Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Creation

I created this proposal after seeing (but not participating in) some of the discussion on AFD/DRV about the "Aetherometry" article and its notability. I think we should be able to come up with some intelligent guidelines which make sense and aren't draconian in any way. I think most of the pseudoscientific theories/conspiracy theories/etc. on WP are probably well within the guidelines I have suggested which is fine with me. The goal is to avoid Wikipedia being a "launching point" for some sort of new theory or to avoid being a webhosting service for crackpots. Any suggestions and modifications are welcome, I am not dogmatic about this in the slightest, and have no vested interests one way or the other. --Fastfission 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to say that I think this is a good start; thanks. I'll be back in a bit... William M. Connolley 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
What WMC said, I appreciate the invite and will be back. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Launching points for new theories are great. -- Marvin147 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not? But Wikipedia isn't a launching point. --Fastfission 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Implausible but notable

The present wording of this page does not seem to make adequate allowance for historically important theories that are now fringe, i.e. flat Earth, or for theories that many people who are not scientists believe in such as chiromancy and numerology. Presently, your definition requires that such things be regarded as "plausible" in some mainstream publication, and I highly doubt that is ever going to happen for the above, and yet I would argue they are all notable subjects. I would also suggest you lookover Category:Pseudoscience and it's subcategories to see what existing practice is and whether or not you wish to argue against a number of topics for which we already have articles. Dragons flight 18:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur: I would make a distinction between new fringe theories and historical, such as phrenology.
Second thing: I would suggest we either make a clear distinction between new attempts at creationism vs. the religious belief, which is neither a theory nor fringe.
Third: I suggest a clarification that these "fringe theories" are often not scientific theories, and thus the word should either be defined as not the scientific meaning, or avoided, or placed in quotes. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not just historical theories either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is clearly a fringe theory (global warming vs. pirates, for instance), but it's notable not for its scientific validity, but for its social impact. --Interiot 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If it were just historical, there would be no need for a distinction, hence, I suggest a distinction. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me FSM is a parody, not a real fringe theory. Applejuicefool 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Fringe ideas? Fringe concepts, topics? Schizombie 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • On the historical/present distinction: why make one? No notable historical theory would fail this, as they were all referenced by the mainstream in one way or another in their own time and context, and are certainly referenced today (there are plenty of texts talking about flat Earth theory and why it is incorrect). The only instance I can imagine in which a "historical" theory would have problems here is if it was one which did not appear in mainstream literature -- i.e. a non-mainstream historical theory which is only discussed by non-mainstream groups both today and in its time. I have a hard time believing such a theory would count as notable. An example of this could be: Joe Blow's theory of perpetual motion energy, which was never discussed at all in its time and now is discussed only by other perpetual motion energyhas b people, who think it was wrong. --Fastfission 22:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record: chiromancy (palm reading) has hundreds of references in mainstream secondary literature (over 100 articles on JSTOR alone), as does numerology, as does flat earth, etc. They would therefore not at all fall into difficulty under these guidelines. Flying Spaghetti Monster has been discussed in many major news outlets (New York Times, New Scientist, The Guardian, Washington Post, Wired), so no problem there either. Here's a challenge: come up with any historical fringe theory which is notable enough for WP but would be excluded by these standards. --Fastfission 03:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines suggested here say it should be referenced and considered plausible. Show me the mainstream literature concluding that they are plausible. Dragons flight 13:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, I'm looking now at how the second point is expressed. I did however take mainstream to mean mainstream science. JSTOR include journals related to literature and history. A key problem with Aetherometry was that there was no scientific view speaking for the mainstream and based on the ISI citations for chiromancy (6) and flat Earth (112, almost all off-topic) I still don't see science taking any interest in explaining what is wrong with those ideas. Dragons flight 13:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Already covered by Wikipedia:No original research

Besides the historical/social examples above, this proposed policy seems to be already covered by NOR. See especially the origin of NOR section that notes that it was created as a sound way to prevent physics-cranks type material from being added. --Interiot 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • NOR doesn't necessarily suffice. It will keep someone from publishing a new crank theory in Wikipedia; but many theories are extensively documented somewhere. WP:V is probably a better tool, as if a theory cannot be externally documented, it can't have an encyclopedic article written about it. --EngineerScotty 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that NOR doesn't easily and unequivocally account for cases in which there is plenty of "secondary" literature but none of it from a mainstream group. At least, not in my reading of it. And NOR generally means that the author of the theory is the person writing the WP entry, which isn't necessarily the case in these instances. But, at the very least, this policy would simply be an elaboration of NOR specified to these specific issues. Even if it remained a guidelines, it could be a useful elaboration/interpretation of NOR to refer people to. --Fastfission 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good guideline

I agree that existing policies (especially NOR) already exclude this type of page, or if not, I'm sure the usual crowd on AfD will happy to delete fringe theories. It is not necessary to establish any new policy, but this is a good discussion of how an average Wikipedian would rate the notability of a theory and some of the criteria they might use. I agree with pretty much all the content except the last example, which I'm not sufficiently familiar with to judge. Deco 06:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Concur with that. Radiant_>|< 12:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking for something else perhaps

Hmm, clearly this is harder than it looked. DFs point is good. But on the NOR question... I have realised I was actually looking for something slightly different than what this page is: which is guidance on how disputed-pseudoscience should be handled within wiki, given that they are considered notable enough to include. I'd like a guideline that says that peer-reviewed publication is the measure of science, and anything without such publication isn't science. I have a feeling that put as baldly as this there may be some nasty counterexamples to be found, even if none immeadiately spring to mind (to deal with one possible objection, Einsteins relativity before publication wouldn't have deserved a place in wiki in 1904). Of some relevance is User:Ems57fcva's thoughtful essay on his user page: what he is doing is probably science; but it doesn't deserve a place in wiki unless published. William M. Connolley 21:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC).

media monoculture

Now finally we can bring all fringe science to an end, and enable the owners of the current mainstream media to define notability. How many owners is that, by the way? -- Marvin147 02:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not talking about strictly newsmedia. Academic and scientific presses are equally acceptable. But maybe they are part of the big conspiracy too? --Fastfission 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No wonder SCICOP only goes after soft targets. -- 70.28.153.94 02:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines section

"'Mainstream' here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications."

I think there are probably a number of publications specializing in fringe theories that have large circulations. Supermarket tabloids, for example. Schizombie 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication or by another mainstream group or individual. Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate, as it establishes the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents."

So a "weird news" segment on the news automatically makes something notable? Slow news days, or April Fools Day, or Halloween, when coverage of fringe stuff is more likely occur, make things notable? Also the idea that debunking something that is not notable makes it notable is a bit odd; presumably the idea of debunking something is to keep an untruth from spreading, but maybe the would-be debunkers be better served by not commenting on the thing they want to debunk at all, so it doesn't become "notable." It's a bit of a catch-22; the fringe theorist who has not been debunked will say "look, they must know I'm telling the truth!" while the fringe theorist who has been debunked will come up with explanations as to why the debunking is actually a validation. Schizombie 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, is that if something is enough of a threat(for lack of a better word) that it needs to be debunked than that is evidence of notability. That said, I agree with your concerns about tabloids, very slow news days, April fools etc. JoshuaZ 17:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My changes

I've made a few changes to the second proposed guideline in order to correct flaws which allowed CTMU supporters to use this page in their support. Specifically, I've added "extensively, and in a serious manner", and "References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject, such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself, should be given far less weight when deciding on notability." The intention of the first change is to counter tabloids, slow news days, and also minor, tangential references. The second change is to deal with theories that may have received some coverage solely because of the notability of something else - for CTMU as an example, the creator of the pseudotheory is somewhat notable, and was able to get some references to his pseudotheory put into articles that were meant to cover him. Those sources shouldn't be considered highly, since they aren't asserting the notability of the theory itself. --Philosophus T 19:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read and agreed with your changes, I took them a little further and added links to a few articles already extant on the topic of "slow news days". Furthermore, spurred by the CTMU fracas, the Bogdanov Affair and a few other suchlike incidents, I added a bullet point about self-promotion. Comments and revisions are welcome. Anville 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Good news, everybody! As a conscientious Wikipedia editor, I've decided to participate - strictly on a part-time basis, of course - in the formulation of various general guidelines and elements of policy here at Wikipedia. My first contribution will be an addition to the "Justification" section of the "Fringe Theories" page. I'd appreciate it if this contribution could be rationally discussed right here on the Talk page prior to adulteration or removal. Thanks. Asmodeus 15:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Asmodeus, I am surprised to see you haven't forsaken us altogether. As you no doubt expected, I have a few things to say about your contribution. Personally, I would find it more agreeable if vast chunks of new "protopolicy" could be put on the talk page to be discussed and reach consensus, and then moved across to the "main page". This is because if a new chunk is added with which many people do not agree, the most natural thing to happen is simply for it to be removed.
Now, as for the contribution you made. I can hear echoes of the CTMU fracas in the background there. Which is good, because the CTMU offers a valuable case study, as it were, for informing future decisions on fringe theories.
To be quite honest, though, Asmodeus, I found the new addition to be somewhat cumbersome. While some people undoubtedly have no trouble in wading through torrents of polysyllables, one of the common patterns in Wikipedia policy is that it is written in plain and simple English so that all members of the Wikipedia community can understand it (as, for example, in WP:DICK). While I understand what you have written there, it isn't really conducive to quick referencing during a heated AfD discussion.
If I have understood correctly, the primary concern you are raising is this: the fringe theory policy should not allow some particular group of people (say, a cabal of editors with a given agenda) to portray a mainstream theory as a fringe theory simply because they disagree with it. Is that right? If that is, could it not perhaps be phrased like that, for a start? Byrgenwulf 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This choice of words is somewhat misleading.
(1) We're discussing guidelines, not policy.
(2) Fringe status should not be conflated with irrelevant accusations regarding other editorial concerns. As we know from recent experience, such accusations can be opportunistically employed by those who misunderstand, miscategorize, or merely oppose a theory in order to suppress its Wikipedia article. (Wikipedia does not need the kind of guideline that might encourage this sort of thing to happen again.)
(3) The word "cabal" smacks of conspiracy. Such heavily loaded terms might give readers and editors the wrong impression about how the guidelines were motivated and what they mean, and should probably be avoided.
A further distinction needs to be made. Of the four guidelines proposed, just the first suffices to distinguish a mainstream theory from a fringe theory. The rest deal with the question of which fringe or "non-mainstream" theories are notable and which are not. The danger, of course, is that editors will fail to notice this distinction, and mistakenly apply the last three proposed criteria to theories which qualify as "mainstream" according to the first criterion. That is, the last three criteria may be mistakenly perceived as providing "wriggle room" for those wishing to override the first criterion in any given instance.
Regarding the preliminary posting of edits, "vast" and otherwise: given that this doesn't seem to have been required in the past, it would be difficult to make a case that it has now suddenly become necessary. Where something relevant to the proposed guidelines was previously omitted, and the omission can be remedied without displacing prior content, I see no reason to run it past anybody first. Asmodeus 01:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
We are discussing neither guidelines nor policy, but a document which has the capacity, at some point in the future, to turn into either. Point (2) above is redundant. It says nothing beyond the obvious, which is not covered in other policies/guidelines. Saying "this is a fringe theory because it is wrong/I don't agree with it/whatever" is not what happened in the recent discussion; rather, CTMU was categorised as a fringe theory because it itself has only been published in a fringe science journal, and the mainstream media attention which mentions it is focused on the creator, not on the theory itself. Essentially, point (2) states "argumentative fallacies should not be used"; that barely merits saying at all.
Conspiracy is precisely what was suggested recently, was it not? I agree that it is most certainly a misconception, however, and that a better word could be chosen.
I see the point about only the first bullet, at the moment, being one which semantically categorises a theory as a fringe theory. Accordingly, I would suggest that the other three be reworded accordingly so they do the same.
I agree that posting vast amounts of content is not necessarily a problem. The problem is with an insistence that they cannot be changed or removed without discussion. WP:BOLD seems to indicate that such a request is not reasonable. Byrgenwulf 09:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the author-theory distinction, it is not possible to separate a theory from its author as cleanly as you seem to imagine. As most real academics are well aware, many theories have been accepted or rejected at least partially on the basis of authorship. Given human nature, this is unavoidable.
Regarding "argumentative fallacies", they have indeed been invoked by Wikipedia editors (possibly including you). My purpose is to try to dispel confusion and thereby minimize the chances of recurrence.
Your proposed guideline does not make sense. A vast amount of material is described in Wikipedia at a level of detail exceeding popular reportage, especially where scholarly publications and other detailed sources are in fact available (e.g., the scholarly journal PCID; note that your opinions regarding the level of "peer review" of such publications are irrelevant). However, I will give you a chance to remove or revamp it before removing it myself. Asmodeus 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course a theory is separable from its author. A theory is a set of propositions derived from a given set of axioms. Where does the author come into that?
I never said that detail should not exceed popular reportage. I said that level of detail should not exceed that of the verifiable, third-party sources. If those are limited to the popular press, then a theory's article should be limited to that level. If the sources are more detailed, for example a published book on the subject (I'm not only thinking of journals!), then the detail can be on that level. And so on.
My opinions on PCID are not mine alone. They are shared by the academies of science of most major countries as well as the majority of scientists the world over. Byrgenwulf 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Theories are abstract descriptive and/or prescriptive constructs purporting to correspond to their subject matter, whatever that may be. You are describing a particular kind of mathematical theory (but not all mathematical theories), as opposed to theories in general. In particular, to the extent that any given logicomathematical or philosophical theory can be described as "scientific" or "pseudoscientific", it is not axiomatic in nature. Regarding PCID et al, you are obviously not in a position to speak for "the majority of scientists the world over", nor are you in a position to exclude such a journal from the set of "verifiable sources". Please try to be more careful in distinguishing fact from personal opinion. Asmodeus 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the definition of a theory, and I am not going to nitpick over that here, it ought to be separable from its author; and I do not agree with your definition of theory, because it is far too general for our purposes here. But let's run with it anyway for the purposes of the next sentence. What I am saying is, an "abstract descriptive and/or prescriptive construct purporting to correspond to its subject matter, whatever that may be" ought to stand or fall on its own, regardless of who came up with it; if it doesn't, then it nothing but personal opinion or a pet hunch about things, and it ought to be included in that person's biography, not an article in its own right.
I am not claiming to speak for anyone in what I said. I am speaking for myself, and repeating what is established fact about the scientific community's opinion of PCID, as you know. It is not considered a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.
And please take note that PCID is not mentioned anywhere in the actual policy document. Byrgenwulf 14:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The definition I gave is both general and correct. In any case, the proposed guidelines can be no more general than the definition on which they rely, and further opinionative restrictions (on the definition of "theory") are not suitable for the determination of Wikipedia guidelines. PCID is considered by some scientists and philosophers to be a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and unanimity is not required on that score (particularly in the presence of extreme ideological polarization). PCID is cited in this discussion as an example of a scholarly journal suitable for sourcing and verification, not as something to be specifically inserted in the proposed guidelines. Asmodeus 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The people who consider PCID "scholarly" are in the minority; by definition, non-mainstream. It's that simple: if the major universities and research institutes of the entire world issue a statement condemning a particular position and those who endorse it, then in no way can that opinion and its endorsers be regarded as belonging to the scientific mainstream. It really is that simple. And that is precisely what has happened with the ISCID, the society which publishes PCID and vets its contents. Every theory that has been published in PCID has a "pseudoscience" label here on Wikipedia, and I guess that it is only appropriate that if the theory in question is not scientific, then it have a "pseudophilosophy" label similarly attached, if the PCID or a similar journal is its sole venue of publication. Byrgenwulf 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding PCID, you are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to insert your opinion into Wikipedia guidelines or policy proposals in the guise of actual substance, particularly given that many highly credentialed scientists and philosophers are Fellows of ISCID and supporters of the ID movement in general. Given that "mainstream" is not synonymous with "majority" (your erroneous conflation notwithstanding), it makes no difference whether these scientists and philosophers are in the minority. Asmodeus 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that PCID is emblematic of mainstream science, Asmodeus? I never said that mainstream and majority are synonyms. I did say that if a particular branch of research is thoroughly and contemptuously condemned by absolutely all of the scientific mainstream as being complete rubbish, then it there is no way that it can be portrayed as a mainstream theory. And it is not just my opinion, it is an established fact that the PCID is regarded like that [1]. While many people focus on "intelligent design", their statements obviously reflect negatively on the status of PCID as the flagship journal, nay the only journal, of the "intelligent design" movement. Byrgenwulf 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"Emblematic of mainstream science" is one thing; "not a scholarly journal" is quite another. Your statement to the effect that Intelligent Design "is thoroughly and contemptuously condemned by absolutely all of the scientific mainstream as being complete rubbish" is based on an overly convenient definition of "mainstream" which you have not yet justified. (Intelligent Design has its own Wikipedia article, and a rather long one at that, which describes its theoretical basis in rather close detail.) On the other hand, where "scientific (and philosophical) community" is reasonably substituted for "scientific (and philosophical) mainstream", your statement is clearly false. Therefore, your statement cannot be an "established fact", and cannot rightfully be smuggled into Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Asmodeus 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense, it holds just as fast. PCID is not a scholarly journal, and that statement can similarly be backed up with citations. Intelligent Design's Wikipedia article includes a "pseudoscience" categorisation and many mentions of junk science, because that is the truth about that theory and the organisations which disseminate it. What I have said is established fact, and your slanting matters cannot change that. The theoretical description of Intelligent Design is only as deep as it is because third-party sources have commented on it at that level. Byrgenwulf 16:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you cannot verify the content of an opinionative statement like "PCID is not a scholarly journal" with citations; such citations would merely be confirming the fact that some people happen to hold that opinion. It is quite obvious that other members of the scholarly community do not hold that opinion. Please note that you have now reached the very outer limits of your ability to base the definition of "scholarly journal" on majority opinion; you can go no farther. That's a good thing, for if minority viewpoints could be suppressed merely because they are minority viewpoints, and journals could be dismissed simply because they contain descriptions of such viewpoints, the history of science and philosophy would be very different from what it actually is, and not at all in a positive way. Regarding your rationalization for why ID Theory is discussed in detail in its Wikipedia article, the fact remains that if you trace the verificative chain (including ID criticism) back to the original sources, you ultimately reach such sources as PCID and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Since this kind of publication comprises the ultimate source of much of the theoretical detail in the associated Wikipedia article, such sources must be valid bases for the inclusion of theoretical detail in Wikipedia articles (regardless of how the notability of the theory was initially established). Asmodeus 16:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, when the tak-tak-tak of keyboards becomes the lash of whips and the clash of mighty swords! It is almost beside the point to note that in real science, minority viewpoints triumph when they are backed by evidence; that ID has not and by construction cannot meet that criterion (a point I can likewise back with citations); and that much "theoretical detail" in ID debates comes from the cogent and lucid arguments scientists have used to demolish ID, not sources like PCID.

Your added text, Asmodeus, begins with a legitimate point: philosophically speaking, it is as unreasonable to call an idea less notable than it truly is, as it is to deem the idea more so. However, as a practical matter, this flipside merits far less concern. In two years and several months of Wikipedia editing, I have seen many more cases of fringe-theory boosters exaggerating both the factual validity and the media coverage of their pet notions than I have seen legitimate ideas being marginalized. Those Wikipedians with an interest in real knowledge are simply too busy writing articles about real science, history and philosophy to bother with demeaning the fringe. So, while your first paragraph is largely agreeable, it is mostly tangential to the real problems witnessed in quotidian affairs.

The second paragraph perplexes me with a string of counterfactual assertions and non sequiturs. No Wikipedian or set of Wikipedians is "legally empowered" to judge notability; we simply do it because we are here to build an encyclopedia. Outside matters of libel and copyright, legal matters are largely orthogonal to Wikipedia discussions. This notion of a "legally empowered" agency to judge notability strikes me as pure, irrelevant bluster — not just a straw man, but a straw man set on fire and waved against the sky to produce confusion and disorder. Likewise for the claims about "academic" and "popular" publications, and the stab at "the university system".

After making a legitimate (though somewhat peripheral) argument, you allow yourself to derail into empty, bitter sophistry. Surely there exist better uses of everyone's time? As a person equipped with a generous view of human nature, I could never attribute this to your own editing history on this encyclopedia, but other editors will surely do otherwise. Anville 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that you must have a point. However, as far as my points are concerned, you seem to be missing them. First, you are not in a position to say which side of any given issue "merits far less concern" than the other. (The two sides of this particular issue clearly deserve equal consideration, because they are equally important to the mainstream-fringe distinction.) Secondly, in order to repose a final judgment solely with a given professional or special interest group, you would need to prove that it is entitled to that level of authority. Legal empowerment would be the most unequivocal way to establish this; laws, after all, are general, whereas cliques and closed shops are not. Since you don't like this criterion, you must settle for less authoritative criteria, and that suffices to identify your pronouncements as opinionative rather than factual and authoritative in nature. Hence, they are not the stuff of which Wikipedia policy is made. Asmodeus 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: the following comment pertains to Asmodeus' last comment before Anville leapt into the fray.
You may have not have noticed yet, Asmodeus, but argumentative "scare tactics" such as telling me what the limits of my own ability are do not work with me. I understand that someone with such an outlandishly high IQ as yourself is probably used to bandying it about and people running for cover, but I don't put much stock in those things. I have emphatically not reached any limits; indeed, I have barely begun.
Let me start by saying this. From the single citation which I have already offered, it is clear that the scholarly institutes of the world stand together in condemning "intelligent design" as rubbish. No sane, rational human being can deny that; not even Bill Dembski (not that I am implying that he is a sane, rational human being, of course). Therefore, if ID is not scholarly, the journal of a body which promulgates it is not scholarly either.
The sources for most ID articles are not, in fact, the PCID, because that journal cannot even manage to make a regular appearance, it is so starved of submissions. Most sources for Intelligent Design are books published by the likes of Dembski, Behe etc., and criticisms from the few people who are bothered to waste their time refuting them.
Your argument about the ID articles here is spurious, and the argument that "if minority viewpoints could be suppressed ..., the history of science and philosophy would be very different" is similarly fallacious. Counterfactual conditionals are always true by virtue of the fact that the antecedent is false: an elementary truth in formal logic. In dealing with fringe theories, one could call this the "argument to Galileo" - the establishment persecuted Galileo, and they were wrong in doing so, therefore anyone persecuting an outspoken individual with strange ideas is similarly wrong.
It is not a matter of ID or other theories being merely a "minority viewpoint". Some minority viewpoints have the respect of colleagues; for example, loop quantum gravity is a minority viewpoint in a field dominated by string theory, but is nonetheless "mainstream" insofar as other, legitimate scientists regard it as being a serious part of scientific endeavour. Likewise, full-blown Platonism is a minority viewpoint in a field dominated by postmodernism, but it too is regarded as a "mainstream" school of thought by virtue of the respect it has earnt for itself.
ID does not fall into this category, as the amount of derision and scorn it has garnered outweighs by far the support of that tiniest group of outcasts who gather under its banner awaiting the final onslaught of Reason. Byrgenwulf 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you, but I am not offering to redeem ID as a scientific theory in this discussion (whether or not that would be possible). I am merely pointing out that one cannot identify "scholarly journals" on the basis of majority opinion. (If one could, then science and philosophy would stagnate as unpopular viewpoints and their venues were suppressed by the majority.) Next, ID Theory is not just "science" (if it is science at all); it is philosophically and theologically loaded, and therefore cannot be compared to a sociopolitically irrelevant theory like loop quantum gravity. By its nature, ID naturally gives rise to much more emotion, and a much more violent form of ideological polarization. Last, the statement "the establishment persecuted Galileo, and they were wrong in doing so, therefore anyone persecuting an outspoken individual with strange ideas is similarly wrong" implies not that the establishment is necessarily wrong when it condemns a deviant theory, but merely that it may be wrong, and therefore cannot make summary pronouncements on the merit of theories or use such pronouncements as grounds for suppression. Which is indeed rather close to one of my points. Asmodeus 17:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Asmodeus, I see you chose to ignore my point about Platonism and postmodernism. They most certainly could be compared to ID (indeed, there are a number of very interesting similarities between ID and postmodernism). Regarding the argument to Galileo, I have pointed out that that, too, is a fallacy. Wikipedia is not here to "suppress" theories; but nor is it here to inflate their importance and merit. Importance may be established through mention in news articles (with the obvious provisos), but mass media publications are not in a position to comment on the merit of a theory. Nor are self-published sources, or sources which are as ideologically loaded as you admit ID to be. After all, you were insisting upon peer-reviewed criticisms of the merits of the CTMU, so why should claims for a theory be admissible on grounds any different? Byrgenwulf 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of scholarly organizations which you cited above does not include organizations focusing on philosophy, nor are Platonism and postmodernism as theologically and emotionally loaded as ID Theory (please don't expect me to address everything you say every time I respond; I reserve the right to ignore statements that I see as largely irrelevant to the main issues). Regarding the CTMU, it is notable and mainstream by the first proposed guideline on the project page, and verifiable source material exists for its content and the claims of its author regarding it. Hence, the CTMU and its associated claims are proper candidates for inclusion in a dedicated Wikipedia article. But since this discussion is about something more general, namely, guidelines regarding the distinction between mainstream and fringe theories, we probably shouldn't focus too tightly on any one theory alone. Asmodeus 17:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Truncated edit comment

My previous edit summary should have read as follows:

Rv to last by Byrgenwulf, to restore proper formatting and consistency with WP:RS.

My apologies. Anville 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. However, I wonder how useful this is as a guideline since this guildeline seems to be completely covered by NOR and V. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I can tell, these prospective guidelines are either an attempt to (1) clarify WP:OR and WP:V with respect to the mainstream-fringe distinction, in which case you are correct about their redundancy, or (2) weaken NOR and V in order to (a) include popular non-mainstream theories as defined by the first proposed guideline, or (b) exclude unpopular theories which have been described in the mainstream media and/or (unpopular) peer-reviewed journals. My impression is that they were most recently intended for the last purpose (2b), and because this purpose is obviously illegitimate, I've been forced to edit them repeatedly. Had they passed without objection in their original form, the tag would no doubt already have been replaced so that they could be officially invoked in order to override NOR and V as currently formulated. But as it now stands, they are merely (largely) redundant. (Of course, they may still be of clarificative value to those Wikipedians who have trouble properly interpreting NOR and V, or maintaining WP:NPOV.) Asmodeus 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Referenced Extensively?

This Guideline currently says:

  • Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate, as it establishes the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents. ...

How does "... should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner..." jibe with the next line... "Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate."? We seem to have a conflict here. Does one disparaging comment about the theory in one newspaper article constitute "extensive" reference? I would suggest changing the wording to:

  • Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents. ... (changes in bold)

To me this establishes that you need more than just a passing reference to meet the "extensive" clause. Blueboar 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At the present time, there is no meaningful "extensive clause", because it has not been established that an "extensive" mainstream reference is the only kind of reference which gives a theory "mainstream notability".
Without such an explanation, extensively is a "weasel word": any editor who doesn't like a particular topic which has been mentioned in one or more mainstream periodicals is free to claim that the references are not sufficiently "extensive" to make it notable. On the other hand, anyone who has attempted to write for a reputable large-circulation periodical knows full well that the editors of such periodicals are unwilling to devote any significant print space at all to ideas that are trivial, useless or uninteresting ("non-notable"), and thus that anything but a passing blow-off is proof of notability.
Notable means "worthy of notice". When a mainstream periodical mentions a theory X, it has "noticed" that theory in print. If the reference is not explicitly dismissive - e.g., as theory X is dismissed in "unlike theory X, theory Y is useful/important/interesting/..." - then it establishes mainstream notability. Specifically, if the mainstream reference describes or refers nondismissively to the content, bearing, or impact of X, or to a property of X which implies any significant degree of interest, importance, or substantive relevance, then it establishes the mainstream notability of X.
Hence, the word "extensively", rather than being italicized and thus unduly emphasized, should be eliminated or replaced with a more general and appropriate set of modifiers. Before making any changes, I invite other editors to register their opinions on the matter. Asmodeus 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It is absolute nonsense to say that "mainstream publications" never publish on trivial, useless or uninteresting ideas. Absolute nonsense. Can you back that statement up with a source, maybe?
For something to be truly notable, it has to have been extensively referenced. Now, I do agree that "extensive" is perhaps a bit too numinous to use as is. So how about
multiple articles which deal with the subject in question in detail and exclusively
I think that that is far better. Thus, passing references are not good enough. And if the central subject of the mainstream source is really something other than the subject whose notability is being established, then that mainstream source doesn't count. Byrgenwulf 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Response: No, that's no good either. It sets the bar too high for the vast majority of notable theories to meet, and simply ignores the fact that a mainstream periodical confers notability on a topic by referring to it in a non-dismissive way (no source is required for this fact; it is implied by the space limitations and profit incentives of mainstream periodicals, and it is common knowledge). As for "what counts", thanks for your opinion...but once again, it misses the point. Asmodeus 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not common knowledge, and nor is it even a logical argument, that mainstream periodicals confer notability on a topic because they have space limitations and profit incentives. Your proposal contradicts WP:NOTABILITY, which clearly states that:
  • In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources.
  • In order to have a neutral article with minimal errors, a topic must be notable enough that there will be non-partisan editors interested in editing it.
One passing reference (non-dismissive as it may be) in a mainstream periodical does not satisfy those requirements.
And in the case of a fringe theory, we have to be particularly discerning, because we have to remember that the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be a source of knowledge, not a repository of crackpottery and other trivial, useless and uninteresting ideas that have had passing reference in mainstream periodicals. Passing reference is not enough to give a balanced and informative account of a fringe theory, because non-partisan editors will not know enough about the subject in question to edit the article. Byrgenwulf 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed common knowledge, as you would rapidly learn by submitting articles to mainstream periodicals. Reputable mainstream periodicals do not stay in business by printing drek, except when they do so for humorous or cautionary purposes; they stay in business by reflecting the interests and priorities of their readerships. As for your specific citations, they have primarily to do with verifiability and neutrality, not notability or the mainstream-fringe distinction. And I have not suggested that "passing (mainstream) references" are always sufficient; I have suggested that "extensive" references are not always necessary. Please focus on this distinction before commenting further. Asmodeus 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Asmodeus, my specific citations came from WP:NOTABILITY. They establish why notability is important, and what sort of criteria a subject has to meet to be considered notable.
Quote Asmodeus' comment from above: "When a mainstream periodical mentions a theory X, it has "noticed" that theory in print. If the reference is not explicitly dismissive ... then it establishes mainstream notability."
This is given as a sufficient condition. In other words, Asmodeus said that if a periodical mentions X (or a property thereof), then X is notable. This suggests that "passing (mainstream) references" are always sufficient. This is my problem, because it is patently false. Mainstream periodicals are constantly printing drek, as evidenced by the notable phenomena:
and so forth. Mainstream media publish plenty of drivel, Asmodeus. I really am surprised you hadn't noticed that. Byrgenwulf 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with the idea that a simple mention in a mainstream source means that a Fringe Theory suddenly is notable. Let us take the following hypothetical:
  • Someone comes up with the theory that President Bush traveled back in time and killed Julius Caesar. He posts his thoughts and conclusions on an anti-Bush blog and generates a small amount of discussion. Most posters think he is a crack pot, but a few say this is absolutely logical. It thus becomes a Fringe Theory. Now, while this is going on, a mainstream journalist happens to be writing an article about anti-Bush blogs. He sees this discussion and mentions it in his article. It is simply a passing reference to the Bush killed Caesar Theory (say something along the lines of "Such blogs tend to attract nuts as well as those who legitimately dislike the President. for example, Anti-Bushblog.com included a posting from one absolute loony who claims that Bush traveled back in time and killed Julius Caesar! Go figure!").
I have a real problem with saying that this single passing reference, in an article about something basically unrelated to the theory, makes the "Bush Killed Caesar Theory" notable enough to warrent an article in Wikipedia. Yet under a loose interpretation of this guideline such a reference would indeed justify inclusion. I think we do need to set a reasonably high bar here. If this theory were discussed in several mainstream papers, or if someone went to the trouble of writing a book entitled "Debunking The Bush Killed Caesar Theory", then I could agree that the theory is notable. Blueboar 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Best fringe theory ever! (-: The image of Bush in a toga, screaming "Speak hands for me!" and stabbing Caesar will live with me for quite some time. I can just imagine Karl Rove telling them to bloody their arms and drag Caesar's fallen body to the foot of Pompey's statue. . . . But enough of that.
I agree with Blueboar's conclusion. A sideswipe at a fringe theory does not in itself count as making that fringe theory "notable" — somebody really has to take the trouble to care. Anville 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that we may have a slight misunderstanding here. The word "passing" nowhere appears in my comments. Obviously, a "passing" mainstream reference is not always sufficient to establish mainstream notability. However, sometimes it may be. For example, if a prominent mainstream periodical were to say something like "theory X is important; so is theory Y," and then go on to ignore X while focusing on Y, then the fact that X receives only a short reference takes a back seat to the content of the reference...i.e., to the fact that the reference in effect asserts notability. Such a reference is highly unlikely to involve a crank theory, and if it does, then the crank theory is notable by definition. (Regarding the statement that "mainstream media publish plenty of drivel", quite a lot of it is notable, and it is not up to anyone in particular to say when it is "drivel" and when it isn't - that's the entire point of resting notability on mainstream publication rather than personal opinion.) The bottom line: "extensively referenced" and "notable" are still not biconditional. Asmodeus 16:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
"The word 'passing' nowhere appears in my comments." Except when you said "anything but a passing blow-off is proof of notability", here. Anville 16:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken, but please stop wasting my time. Obviously, this usage of "passing" was not intended to describe the kind of mainstream reference that establishes notability...in fact, it was applied to references which do not establish notability. So if it makes you feel better, I hereby modify the sentence you cite as follows: "The word 'passing' nowhere appears in my comments as a sufficient criterion for references establishing mainstream notability." (By the way, when I requested opinions, I meant "opinions relevant to the issue at hand" - that's the only kind for which I currently have time.) Asmodeus 17:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I offered one of those a few paragraphs ago. Anville 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In which case... please make the guideline clearer as to what kind of mainstream reference is needed to convey notablility. As it reads now, it is unclear and confusing. Blueboar 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_1&oldid=1080294760"