts of priority within the guideline sections. I have rebuilt the guideline to say much the same thing as it had, but maintain the same tone within the guideline, so as to eliminate any aparrent conflicts.


 * The extant guideline reads as an admonition to editors pointed to this page. While that is exactly what the page should be, this guideline will be more effective and more useful if that is not what this page sounds like. I have corrected this by maintaining an even handed tone throughout the draft guideline. While it is intended to have the same intended effect, maintaining an evenhanded tone should be more successful.


 * The extant guideline does not have a coherent thesis. While NPOV is invoked initially, most of the guideline deals with NOR, RS, and NOTABILITY. I have rebuilt the introduction to provide a clear thesis, as well as provided clear scope and parameters for the guideline.


 * The extant guideline does not give editors a useful heads up as to the what they can expect to encounter. I have made the introduction spell out clearly what editors can expect.


 * The structure of the proposed guideline provides editors a clear and useful way of guiding tendentious editors to this page. It allows an editor or administrator to point to a specific policy, and then explain exactly how and why the TE is violating that policy in terms of the guidance provided here. By being careful with internal consistency, there is less recourse to other sections of the same policy to conflict with such an admonition.

Please tell me what you think, provide comments, make suggested changes to the draft on my userpage, etc. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One item I note which I think many can agree on is restoring the examples. I'll hold off a bit on other items, till i really try to work out what was moved, what was really pulled out, and what was really added in. Two read-throughs isn't enough for that. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had an issue with the examples as they were presented in that they appeared to me to be pulling the guideline into what was recently, or what might have the potential to be, a hot edit war and an active dispute. I have used examples where appropriate in the text of the draft guideline, but I believe strongly that we should give the guideline a bedrock-solid foundation in historical and completely non contentious and settled examples. Then we don't risk this guideline being made part of the battle instead of the guideline being the solution to the battle (even if its an administrator pointing to a clear subsection in a block justification). If we have consensus for examples, however, toss in draft ones to the discussion, please, that's why I am posting it for discussion. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this version does a fine job of defining what a fringe theory is. There are really three cases where fringe theories are a problem for editors:


 * Non-notable fringe theories. These are easily dealt with using existing notability guidelines - nothing more need be said here.
 * Notable fringe theories that are being placed into mainstream scientific articles. This version does a reasonable job of explaining what we should do - but I feel it would be better to cut the discussion to the bone and come out with a small set of clearcut guidelines about what editors should do when this happens.  (IMHO: Move the fringe theory out into a separate article - link to it with a BRIEF statement in the mainstream article - then treat the fringe theory as a problem by itself).  But the guidelines laid out in this revised guideline is adequate in saying that...it could just be a clearer, simpler statement of what we should actually do.
 * Notable fringe theories that are in articles of their own - where the following applies:
 * There is ample coverage by supporters of the theory, ranging from it's original author and from hundreds - perhaps thousands - of other documents, including perhaps even TV coverage and mention in non-scientific places such as newspapers - but none of which is in mainstream/peer-reviewed science journals.
 * There is zero coverage by scientists who could easily debunk the theory.
 * The theory can trivially be debunked by referenced mainstream scientific theory - but only by violating either WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS (the last is the hardest to avoid).


 * That third case is by far the biggest problem. Take (for example) the current rush of shysters who are selling "hydrogen fuel enhancement" gizmos that claim to make your car use 60% less gasoline by fully combusting the gasoline and thereby eliminating unburned fuel.  There is an unending tidal wave of documents by the proponents.  Their claims have been seen on TV and in respectable newspapers - where they are treated as true - but without critical evaluation.  It's trivial for me to debunk them by pointing out (for example) referenced, respectable documents that show that only about 2% of the fuel in a typical car goes unburned - so a 60% fuel economy improvement is impossible.  But we can't say that - it's OR.  We can maybe come up with other scientific reasons why these things won't work - a combination of scientific principles will lead to a clear debunking of these systems - but then we fall afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS.  (That's a particularly nasty requirement to meet - it means that no matter how much scientific references you can come up with that relate to parts of the problem - unless you can find one single article that "puts it all together" - you're guilty of WP:SYNTHESIS violation.  The problem is that scientists don't need to write proper articles that "put it all together" because the action of putting together well-understood existing principles to come to an obvious conclusion is exactly the kind of thing that'll cause mainstream journal editors to reject your paper from their journal!


 * So the Wikipedia guidelines almost always conspire to prevent us from telling the mainstream scientific truth...and that's a HUGE difficulty in writing a decent encyclopedia that doesn't end up being full of crap written by nut jobs.


 * What our WP:FRINGE guideline needs is complete and highly specific statements of what editors who wish to keep this class of notable and (seemingly) well referenced articles under control so as to avoid undue weight. Don't tell us what NOT to do - we already know that.  Tell us what precisely we're ALLOWED to do.  What is the official Wikipedia solution to writing well-balanced articles "of the third kind"...because right now, I'm screwed at every turn.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first, there is a reason for WP:SYNTHESIS, and I agree with it and the difficulties it provides. To respond to your example, automobile engines only operate at about 20% thermodynamic efficiency; they are governed by Carnot efficiency, related to the maximum combustion temperature in the engine. To say that a 60% fuel efficiency increase is impossible is quite a stretch. It is not feasible with today's technology, and certainly not economical, as high temperature materials approach the cost of gold, that is an entirely separate discussion. However, if you tack on the word fraud to those searches, you'll find most of those claims debunked or challenged. Generally, if you can't debunk such a claim by finding a reliable source that states so explicitly, you're either not looking hard enough (because there are plenty of consumer protection websites that debunk them just fine) or they're so non-notable that they can be challenged on those grounds. The history channel did a documentary that explicitly labeled those devices as crap! Additionally, many of the "reports" are parroted press releases. By emphasizing independence, secondary sources, and impact, it removes the validity of parroted press releases as a valid source.


 * In either case, my draft guideline deals with exactly these cases. By explicitly describing the two different notability criteria, it is easy to differentiate why something might merit an article, but when that is used as a wedge to force a fringe theory in a mainstream article, just point to the notability discussion and state that the author has failed to present sufficient evidence of impact to justify its inclusion. Secondly, if the editor were to get several sources from cnn, the new york times, and the washington post taking the theory seriously, then we would be obligated to reevaluate the status of the theory and whether it deserved mention or not. (and for fringe theories there won't be, see my incentive description)HatlessAtless (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As an aside - as a committed atheist - I subscribe to the view that we should not give undue respect to religions. I therefore strongly object to the section that says that religious articles be treated somehow differently from other fringe theories.  Creation theories are a matter of mainstream science - when a religious article claims that the universe was created by some magical being 4000 years ago, it's just as bad as Stanley Meyer's claim to have produced a car that runs on tap water.  I don't see ANY reason to treat them differently.  Hence, there most certainly should be sections in articles on religion that state that these are fringe theories and that mainstream science does not support their claims.  (However, I'm realistic enough to realise that there are a lot more religious nuts than there are free energy nuts - and this kind of thing is unlikely to gain consensus). SteveBaker (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's one thing for a Wikipedia article to say, "In the tradition of religion X, the world was formed 4,000 years ago." It's entirely different to say "The world was formed 4,000 years ago." I would agree that the latter is inappropriate, but not necessarily the former. WP:UNDUE is helpful here. Antelan  06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference in my mind between a "creation myth" and a "creation theory". A "creation myth" makes no claim of being actually true, and there is no need for scientific debunking of such a myth. We don't need to go and state, for example, "there is no scientific evidence for a historical person as the source of the god Cronus"; there is no claim as such. I threw that section in there to point out that things that are understood to be nonliteral from the outset are already described as "myth" or "article of faith" in their introduction. As such, we detract from the encyclopedic content (and piss editors and readers off) when we insult their intelligence by telling them twice that a myth isn't necessarily true; first when we point out its a myth, and then second when we point out that there is no scientific evidence to support it. Let me be clear however, I agree with Antelan above, and should a theory like young earth creationism make scientific claims, then a scientific dispute section is warranted, but only if those scientific claims are notable enough for mention. In a nutshell, a everybody already knows myths and religious stories are not literal truth, and do not claim to be. As such, they do not need to be formally and scientifically examined; doing so itself could violate WP:UNDUE with respect to historical science vs literature. HatlessAtless (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I caution you against developing the draft on a separate page. Opponents tend to ignore it until it is copied on the main page. I encourage you to incrementally improve the existing guideline. I do support the view that the guideline needs significant rework, after my experience with the cold fusion page. So I do support your effort. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank HatlessAtlas for working on this proposal, but reserve comment until I can review it more thoroughly.
 * Reply to SteveBaker - as I understand the current guideline, the advice for your first situation would be to say "reliable source says that a claim of 60% is made. Typically, 2% of fuel is lost to incomplete combustion,(cite)". Similarly, our electromagnetic hypersensitivity article (usually) includes a statement to the effect that a great number of highly reliable scientific bodies have judged the typical exposure levels to be extraordinarily safe. For your second point, I concur that religious sources should never be cited to claims about reality, but they are socially significant enough that it is probably worth devoting a section to making this explicit. The policy on neutrally describing any topic applies equally to all articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As this is a fundamental rebuild of the extant guideline, I wanted to build a go-ahead consensus before making the incremental changes. I felt that doing such a massive rebuild would be inappropriate without building consensus here. Thanks for the support! HatlessAtless (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I advise you against that. Let me clarify: I think it's perfectly OK to request comments on your draft, but working on it towards consensus would be a loss of your time: better to work on the article itself directly. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

''The extant guideline does not give editors a useful heads up as to the what they can expect to encounter. I have made the introduction spell out clearly what editors can expect.'' And even if it did, how do you address a situation like this? This is one of the main bone of contentions with using sources, since on the face of that link it's factual, but it's not the absolute truth a third party reader should know. The editor above knows this (he's no country bumpkin), but tries to pass off a bias into a body of knowledge as an absolute truth. The absolute truth is, the NIH didn't even have a Alternative Medicine office to investigate non-conventional fields of medicine until a few years ago. That means mainstream medicine didn't even have a chance to embrace the concepts among peers, and the medical publications reflect it (no great body of studies to date). Technically correct isn't absolutely correct, and those who know the background gringe at "technicals" are being passed as "the fact or facts". When even theories are openly talked about as, "Yes, theories are fact", editors are going down a slippery slope of double standards. Where convention can state "theories are facts", and non-convention is laden with the "exceptional evidence" collar, even if a theory (or publication) is thoroughly vetted. FResearcher (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * I'll remind you to read WP:V. We do not deal with absolute truth. We deal with what can be verified. If something is factually inaccurate and you can substantiate that, correct it. Complaining about people making rediculous claims is counterproductive, since they'll make them no matter how good the guideline is. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I already disagree with many points in the draft, for example While fringe doesn't mean pseudoscience necessarily, fringe does mean at the outer edges of science. It's entirely about levels of acceptance. What's written there ultimately says to take your pet theory and ignore WP:WEIGHT if it's been published in a scientific journal. Many fringe theories get published in scientific journals. Parapsychology appears in many scientific journals. It's still fringe. Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia only reports on levels of acceptance whether they are fringe or not. At cold fusion there was an RfC on whether it was fringe. The consensus was that it is. This novel reinterpretation of minority views in science places cold fusion as a mainstream idea when it isn't. Both parapsychology and cold fusion lack a theoretical framework for the theory. It's still often explored in journals as a speculative idea, but it's not accepted in the mainstream exactly because it lacks a framework. It's alternative. Fringe. Until it gets mainstream acceptance. Excluding minority views in science as not fringe (at least provide a source for that argument) opens the door to wikilawyering of pseudoscientific topics: "No, it really is science, just a minority view, thus not fringe".


 * I fundamentally disagree that we should be making content decisions on specific topics categories as well. This is a guideline meant to apply to a broad range of fringe theories. In the draft it excludes Book of Genesis as a topic that should be covered as a work of ancient literature, not as a fringe topic, ignoring the peripheral theories surrounding the BoG, eg. biblical literalism. Biblical literalism is a fringe theory, whether it's promoted as science (creationism, intelligent design) or not. It's a fringe theory in religious circles as well. I may be wrong, but I don't even think the Catholic church officially endorses Genesis as a literal account. You start listing topics where WP:FRINGE doesn't apply and you end up with wikilawyers saying "It says in FRINGE that Book of Genesis isn't fringe" ignoring the intent to treat it simply as literature. Flip it around, and you've got, why should it be treated just as literature? These peripheral discussions are important too, and sometimes have nothing to do with it being a literary work. Biblical history, for example, doesn't treat it as literary. Where do we get the authority to define it as literary?


 * Finally, I haven't seen where anyone's made a good case that WP:FRINGE is broken, much less needs a substantial rewrite. Instead, you have an RfC where there's an overwhelming positive response to it, where some are even saying it should be policy. Do an RfC on whether it should be rewritten to see if there's any consensus for that, before trying to get consensus for specific massive changes. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 13:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please excuse the bold, but this is an important point that needs to stick out: Where's the consensus that it needs a complete reconstruction? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this question needs to be debated. I don't think the article needs a full rewrite. I agree that some science may be fringe, like cold fusion, but science nonetheless (another RfC concluded that cold fusion is not pseudoscience).  Nevertheless, I see 2 areas of improvement with the current guideline.
 * The guideline should be made compatible with what the ArbComm unanimously said about significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." That decision should be clearly stated in the guideline.
 * What sources do we need to establish the "mainstream" view ? Editorial comments elaborating on "what most scientists think" is not adequate, because most scientists do not write on fringe topics in reliable, published sources.  Instead of the sociological consensus of scientists, the mainstream view can only be the scientific consensus as documented in journal papers or official statements from scientific bodies, if we can find it. As an example, the Intelligent_design article gives several statements from official scientific bodies.  Cold fusion is the perfect example where official statements are vastly different from "what most scientists think": we ought to follow the official statements in that case.  If we can't find any such statements, and papers have been published in reputable scientific journals on the topic, we ought to consider the topic as scientific, but unresolved, unless a reliable written source is found to the contrary and even if most scientists think otherwise.  Pcarbonn (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Number 2 is easy: WP:RS. We don't need to rewrite the guideline for that. I'm not opposed to putting Number 1 in there as long as it is metered by a referece to WP:WEIGHT. That is, although Wikipedia should not characterize legitimate scientific alternatives as pseudoscience, they should still be proportionately represented by prominence. As you concurred, neither of these demonstrate that WP:FRINGE is broken. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved my second comment to the WP:RS talk page. Concerning the first one, I would suggest to scan the ArbComm's decisions related to Fringe theories, and use them as a significant source for this guideline.  This decision is another example of decisions that should feed the guideline and be indicated as a source.  Just as articles are based on reliable sources, guidelines should reflect ArbComm's decisions.  Pcarbonn (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I don't know all the intrinsic details others are duking out (as it's too long of a read, frankly), but from what I've read generally, the problem is the definition and it's application. From my own view of the debate, and why I stepped in, the problem is more about how the sourcing is currently and will be used in the "field" (my example above is but one episode that this "in the field" application of sourcing can be used, and not as truthfully as it needs to be. Biases are entering the equation). Currently, "Fringe" as a label is being used as a club, to mock non-conventional theories/ideas. Personally, I would've preferred that the words "Extreme" or "Edge" would've been used as a definition (as it's done in computing), as it accurately defines it, as even lay people can understand it as being non-conventional without the stigma, too. BUT, political forces want to use stigma to keep the status quo the status quo. Don't feel Wikipedia should be used as a gatekeeping service, but as a gateway for folks to start their research. Knowledge can't begin and end at one source -- it's ever expanding -- and readers need an index to research sources further. One that is fair to both warring factions. FResearcher (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC) [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * You're talking about editor behaviors. Guidelines are independent of bad behavior. They represent "best practices" independently of how users may or may not abuse them. Editors abuse WP:NPOV all the time. I recommend dispute resolution versus rewriting policies and guidelines to suit your side of the debate. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm talking policy. The reason to have policies is to keep disputes to a few, and if disputes occur they occur due to definitions not finely tuned to new material, not as a policy itself. Technically correct sources aren't truly correct sources, and for an encyclopedia that strives for accuracy, the sources have to be as truthful as possible. This is a must not only for the casual reader, but for researchers who must have pristine sources of information. Give any editor this much wiggle room makes the making of this proposal a folly, as it's only a guideline with no teeth but constant dispute resolutions (that option was never designed to be used as a catch all for faults of policies, anyway). Editors will just Wiki law it half the time, ignore it the rest, otherwise. Editors need to know the law, and the law needs to be quite clear, and to the point of what happens when Editors stray. These petty wars are created because it isn't clear. FResearcher (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)  [Disruptive comments by indef blocked user stricken through.]


 * FResearcher... may I suggest that you read The rules are principles... an extreamly good essay that explains why our policies and guidelines are not "the Law". Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to simply drop references to specifics, otherwise we can get into a big can of worms. Briefly, Arbcom's pseudoscience decision never said that claims to be "fact" have to be scientifically based. It only said that claims to be "science" have to be scientifically based. The distinction is a critical one, and Arbcom made it carefully. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nealparr, I don't need consensus to state what I feel (that the guideline needs a rebuild) and second, I don't need consensus to propose a rebuilt guideline. What I am hoping is that this will generate discussion and that the good points of my draft will be used to improve the guideline. Since this discussion has rapidly hit TL/DR, I think thatr I'll make my changes for discussion piece by piece now that editors are aware of what I am proposing and several have expressed support for my effort, if not any of the specific changes. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * True, you don't need consensus to offer suggestions. Sorry if I implied that you do : ) It would help, at least for me, if you presented the changes one at a time, perhaps a section for each core change you'd like to discuss (in the spirit of TL/DR, which I agree with). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction
''Fringe theories, simply put, are claims that have not been taken seriously by mainstream academic thought and publication. Fringe theories may be expressly classed as such, or may be classed as 'implausible' or pseudo-science, -history, etc. Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. ''

''Fringe theories also happen to be one of the most active areas of dispute on wikipedia. This guideline could be thought of as the "Geneva Convention" of for disputes about fringe theories. This guideline seeks to explore and provide concrete guidance on how to find the right middle ground when discussing fringe theories. ''

''When editing the wikipedia we must remain neutral, we must not present original research and most importantly of all, we must say only what can be verified. Proper handling of fringe theories requires adhering to these rules, and all of the other rules of discourse. Finally, wikipedia is popular, but at the same time, it means that it attracts people who want to push some particular viewpoint. ''

''Wikipedia is, by construction and conception, a somewhat cold place for fringe theories. This is not a place for them to gain publicity or attention, nor will mainstream criticism be downplayed. In Wikipedia, fringe theories are judged only on their impact as can be justified in independent, secondary sources and the prestige and validity of their primary sources. No attempt to manufacture any kind of credibility beyond what the best sources show is tolerated. By the same token, credibility established by reliable secondary sources will not be improperly suppressed.''

I think that this has several benefits over the existing intro. First and foremost, it serves to clearly explain what this guideline will be doing, and second, provides a clear statement to editors as to the editing nature of the environment in which those articles appear. It provides a coherent thesis for this policy, as opposed to the more stream-of-consciousness and less coherent version that exists now.HatlessAtless (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, thanks SA for cleaning up and improving the language of my wording. I like how you generalized it to fringe topics outside of science. HatlessAtless (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The opening line, "not been taken seriously by mainstream academic thought and publication", is a relative way of putting it. Many fringe theories were taken seriously before being discounted or debunked, just as seriously. So, then, if we drop the "seriously" we have "not been taken ??? by mainstream academics". Not been taken, what? Not been evaluated? Many of them have. Not been discussed? Many of them have. Not been...? What we're left with is reporting on their levels of acceptance, because that is something we can objectively measure and is applicable to all theories, fringe or not. Not surprisingly, this reflects core policy, WP:UNDUE. That's what the current guideline was written to reflect, the applicable policy that directs us to report on levels of acceptance. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many fringe theories were taken seriously before being discounted or debunked, just as seriously Wikipedia changed to reflect changes in scientific consensus. Read WP:NTEMP. Wikipedia represents the current state of human knowledge. If you disagree with the past tense of the statement, then don't ridicule it, suggest that it be changed to present tense. (I would be ok with a present tense formulation) At least that would have been a constructive response. We're getting to the same point in our mutual thought process (proper application of WP:UNDUE), but I'll refer you to the (imperfect but significant) consensus I built around this type of definition in the discussion in the subsection several topics above this one. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not ridiculing it, at all. What I'm saying is that no matter how we switch it around or reframe the issue, we always come back to reporting on level of acceptance. WP:NTEMP means that something is notable if it has been notable. Flat Earth, for example, is notable because it was everyone's world view at some point in the past. Notability is entirely different than how we frame the topic. Today it is an extreme minority view, a fringe view. It's notable, we include it, but we frame it as a fringe view. We report both the level of acceptance in the past, while saying that it is an extreme minority view today. I'm not ridiculing your suggestions. I'm pointing out significant problems with them. Just rewording it to present tense doesn't fix those problems. The problem is, and always was, how do you legitimately write articles on fringe theories. That's a level of acceptance issue, not notability. Paranormal topics, wildly popular, extremely notable, not accepted by any scientific or academic bodies to anything more than a minor degree. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ridicule was a poor choice of wording. This is a good discussion and I don't want to escalate. I disagree with you strongly, but I did not mean to imply incivility. Apologies.


 * Its easy to write articles on fringe theories. We explain the theory, and explain why the mainstream hasn't adopted it. We source our statements, inform the reader, and that is that. There's not really that much special to do on the topical articles for fringe theories. The sticky part is how much visibility fringe theories get outside of their little box. But remember, we're not just dealing with fringe theories here, we're dealing with all kinds of minority opinions, since there is a spectrum including fringe, tiny minority, small minority, significant minority, large minority, small majority, large majority, and overwhelming majority. A theory or worldview may be any of those. Remember, we don't make a-priori judgments on a theory, we simply let the sources cited by the editors making claims speak for themselves. By definition, if we simply follow that process faithfully we end up in perfect compliance with WP:UNDUE. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the points that you wrote in the above comment (except the part that says it's easy). I just don't agree with the wording of your actual proposed wording for the guideline. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What fringe theories aren't

In the case of scientific theories, there are several types of minority opinions that should not be labeled "fringe". This is not an exhaustive list, and there are no firm requirements. These categories are instead intended to provide guidance as to some alternative types of minority opinions. By replacing the word "scientific" with another classification, such as "historical" or "medical", these viewpoints can be extended beyond the scope of simple science.


 * Nothing should be labeled "fringe" in an article without a reliable source. If a source exists, most certainly it should be labeled "fringe". If no such source exists it's not even an issue. Where this wording may confuse readers, however, is that the label of fringe actually occurs on talk pages, in discussions of what approach to take with an article. If there's a consensus to apply WP:FRINGE, the guideline, to a topic, that doesn't mean that the label belongs in the article, it just means that it's a minority opinion and we're going to apply the guideline written for dealing with minority opinions. It's not a matter of applying pejorative labels. It's a matter of applying appropriate guidelines. Where this may further confuse readers is when it says "should not be labeled 'fringe'", they may take that as it should not be treated as a minority opinion. That would violate WP:UNDUE. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is clear here that we are taking slightly different conceptions of the scope of this guideline. I am taking a slightly more expansive (and consequently more useful) conception of this guideline. I see this guideline as being useful as part of the debate as to whether a theory is or is not fringe. To use your verb, we could "apply" WP:FRINGE to any theory or topic, from Physics to time cube. In the case of the former, the guidance from my formulation would be that physics is mainstream science and may be treated as such. The time cube on the other hand would be a fringe theory and WP:FRINGE would provide additional suggestions on how to handle it. For my conception, another plausible name for this guideline could be WP:MINORITY. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As to your comment that if something is labeled as "fringe" in a reliable source, that topic should automatically be labeled fringe, I also disagree. At some point, some expert has likely used the word "fringe" regarding a lot of various topics. We have wide consensus that just because something appears once in a reliable source does not necessarily make it true. If something is labeled fringe again and again, then yes, but single mentions less so. Fringe is also a pejorative word on wikipedia, and so we must be more careful about its use than other words. Finally, to somehow go from the idea that something not classified as "fringe" is somehow "mainstream" goes against what I explicitly state in the section below. An editor going that far would be going beyond violating WP:UNDUE and would be grinding an ax. Tendentious editing of that level is such blatant POV pushing that it would be essentially vandalism, and could be handled as such. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, we're not looking at it the same way. Some physics is fringe. I thought I made that clear. There's actually tons of physics that is fringe. Just because it's physics, that doesn't make it mainstream not-fringe. Robert Jahn's experiments at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab were physics. It's been published in science journals. It is not mainstream. Many of David Bohm's theoretical physics is fringe. There's dozens of examples. Cold fusion is fringe. Just because it isn't pseudoscience, it's not all the sudden mainstream not-fringe. It's not all time cube stuff.


 * I didn't say that if something is labeled fringe in a source we should automatically call it that. I said "reliable source", implying notability and relevance, ie. reliable. Basically, we follow the sources. If sources say a topic is fringe, even if it is in science, it's at the outer edges of science. WP:FRINGE would apply. Plus, again, there's a difference between calling it fringe on a talk page and calling it fringe in an article. In an article, there needs to be sources that reflect that statement, it needs to be a notable view, relevant, and a number of other criteria. On the talk page it's a matter of judgement on whether this guideline applies to the topic. That's done by consensus on an article by article basis and it's a judgement made by editors rather than outside sources. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority scientific theories
Some extreme-minority theories are developed entirely within the realm of scientific publication. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are a perfect examples; in fact, most scientific breakthroughs started as a single publication, and had only a small amount of traction before adoption by the wider scientific or engineering community. Turbo codes and the Kalman filter began life as obscure publications in journals outside of their respective fields, and were not taken seriously for years after publication. Now they are a critical driver of many high-tech systems that could not work without them. Extreme-minority scientific theories that are published in respected, scientifically peer-reviewed journals and which conduct their work within the mainstream of science are fundamentally different from "fringe" theories. (Similar logic applies to fields outside of science, such as history.) While fringe theories may have notability but lack scientific traction, minority scientific theories have scientific traction but may or may not have established sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. This ties in closely with WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT PAPERS, WP:NOTE and WP:V.

When applying this test, be aware that in recent years, fringe groups have set up fringe journals, specifically to support their theories, and other journals attempt to publish "controversial" work, in order to stir up debate. Such work is usually held to far lower standards than in mainstream scientific or academic journals.

Likewise, some widespread, long-standing fringe theories may have a few scientific publications, while being widely agreed to be unscientific or highly implausible. A few scattered publications related to a widely-held fringe theory that mainly works outside of science is insufficient to make it a minority scientific theory.


 * See my points above about minority theories that have been developed within the realm of scientific publication but are nonetheless fringe. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That statement is dependent on how we define fringe. I am advocating we take a narrow definition of fringe (since the label of fringe is pejorative) and define a minority scientific viewpoint as neither fringe/extreme minority, not large/significant minority, and not mainstream/majority. If we restrict ourselves to "mainstream" and "fringe" we are doing ourselves a disservice, as without middle ground, we don't have any happy mediums to end up in and the consquent pressure will lead to worsening of edit wars, rather than quelling them. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to reiterate that "fringe" is an abstract term used on talk pages to determine whether or not this guideline applies. It's not a label used in actual articles without sourcing (I rarely see any article actually say "this is a fringe topic"). I posted below that "minority views" would be a better title, but that doesn't seem to get any support. We're stuck with "fringe". But again, that's not actual article content so it's not pejorative to the topic. "Fringe" is entirely about levels of acceptance and guidelines for articles where the topic has a low level of acceptance in academia. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonscientific worldviews
There are plenty of world views, belief systems, and sets of beliefs that are nonscientific. Fringe theories are only those that are presented as science literal fact. Claims that are made without relationship to science literal fact should be treated as cultural movements. It is unnecessary to handle in a scientific manner nonscientific world views or beliefs simply because they are nonscientific. This applies, for example, to the many creation myths that populate various religions, or as to the nature of many superstitions. Since they are not presented as science, and are treated as literary, religious, or mythological, there is no need for a scientific criticisms section in such articles, for example, or to demand peer-reviewed research into the scientific nature of such articles.

However, applications of worldviews, such as alternative medical systems faith healing, creationism, and the like, where the primary purpose of the application is to replace a scientific concept or medical treatments, should be discussed in terms of mainstream science. With medicine specifically, care should be taken not to present claims disputed by science as true.


 * Fringe theories are not only those presented as science. JFK conspiracies are fringe theories. That Jesus was an alien is a fringe theory. There's tons of pseudo-historical theories. Sometimes there is a need for scientific criticism in religious articles. The Shroud of Turin, as well as many other paranormal religious topics (faith healing, for example), all have truth-claims that such phenomena is real, material, and many of these phenomena have been put to scientific evaluation. In fact, the thing about "paranormal" is that it's the place where religious claims of actual physical reality bump heads with science. It's the friction point. There's been a lot of evaluation of paranormal claims by science, and a lot of debunkery. It'd be really weird to exclude such scientific evaluation just because the topic is religious. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * However, most of what you've listed have tried to use scientific means to support their contentions, or have had scientific debunkings. Most actual religion subjects don't really cross over, and shouldn't be held to such standards, as they are sociological topics, not scientific. ThuranX (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nealparr, Changing "science" to "literal fact" eliminates this concern. I disagree with your reading of the phrasing however. Faith healing makes a scientific claim; the claim is that "action X can cure disease Y". That is a testable, falsifiable scientific claim. The same is true of the shroud of turin. Those specific facts are testable, and if they have been tested then that is appropriate to include. Arguing somehow that a testable claim about the literal nature of reality should be given some kind of exemption requires a fundamental, willful misreading of this section. Most importantly, faith healing is described explicitly in this section as something that does not fall into the "nonscientific world view" section. Using that as an example makes me wonder if you even read it before you made your post. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A: You can tone down the rhetoric like "fundamental, willful misreading". B: Your change to "literal fact" much improves it. C: If you meant that I was supposed to take "alternative medical systems" as "faith healing", and that makes me willful, I'm sorry but they are separate things to me. By alternative medical, I assumed you meant holistic health, not faith healing. Herbs and whatnot are different from paranormal healing. Paranormal healing is widely regarded as not falsifiable, not testable, not scientific. Patient gets better. Is that some psychokinetic healing or a placebo effect? Dunno, can't test it. Changing it from "science" to "literal fact" fixes the problem because although these things are not falsifiable scientific claims, they are fact-claims. Thank you. Now please tone down the rhetoric. I'm not your enemy. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood my statement about willful misreading of my statement. I'm going to deescalate that since you took it personally. It was meant to point out that I explicitly stated the exact opposite of what you claimed, not intending to point a finger at you. As I said before, a testable, falsifiable claim that is to be taken as literal fact on reality is the purview of science. My frustration came because I was using an expansive description of faith healing in my statement, and your response was exactly the opposite of what the wording was intended to imply. We are also in agreement it seems, as to what this is supposed to be saying. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as an afterthought, I consider a "fact claim" to be a falsifiable claim. X cures Y is a testable and falsifiable claim. For the shroud of Turin to bear an impression of Jesus's face, it would have to be at least 1900-2100 years old. Again, that is a testable claim. What would you describe as a fact claim that cannot be examined in a falsifiable manner, and thus be a fact-claim that is not a falsifiable claim? HatlessAtless (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fact-claims and truth-claims come from a wide variety of interests, not all of them falsifiable, not all of them science. Many fact-claims don't have anything to do with empirical observation. A lot of it is experiential or some other basis, even anecdotal ("I swear I saw a UFO last night!"). Not everthing is testable. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked scientific theories
At any given time, one can search the internet and buy from fraudsters Vacuum energy or Cold fusion devices. Less than scrupulous individuals will use scientific research to cloak all sorts of things to sell in the garb of science. When they attract believers, the groups may take a life of their own. The fact that groups of misled individuals may have "theories" that share the same name as scientific research, this does not destroy the legitimacy of the scientific research. Great care must be taken in an article to separate the two and keep the reader aware of what is being described. If necessary, they can be treated in separate articles.

I'd like to add these sections as a primary section into the body of the guideline as a way of helping to properly classify almost-fringe schools of thought. This will serve two purposes. First, while it doesn't really change the tiny-minority restrictions, it allows editors to avoid the use of the label "fringe" which has become perjorative. Just as importantly, it steps the debate away from "fringe vs mainstream" and allows for middle ground. Non-mainstream views still don't get the weight of mainstream views, but at the same time, it also allows a space for theories that have minimal scientific traction, but not mainstream traction.HatlessAtless (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This one's good and I totally support its inclusion. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, it appears that the changes you instituted to this section appeared to eliminate the utility of the section by making it less explicit. Please walk through why you chose that wording? HatlessAtless (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
HatlessAtlas, you put your edits in while we're still discussing it, claiming "new introduction based on comments by multiple talk page threads, including widely supported improved definition of threads and more coherent guideline thesis."

What gives? What "wide support"? Is there some conversation other than this talk page that I'm missing? I haven't see wide support for your redefining of "Fringe" and what's more we're still talking about it. Did I miss a conversation or something? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what is "implausible"?
The major issue I have with this notion of have an official means of branding a subject as fringe is that the brand is arbitrary. I see terms such as "highly implausible" and wonder who is going to decide this?

Then I see: "Wikipedia is, by construction and conception, a somewhat cold place for fringe theories. This is not a place for them to gain publicity or attention, nor will mainstream criticism be downplayed. In Wikipedia, fringe theories are judged only on their impact as can be justified in independent, secondary sources and the prestige and validity of their primary sources. No attempt to manufacture any kind of credibility beyond what the best sources show is tolerated. By the same token, credibility established by reliable secondary sources will not be improperly suppressed." and the phrase, "in order to stir up debate." The assumption is that people are foisting illegal and immoral ideas on the unsuspecting public via Wikipedia and you all are coming to the rescue.

I know this is an unfair characterization, but the terminology strongly argues that you hold people who want to study frontier subjects in great contempt. It is this attitude that leads to name calling being accepted by other editors.

If you must characterize subjects beyond a simple explanation of what they are held to be, then be vary careful about the arbitrariness of how you decide the viability of a subject and the use of terms for expressing your opinion.

By the way, I would gladly pay you to delete the EVP article if I thought it would stay deleted. Do you really think we are so desperate as to need Wikipedia to advertise our subject? Why do you assume that other subjects are seeking publicity? Yes, some do, but I doubt they survive the prerequisite measure of notability. Tom Butler (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your obvious bias shows you can't see this rationally, Tom. We've made clear what makes a theory implausible, Tom. When only the proponents can make it work, and only when not subject to serious examination from outsiders, it's not real. When failures are blamed on ghosts, or lack of faith, it's bunk. When not one claim can be reliably reproduced in scientific method, it's not real. Those are conditions long established as helping define fringe, both on and off Wikipedia. When EVP supporters can demonstrate consistently reproducible results, maybe someone will believe the dead are talking through our home electronics. But EVP supporters can't do it, so EVP stays as what it is, Bunk politely called FRINGE. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom, can you please stop endorsing wp:censorship? Paying for the removal of information is very much not what wikipedia, or any good encyclopaedia, is about. Their are many difference between fringe science and cutting edge research, so don't try to conflate them. Also, people can do good research on fringe topics - and produce new and interesting results, but these often confirm the subject as false/pseudo-scientific/fringe/etc. These can then be cited in the articles. EVP is definitely fringe science right now. Verbal   chat  06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom, your dear Electronic voice phenomenon is a victim of this:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%"


 * style="background-color:#c8ffc8" | Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies, Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. - Source: WP:LUC
 * }
 * The question of deletion is out of your hands. Please get used to it. The inclusion of EVP here is just one more proof that Wikipedia's policies do allow the inclusion - if they fulfill certain conditions - the worst forms of nonsense and delusion, and NPOV requires that those facts get pointed out in the article. If the article's creator opposes that fulfillment of NPOV, they can get blocked or banned from the article and even from Wikipedia. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Once the concept of fringe becomes institutionalized, it will quickly find its way to article pages because it is an excellent way to discount an idea. I will ask again, who is qualified to make the determination of fringe, and once made, the degree to which it is to be considered fringe? ThuranX made my point with his sarcastic reply. He clearly does not know much about EVP. No ThuranX, you have not made it clear and your examples about EVP are uninformed.

Of course I have a bias because I am deeply involved in a subject that is certainly not mainstream. With the exception of a few (you all just eliminated one competing voice) you have the perspective of mainstream, so I would think you would attempt to hear representatives of the minority view to help you shape the article so as not to simply bulldoze that view.

To say that "Its easy to write articles on fringe theories. We explain the theory, and explain why the mainstream hasn't adopted it. We source our statements, inform the reader, and that is that." exhibits a myopic perspective. Other comments here have argued that there are shades of fringe. I will add that it depends on the one doing the telling. If conceptual terms like "implausible" remain in the article, then it will remain a skeptics club even as it is a useful identifier for minority held views. (I like Nealparr's "minority view" as an alternative to fringe.)

As to my comment about paying to have the EVP article deleted. Are you all so determined that I am a POV pusher that you are unable to recognize a rhetorical comment? Many of you are saying that fringe subjects are pushed by people wanting to use Wikipedia. That is a pretty wikicentric viewpoint. What I was trying to illustrate is that most of the article I have seen branded as fringe have been initiated and edited by uninvolved people. Saying that we are trying to use Wikipedia is an extreme assumption of bad faith. In fact, the EVP article has just caused me extra work--one concrete consequence that I doubt enters your mind.

Another extreme assumption of bad faith is the quick threat from Fyslee to ban me. Once again, it is the willingness to eliminate competing views that is giving Wikipedia to the skeptics and I see Fyslee's name in the middle of much of that. Tom Butler (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely you jest! But unfortunately you aren't kidding, so that's a personal attack that also reveals your poor reading comprehension. I have only stated what are the possible consequences for anyone who violates our policies here. I haven't threatened anyone at all, but was just paraphrasing what was written: "If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently." I know you don't like NPOV and other policies here, but you need to learn to respect them and get used to abiding by them, instead of always complaining about how they are getting in the way of you writing your "truth" here. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom, I know enough to know that no one has substantiated the pro-EVP claims with reproducible, predictable results according to the scientific method. Until such time, I'm perfectly fine with taking it for what it is: a scientific veneer on the old saw of Spirit Mediums which deceives the desperate and lonely. I'm not sure if you're a true believer or a profiteer, and I don't really care. You maintain that 'the teller' changes how the topic is perceived, as if we're not aware of it, when it's perfectly obviosu to the rest of us that preventing, say... YOU, from telling the 'true' story of EVP is why we have a FRINGE guideline, and why so many above are interested in seeing it become policy. ThuranX (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)