Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Is there a contradiction?

Hmm...does WP:FRINGE contradict itself slightly?

At one point, it says that a fringe theory is notable enough if referenced extensively in a serious manner by at least one notable group or individual independent of the theory:

"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."

Later, it says that discussion of a fringe theory by a notable group or individual is not a criterion for notability. Instead, it requires substantial coverage by secondary reliable sources to establish notability:

"The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia...

For comparison's sake, WP:NOTE says "Substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject constitutes verifiable evidence of notability, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(May I offer the observation that this worthy point deserved it's own section? CpiralCpiral 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

Emphasis mine:

"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."

The last clause is obviously the crucial point, and there is no conflict with either of the two quotations. 74.98.43.217 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Secondary refers not to cite, but to source.CpiralCpiral 18:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Does your latest edit address this point? 71.182.220.179 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration subpage

We have Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases, which appears to be a non-transcluded copy of the Principles and Findings of fact sections of the Pseudoscience and Paranormal arbitration cases. Given how contentious this area is, I can see the utility of collating and linking the relevant cases (at least, that is why I came here today). This out-of-date subpage does not seem to me to be the best way to do this, though. Would anyone mind if I replace this page with links to and brief summaries of the relevant cases?

I see basically three tiers:

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
  3. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 3, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Am I missing any big ones or obviously miscategorizing anything? Probably the about one person was tendentious and disruptive and was banned type cases can be omitted, as their primary impact is exemplary rather than expositing policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please discuss here as needed. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Title and purpose of the first section "Identifying Fringe Theories"

Rather than have such a heading title and a first paragraph which only speak of identification of fringe theories:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

We can do two things at once: both identify qualifying articles and teach fringe theory.

" The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter."

Here are the first two paragraphs of my section re-write (there are two more for another discussion):

An article is qualified by it's author and it's later editors, but also may be deleted if qualified improperly. A fringe theory article has for it's subject an idea that differs so significantly from today's mainstream view that it may not even qualify as a subject in Wikipedia. Mainstream of course changes, and "the fringe" are continuously scrutinized during the work of qualification, described in this section.
To determine a fringe theory's position in world affairs, and thus it's need to be in Wikipedia, the idea in a fringe theory might first be categorized and then compared to its closest field of study. For example an idea in fringe science may or may not qualify as an article, depending on how it compares to a similar idea in mainstream science. Where a field of study is not established, noteworthiness is used. For example a conspiracy theory could qualify as an article if an adherent is comparatively noteworthy. An esoteric claim about medicine might qualify if a recently published survey comparing doctors opinions can be cited. A novel re-interpretation of history might be suddenly be supported by a significant number of historians, and if, say a newspaper report of this can be cited, it might qualify for an article. A fringe subject does not qualify if it does not compare. Fringe subjects include theory, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations

CpiralCpiral 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the most important purpose of the guideline is to demarcate between fringe topics and non-fringe topics. Indeed, that seems to be an utterly secondary issue. 74.98.43.217 (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
We are in agreement then. The most important purpose is not to demarcate fringe and non-fringe. It is to demarcate between Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia. By "identify articles and fringe theory" I meant "qualify articles". I have re-written my proposal more clearly because of your comment. Thanks.CpiralCpiral 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be proposing a new test for inclusion of articles on fringe subjects in Wikipedia: "A fringe subject does not qualify if it does not compare". I do not understand what you mean by "compare" - can you define that term, please ? Maybe with some examples - do Moon landing conspiracy theories "compare" ? Does the Loch Ness Monster "compare" ? Do Hollow Earth theories "compare" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole enterprise seems to be about demarcation between fringe and non-fringe topics, which as I have already indicated is a totally secondary issue. I also see no compelling case, indeed no case at all, that a major revision is urgently needed. 74.98.43.217 (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
To be blunt, I find the proposed language confusing as hell. "An article is qualified by it's author..." Huh? "...a fringe theory's position in world affairs..." what the heck does world affairs have to do with anything?... The current language may have problems (although I would need more convincing to say that it does), but at least it is clear and concise. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
To be even more blunt, Cpiral's proposed changes are bizarre and completely unhelpful. They sound like they were written by an individual who doesn't understand the point of the entire page going off on a rant. I oppose them in any form, and it's clear that the consensus of other editors here is the same. DreamGuy (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be more specific. This is a page for discussing article improvement. Each improvement is an act. Each act requires a specific.
No one owns the opinions of the other editors. If this article is your "turf", then we can only discuss in terms of persons: their motives, their powers of observation, their knowledge, etc.CpiralCpiral 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
More specifically, I don't get what you think you are trying to do in the first place because you aren't describing things well at all, and before you can make changes to a page like this you must communicate your suggestions in a way we can all understand and then get a broad base of support. I see no support and no indication that what you want to change makes any sense. The onus is on you to convince everyone else. The turf is the turf of consensus. Until you have that you shouldn't be making changes. DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I really do want to concentration here on the orientation this section takes in it's title and first paragraph. Please see your user talk page.
Primarily, it's about whether or not the section "How to identify Fringe Theories" should in it's first paragraph, only teach what fringe theory is, and not say anything about Wikipedia article qualification. As it is, the improvement I propose below attempts to make it both teach and say something about Wikipedia inclusion. I do not wish to discuss my poor improvement at this time, unless we have first agreed that the original tone needs some improvement over the span of the first paragraph. Shall we?CpiralCpiral 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, an idea for an article is qualified by it's intended author.
"World affairs" has to do with an encyclopedia.
Please be more specific in your assertions (while at the same time avoiding explication.)
I thought this was a page for discussing article improvement. CpiralCpiral 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
"Compare" arises from "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" (first sentence). One notable person, or many scientist opinions serve to qualify an article. How many is grey. One is not. How notable the one is, is grey. So "significant" is always grey.
The two cases (the one and the many) in which to "compare" how "departed" it is, both use "significance" as a yes/no qualifier. If we want a systematic first step to qualify an article, then both cases have in common to compare significance.
"Chi" compares to many doctors, conspiracy compares to one adherents' noteworthiness, and Lock Ness Monster compares to either. CpiralCpiral 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, not sure I understand all of that (your strange use of English makes comprehension difficult), but I don't like the bits I do understand. We already have a test for inclusion in Wikipedia which is our notability guideline and its various sub-guidelines. Applying the existing source-based test in borderline cases can sometimes be difficult, but I see no merit in replacing it with an even more subjective test based on giving different weights to different adherents depending on their "noteworthiness". Gandalf61 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Which bits in particular do you not understand? Which particular bits do you not like?
The point I debate primarily is whether or not the first section should have a significant and notable span of words whose only purpose, apparently, is to teach how to identify fringe theory. To wit, the heading title, and the first paragraph. May we please discuss only that? Please see the top of this discussion. Thank you. CpiralCpiral 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow the new version very well. It seems to be suggesting a comparison with mainstream fields, but doesn't explain how that establishes fringe theoriness, nor what this comparison is meant to show. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Shoemaker. The proposed version is much worse than the existing version. It tries to do too much in a few sentences, and becomes obtuse. Angryapathy (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting the "teach-i-ness" out of the first paragraph will involve the entire structure of the section. But to bring the entire section to the next level of improvement (It does exist.) will involve hiding an ideological complexity in a simplicity I have yet to obtain. It will take time, but I hope a near future effort to better express my suggestion.
Thanks!
CpiralCpiral 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Cpiral asks "Which bits in particular do you not understand?" I do not clearly understand any of it. Cpiral seems to be totally unaware of their use of an idiosyncratic version of English. For example, what does "A fringe subject does not qualify if it does not compare" mean? compare what? A person may compare a subject with another, but what does it mean to say taht a subject "compares"? Then we have "An article is qualified by it's author and it's later editors, but also may be deleted if qualified improperly". What is this qualification which is being referred to? How is an article qualified by its author? What does it mean to be "qualified improperly"? Then we have "Please be more specific in your assertions (while at the same time avoiding explication.)" What on earth does that mean? How is it possible to be specific without explication? I can only guess that Cpirl does not know what "explication" means. And what on earth does "conspiracy compares to one adherents' noteworthiness" mean? And so it goes on. In short, the answer to Cpiral's question is that almost all of what Cpiral says is either partly or completely incomprehensible.
  • Insofar as it is possible to understand what Cpiral is trying to convey, it is clear that an attempt is being made to propose a radical change in Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. For example, we have "an idea that differs so significantly from today's mainstream view that it may not even qualify as a subject in Wikipedia". Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how much an idea differs from mainstream views: an opinion which is very remote from the mainstream may be notable if it has been extensively covered. Exactly the same applies to several other statements by Cpiral, such as "an idea in fringe science may or may not qualify as an article, depending on how it compares to a similar idea in mainstream science": notability has nothing to do with how a subject compares to any other ideas.
  • Cpiral appears, as I have already said, to be unaware of the weird nature of the English that Cpiral uses. Cpiral also appears not to realise that what is being proposed is totally against established Wikipedia guidelines. Cpiral also appears not to have noticed that there is solid consensus against the proposal: seven other editors have commented in this section, and not one has given any support at all to the proposal. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
By explication I misspoke. I meant the use of expletives.
I personally am withdrawing my participation from the ideas I proposed because I have been shown here that they lack clarity (Thank you all.) and accuracy, and because I have found that the systematic approach I sought (in ascertaining merit of an article) has not quite yet covered all of the grey areas in which it hopes to operate. Reconstruction is underway.
Each improvements to Wikipedia must start from the mind of some individual. Let's encourage new ideas and discuss them, drawing them out, passed any initial idiosyncrasies and weirdness they may seem contain at first. Let consensus reality be what it is, the very thing that could use the improvement.CpiralCpiral 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WP:Civil

A Request for Comment has been posted at WP:Civil concerning reversion using the one-line Edit Summary. It is suggested that such summaries that employ WP:Fringe require a Talk page back-up that provides specific indication to the contributing author of just what it is that makes the reverting editor believe WP:Fringe is applicable. Please take a look and comment. Brews ohare (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of WP:Fringe in one-line Edit Summaries

The proposal at One-line Edit Summaries found few supporters, as many felt that any mandatory requirement upon the one-line Edit summary was onerous. However, a modification of WP:Civil was made suggesting that on-line edit summaries be explicit. I have imported a version of the text added to WP:Civil modified somewhat to apply to this guideline. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It well may be civil to write a detailed edit summary... but it should not be added to every single policy and guideline. The place to state this is WP:CIVIL, not here. Besides, sometimes a brief summary such as "see WP:FRINGE" is perfectly acceptable and appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar: Apparently you did not read the insertion. It makes the matter conditional upon inadequacy of the one-line summary:

In short: Use of WP:Fringe as a shorthand in one-line Edit Summaries justifying reversion may prove offensive to the reverted editor. If a clear statement of the reason for labeling a reversion WP:Fringe cannot be fit into the one-line Edit Summary, a Talk page justification that explains matters is preferable. Brews ohare (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I read it... and I see you are adding it to all sorts of policy and guideline pages. I disagree with that. It does not belong on those pages as it has nothing to do with the topic of those pages. (and on reading more, I find I actually disagree with the premiss... sometimes a blunt "please see WP:FRINGE" is both appropriate and all that is needed. I don't think such summaries are uncivil.) Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Biting the inexperienced contributors and failing to engage in adequate discussion are both easy and to be avoided, but, er, this is a content guideline, not a behavioral guideline. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This suggestion could make sense given that this is also an article for dealing with a behavior (fringe proponents). The word fringe is one of those difficult to define things which gets bandied about probably more than it should. One cannot successfully argue that something is fringe because "it is fringe" (ie "see WP:FRINGE"). I don't know that changing adding a sentence here would effect any change, though. II | (t - c) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions_about_self-serving_sources.2C_minority_view_sources.2C_and_third_parties

Please join the discussion related to "fringe theories" guideline in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Questions_about_self-serving_sources.2C_minority_view_sources.2C_and_third_parties - Altenmann >t 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about unduly self-serving

Is there agreement that this is a correct statement of Wikipedia guidelines?

Publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources should not be unduly self-serving. This is primarily a limitation on using such a statement to establish truth. It is not a limitation on using it to state and define what a person’s beliefs are. For example, a scientist may have gained notoriety because he claimed to have produced cold fusion. He may be quoted as saying “I have produced cold fusion” as long as this is presented as his statement and belief and not as the generally accepted belief. This statement, after all, is the reason that an article about him is being written in the first place. --Swood100 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:RSN. Suggest we keep the discussion in one place. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's discuss it there.--Swood100 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One way

2/0 added a shortcut from ONEWAY to a nice little section at the end of the article. I augmented that section with a few salient pieces of advice that I think are relatively uncontroversial and also tried to clean up parts of the prose which were confusing to me:

[1]

Anyway, here's the place to comment on that.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Komkommertijd

Why is komkommertijd listed as an example? If the Dutch synonym for silly season is listed, why is this not the case for similar expressions from other languages? DaMatriX (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not clear that we need this list at all. The basic message is there before the parenthetical. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Why "komkommertijd" was added in the first place I don't know, but since it long ago became a redirect to "Silly season", which is also listed, it was completely redundant and I have deleted it. As for why we have the list at all, I agree it does not add anything essential, but it links to further information which is relevant, and I don't see any harm in having the links there: someone may find them useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some bold tweaks

Diff

This section has been found at various times to be problematic for a few reasons:

  1. It is something of a vestigial organ from when this guideline was primarily about pseudoscience. FRINGE has rightly branched out from that and so I removed the "scientific and non-scientific" adjectives in the heading.
  2. We need something that addresses the concerns that people have had at various times that certain treatments of claims need to be done in an artificial "balance" sense. The Holocaust denial example is meant to be an uncontroversial object lesson in this regard. Note that I tried to steer clear of value judgements (mainstream vs. minority, for example) in the hopes of simply referring editors to reliable sources.
  3. The section as written seemed to exhort people to NOT treat religious documents as scientific texts. Fine and good. However, I think that this kind of exhortation can be misinterpreted, so I included some stronger language about how topics which are relevant to science should be handled (e.g. not with kid gloves).

I fully realize that these changes may need a bit more work, but I also believe that the current version is better than the previous. I invite comment from those watching this page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes for now, pending further debate. I strongly disagree that this section is in any way a "vestigal organ". In fact, the original wording is very important in describing the demarcation between science, fringe topics, and nonscientific topics, as well as how such distinctions should be handled. I think that that information must be retained in this section. Locke9k (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to say I think SA's addition is an improvement. There are many academic areas (soft sciences like history or literary criticism) that on a first reading of the older text seem to be excluded from this. Whereas there are as many fringe theorists in the philosophy, lit crit, history etc as there are in physics, biology etc. SA's edit makes explicit that WP must reflect what other mainstream reliable sources say and this is important. I think the Holocaust denial example is a good choice. I also think SA's addition reflects current usage of WP:FRINGE in non-hard science areas and is in-line with ArbCom rulings on how WP reflects published mainstream reliable sources. Also it should be noted that "the original wording" is retained in the second paragraph. And therefore I'm unsure what Locke9k's object is - could you elaborate Locke9k?--Cailil talk 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree. This addition opens the gates on a huge mess of wikilawyering (which we've all already seen on numerous fringe articles) and frankly goes agains NPOV. How do we determine what's a 'typical perspective', and who gets to make that judgement? NPOV does not mean that we should decide in advance what perspective is correct and exclude perspectives that disagree with it; NPOV means that we include all relevant perspectives to the extent that they are present in reliable sources. --Ludwigs2 20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that in general, Ludwgis2, you are correct in your description of best practices. But there are cases (holocaust denial being the most obvious) where this approach fails miserably. WP:FRINGE is, in part, an attempt to deal with these very situations. Believe you me, I really want to see NPOV preserved in this section which is why I want to continue to see how we can look at the manner in which we should evaluate claims. Obviously, not all claims deserve equal time or equal airing. Reliable sourcing is the best way forward. These are the main points I think should be emphasized, though I admit fully that I may not have provided the best wording for it. Could I ask you to perhaps provide some alternative prose that deals with these issues? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I understand what you're saying. maybe if you could clarify: are you talking about issues like Talk:Holocaust_denial#Lede_controversy? Skimming through that, it seems to me that it's less a sourcing problem than a framing problem. I would have suggested turning it around; rather than trying to determine what the 'typical' historical viewpoint is, quantify the denial viewpoint as one held by a small number of historians. that way you avoid the normative implications of establishing one perspective as typical while still keeping things in perspective. The issue is obviously a semantic problem - there is confusion over whether it's the label 'holocaust' or the events of the holocaust that are being denied, but I can't tell whether that's a confusion amongst editors or a confusion in sources. or am I missing the point? --Ludwigs2 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm fine with your proposal to remove the "typical" phrasing. I am more interested in holding close to ideas of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT as a means to describe what approach Wikipedia takes. The general point is that we should not try to accommodate Holocaust denialism just because it is an "alternative" opinion. The proper way to evaluate such claims is to look carefully at what the reliable sources about a subject say and then write prose based off of those. The problem happens when people (rightly) point out that there exist reliable sources for describing what Holocaust deniers believe. While this is correct, it does not help us evaluate the historical claims of the Holocaust, for example. That's the sense in which I wanted the revise prose to address the issue of how best to deal with issues that fringe theories try to describe. Does that make sense? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I see where you're coming from Ludwigs but like SA I disagree. There is and has been a lot of pushing to include alternative opinions regardless of what weight they deserve. What SA provided here is a starting point for a section that will further prevent NPOV wikilawyering. I do agree with Locke9K that "typical" should be replaced with something closer to the arbcom rulings (ala the Homeopathy ruling) such as "mainstream"--Cailil talk 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I will withdraw part of my objection, with apologies. Somehow I did not see that the original paragraph is in fact retained along with the addition, and that part of my argument is thus incorrect. Let me then refocus on a few other issues I see so we can determine if we can edit your addition and reinstate it or if it should be kept out. First, perhaps like Lidwgis2 has suggested, I disagree with the substitution of "typical" for "mainstream." The meaning of "mainstream" seems to me to be much more clearcut and I see no reason for its replacement. Maybe you can amplify on why you think that would be a good change. Second, I have an issue with the idea you have presented of 'neutrally' describing something 'from the mainstream perspective'. It seems to me that this is inherently somewhat contradictory, as neutral coverage requires discussing each perspective from a neutral point of view, albeit giving only due weight to each perspectives. Hence it is made clear which viewpoint is mainstream, and less time and space is given to fringe viewpoints. Finally, the original wording was good in that it described how to correctly demarcate different subjects without making a judgement on a particular subject that would be better handled on that page. This seems to go into the Holocaust denial theories more than is really necessary in order to provide understanding on this page - it starts to come across as trying to make a point specifically about that example. Locke9k (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I think you and Ludwigs2 probably disagree with each other. If I understand correctly, Ludwigs2 objects to Wikipedia giving any preference to a mainstream perspective while you propose the opposite. If so, might I suggest looking at the extensive debates surrounding WP:MAINSTREAM where many people seemed to take Ludwigs2's approach? Let me know what you think of that page. I'm unclear as to what your second objection means. I am guessing you think that it reads contradictory, though from what you describe it looks to me to be totally consistent. What is contradictory about it? Finally, the "judgment" is still in the original wording, it's simply that the judgment is more focused on what is and is not "science". We need to acknowledge that other disciplines have similar issues and use WP:FRINGE to weed out problems. Holocaust denial is meant only as an uncontroversial object lesson, not something that should be considered the final word on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
          • hmmm... well, we've had this debate before. I would suggest using the original paragraph but adding something like the following at the end: "Fringe theories that oppose qualitative scientific research - revisionist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." As you know, I am uncomfortable with the thought that fringe theories should be refuted or 'put in their place' within the context of their own articles (which seems to be an implication of the earlier version offered). But I think it might be useful to expand the section to cover more qualitative or historiographic material. I suspect that might not go quite as far as you all would prefer, though - how would you revise it?
          • and yes, as SA said, I would worry about any attempt to determine a 'mainstream' perspective. the problem is that asserting perspective X as mainstream automatically forces all other perspectives to be 'non-mainstream' and biases the article implicitly. All we want to do (IMO) is present the noteworthy viewpoints that are out there without over-weighting or under-weighting any of them. The trick to my mind is to clearly state what a fringe theory is without letting either proponents or opponents run away with the article. --Ludwigs2 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
            • These are good points I agree we shouldn't need to say X or Y makes a point of view mainstream. However I would say that in general it should be obvious to somebody who has done the reading necessary to write an encyclopedic article what the majority of reliable sources agree on and what's a noisy lone voice.
              Personally I think "qualitative research" would be better than "qualitative scientific research" because of the tendency of academic fields like Lit Crit or Cultural Studies or philosophy not to be seen or labeled as sciences. But I think Ludwigs's suggestion is a step forward. I would advocate adding an example as SA did (and as the original paragraph does as well). Also I think something along the lines of "Many claims can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives." would be a good opening line--Cailil talk 23:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Also "revisionism" might not be the best term to use as it can become relative--Cailil talk 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to take into account a lot of the ideas expressed here and reinsterted the change since I was sensing a sort of consensus here. I included Ludwigs2's suggestion for wording at the end of the first paragraph in lieu of the discussion of Holocaust Denialism with the understanding that Cailil may be correct that "revisionist history" may not be the appropriate term. If that's the case, I encourage changing those two words. Please offer additional tweaks that may help remove ambiguity, inappropriate equivocation, or less-than-best practices. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary of changes made due to this discussion
  1. Tightened the definition of a "claim". We want to only evaluate claims relevant to subjects included in Wikipedia.
  2. Changing the emphasis from "typical treatment" of a subject to "how the most reliable sources" treat the subject.
  3. Changed the wording associated with WEIGHT exhortation to include the possibility that multiple well-sourced perspectives can possibly exist.
  4. Removed Holocaust Denialism example and replaced with a sentence proposed by Ludwigs2 with the term "denialist" in place of "revisionist.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reworked it a bit to be more what I thought we were agreeing on. Highlights of the change - I generalized a bit (changed wording to use 'perspective' to match the new first line, generalized the second point to be not so specifically about creationism, etc). I also combined into one paragraph and moved the qualitative bit to the end. I removed this line - It is important to determine how the most reliable sources treat the subjects and for Wikipedia to neutrally address claims from primarily those perspectives - not everything should be told from some normative perspective, particularly not when the subject in question may be opposed to the normative view. in such cases (IMO) the normative view should be present, but shouldn't dominate the material. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your edits, Ludwigs2. I would, however, like to work on a compromise sentence that we can all agree on which discusses how to address claims from the reliable source direction. Maybe we can parse the sentence?
  1. Do you agree that it is important that we determine how the most reliable sources treat the subjects? If so, can we include that independent clause at least?
  2. Do you agree that Wikipedia [should] neutrally address claims? If so, can we include that in the sentence?
The final phrase about WP:WEIGHT might be best to leave out since we discuss it in the last sentence.
Would this sentence be okay to include in the paragraph?
ScienceApologist (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
with respect to point 1: I think there are two competing needs here. on one hand, we need to represent the mainstream accepted position as both mainstream and accepted. As I'm sure you agree, we don't want wikipedia articles indulging in inane misrepresentations of the body of scholarly knowledge. On the other hand, we need to assure that someone can read an article on some bizarre, unworkable, irrational fringe topic without having the fact that it is bizarre, unworkable, and irrational shoved down their throat every other sentence. there is an encyclopedic value to reporting even stupid theories just as they are, with only a gentle reminder or two that people who live in the real world don't see it like that. My worry (mostly because I've seen this happen) is that a reliance on a normative POV will lead to excessively critical articles on fringe topics, because some editor or other will want to insert a reality check after every questionable statement the fringe theory might make. I'm not against the idea entirely, if we can find some phrasing that will make it self-limiting, but I'm not sure what that would look like.
re point 2: no, I don't have an issue with NPOV --Ludwigs2 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally, the best way to deal with habitual "reality-checkers" is to rewrite the offending sentences so that they are closer to the WP:NPOV goal. For example, instead of writing, "Flat Earth Theory resolves most of the problems with celestial dynamics by removing the unphysical third dimension from the model for the structure of the Earth." we would write, "Sygmond Poppycock, a proponent of Flat Earth Theory, famously argued that his model for the structure of the Earth resolved certain problems he had with celestial dynamics." I don't see that second sentence as relying on a normative POV and find it better from an editorial standpoint. I find the first sentence problematic because it presupposes a reality which is not extant. Maybe the issue is that the sentence is too vague and offers too many alternative interpretations. I'll try to flesh it out to see if we can get at the heart of the matter. I think we can all agree that it is not best practice to have constant rejoinders in an encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think that would be a good revision as well (except I'd feel deep sympathy for anyone named Sygmond Poppycock). My worry is more about the next editor who comes along, sees the well-crafted sentence you wrote, and feels the need to add "However, this viewpoint violates the commonly accepted laws of physics" with some proper authoritative source to that effect. These kind of comments (which are unobjectionable in and of themselves) tend to accumulate in fringe articles to the point where the majority of text in the article is critical rejection. It's sometimes hard to see what the original fringe theory was actually saying because there's so much information about how what it was saying was wrong. Believe me, if fringe articles were consistently written the way you wrote above (with, again, mild reminders that it is not a scientifically sound view), I'd be pleased as punch. let me think a bit about how we can phrase it to get both of these points across. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

When a rejoinder is or is not appropriate is a great issue. I think that it must necessarily be on a case-by-case basis. In the hypothetical above, we have no context so it is hard to say whether a rejoinder would be appropriate. I actually do not think the rejoinder you wrote is all that encyclopedic, but if a rejoinder was appropriate it probably would go something like this: "Sygmond Poppycock, a proponent of Flat Earth Theory, famously argued that his model for the structure of the Earth resolved certain problems he had with celestial dynamics. Poppycock's proposal, however, has been directly disputed by experts who have pointed out that Poppycock's models for celestial dynamics are derived from the Ptolemaic system which has not been used as a scientific model since the seventeenth century." Attribution to a fringe theory needs to be accompanied by a attribution to a rejoinder. If no sourced rejoinder can be found, it is highly likely that the claim itself is not prominent enough for inclusion. After all, we have the requirement that the idea be mentioned by third-party independent sources even before it can make its way into this encyclopedia. I think that's the best way to approach the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section on rejoinders

I propose to make this a subsection of the "Evaluating claims" section. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rejoinders

When describing fringe theories, it might be necessary at times to describe ideas that contradict facts and the opinions of the most reliable sources that have written about a subject. When including such ideas in the article, it is important to verify that the idea is prominent enough to have been referenced by third-party independent sources. Attributing the idea directly to the proponent of the fringe theory is often the best way to describe the idea without misleading the reader. Similarly, criticism of the idea should be then attributed to sources that have criticized the idea. If no sources have criticized that particular idea, editors should decide whether the idea is prominent enough for inclusion. Note that it is not best practice to ruin the flow and context of a description by following every single fringe theory idea with a rejoinder nor is it best practice to segregate all criticisms to a single section at the end of the article. Try to strike a balance that achieves readability, accuracy, and neutrality.

I've combined this idea into my response below. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Creationism sentence

Ludwigs2 proposes the following wording for the sentence about creationism:


I propose the following:


Rationale:

  1. Creationism and creation science are not considered proper "philosophies" or "theologies" (note that theosophy is a separate idea) by even fellow religious adherents. For example, the Roman Catholic Church explicitly rejects creationism/creation science as a viable theological position and I can think of no reliable philosopher who proposes that these ideas are legitimate philosophy. We can, however, all agree that they are non-scientific.
  2. I include the phrase, or pseudoscientific to make it clear that we are dealing with something wholly different than the ideas dealt with in the previous sentence (namely the mythology of Genesis as a theological claim and perspective). The point is that creationism/creation science adopt a specifically hostile attack on scientific ideas while the stories from Genesis themselves are simply stories with alternative theological and personal interpretations available. We don't go out of our ways to attack Genesis for the sake of attacking the factual errors in the text, we only are supposed to mention the contradictions of those ideas which explicitly are set-up to be contradictory.
  3. I think the final parenthetical at the end is important so that people know exactly how we advise treating the subject. This is simply a parallel construction to the previous sentence which advises editors to treat analysis of Genesis on a purely theological basis.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no objections to the first change. The only qualm I have about the second is that it might be too specific to the creationism issue (which is why I removed it in the first place, as an effort to generalize). If you want to use it, that's ok by me, except that I'd suggest we replace 'namely' with 'e.g.' (in other words, turn it into an example of a more general idea rather than making it sound like we're only talking about creationism). --Ludwigs2 00:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a pretty good point, but since we are specific with the Genesis example, I thought that a parallelism might be appropriate. Perhaps it would be better to generalize both? Let me think about it and offer a proposal. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Evaluating claims

Many claims about subjects included in Wikipedia can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives. When writing prose about such claims, it is important to keep in mind how the perspectives are treated by the most reliable sources and to maintain neutral descriptions of the claims. For claims which are non-controversial and unambiguously accepted as fact by reliable sources, simple statements of fact are best (e.g. "An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.") For claims derived from fringe theories, attributing the claim to the appropriate source is usually the cleanest way to maintain neutrality (e.g. "Granville Sewell has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy, thereby violating the second law of thermodynamics and supporting intelligent design.")

Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.

lol - you are absolutely dead set on this whole 'new first paragraph' thing, aren't you? Ok, I can work with that... If we really want to revise this section that much, then I'd suggest the first paragraph read like this (this incorporates what you offered about rejoinders, as well - I've used the word 'qualifier' instead, since that seens more neutral):

Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification by research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact - e.g. "An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton." Claims derived from minor theories or fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context - e.g. "Granville Sewell, in support of the theory of intelligent design, has stated that the evolution of complex forms of life represents a decrease of entropy." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain proper balance - e.g. "Sewell's claim would violate the second law of thermodynamics under normal scientific assumptions" - but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively and then refer the reader to more scientifically accepted ideas; They should not engage in point by point refutations.

I was aiming for a good balance between keeping scientifically accepted ideas in the forefront and maintaining neutral and clear descriptions of unaccepted, non-mainstream ideas. how doea that strike you? --Ludwigs2 20:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I made a few tweaks including removing an equivocal term "minor theories", directly quoting from the intelligent design article since I believe all examples should be real if they are direct quotes, adding a final sentence about avoiding segregated criticism sections, and softening the language a bit on best practices since counterexamples are always possible.

Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact - e.g. "An electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton." Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context - e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality - e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." - but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, refer the reader to more scientifically accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose.

Does it work for you? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
that's getting there, yes. the only thing I'd contest here is the Sewell example you've used: Sewell did not (I think) state that he was violating the second law of thermodynamics; that's a qualifier designed to put Sewell's claim into perspective. the reason I removed it from the draft I gave was that I wanted to separate the clear description (what Sewell said) from the qualifiers (what scientists would say abut what Sewell said) explicitly. I don't think I'd object to the combined phrase in article space, mind you, but for the purpose of examples it works better if they are strictly separated. other than that this would work for me. let's let other people comment on it and see what happens. --Ludwigs2 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Sewell said that life was violating the second law of thermodynamics which is why evolution had to have supernatural help. You can read his argument here: [2] I can see your point, though, since the prose may be a bit equivocal and confusing in the form quoted, but I haven't been able to find a cleaner example. I used intelligent design because it is a featured article and is therefore supposed to represent our best work. It's pretty hard to find other articles about fringe topics that are featured, and the other examples from intelligent design aren't as clean as this one (we even have an article on Entropy and life which explains how this misapplication gets abused). Maybe the best thing to do is look for another example, but I'm at a loss. I really don't think we should be using examples that are not direct quotes from articles in Wikipedia, but maybe I'm wrong in that.... ScienceApologist (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize that was part of what Sewell said. how about a different quote from the ID page: "Charles Thaxton used the term "specified complexity" from information theory when claiming that messages transmitted by DNA in the cell were specified by intelligence, and must have originated with an intelligent agent."? the qualifier in that case is not as clear (it's a critique of Dembski, not Thaxton), but it would probably get the idea across. I'm not so concerned about the 'specific example' thing, but it would be better to use them if we have them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, I had considered that particular quote but decided against it for a few reasons. First of all, I'm not too fond of that particular sentence because of the word "claim" (see WP:WTA#Claim). Also, in comparison to the Sewell sentence, the term "intelligent design" is not used. The reader may not know exactly what the fringe topic is from this particular example. We could say, "from the intelligent design article", but in point of fact, the fringe topic is actually "specified complexity" which is a term that is not fringe unless it is used in the fashion that Thaxton and Dembski approach it. That seems a bit too complicated and convoluted for what should be a straightforward example and the fact that the rejoinder is one in opposition to Dembski and not Thaxton makes it all the more muddy. A good bit of prose in the context of the article but not necessarily a good stand-alone quote. I'll keep looking and see if I see any other ideas. Thanks for your help. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Found one!

There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind.

With the rejoinder:

Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I was just about to suggest we use the relevant lines from the intro of Cloudbuster (which is currently fairly well written), but this will work as well. I'll leave the decision up to you. --Ludwigs2 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to use a featured article since those are more stable and better-watched. I'll replace it now. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Final proposal

After working for a few days, Ludwigs2 and I agreed on this proposal for the new Evaluating claims section. We invite outside comments on this change. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that it has been a week and there are no comments, I'm going to be bold and instate this new version of the section. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


please do. --Ludwigs2 01:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can the US government position on legal-political issues ever be WP:FRINGE?

Discussion currently taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#United_States_government_redux. THF (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects

This should of course include defamation of fringe theories. So I included:

"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear less or more notable than it actually is."

The lead clearly mentions it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source. Currently there is way to much pseudoskeptical dismissal on Wikipedia. Topics are frequently judged per editor tribunal which should never happen. Quote references, say it like it is. Avoid WP:OR. Please share your thoughts on this if you feel you don't have to agree.84.104.135.141 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The way to propose it is gramatically incorrect. If something is a fringe theory, the only problem would be if it appears to be more notable than it is. It can hardly be less notable than a fringe theory, that would be the bottom in the level of acceptance a statement may have.
If your concern is about wikipedia users labeling things as "fringe theories" when they are not, you should think about a higher text reformulation. However, in such a case you should propose it here first, and later write it if it gets consensus MBelgrano (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the use of the word FRINGE has taken on a meaning of it's own on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it is properly defined. We should of course keep in mind that the FRINGE label is insulting.
WP:FRINGE is often abused as a universal source of something being untruth. We have perfectly good guidelines for sourcing things. Calling something or someone FRINGE!! does not provide a valid reason to insert as unsourced original research. A person may have an idea that sounds wacky at this time that doesn't mean Wikipedia should act as a peer review journal. The levels of skepticism on Wikipedia have taken on pseudoscientific proportions. Don't get me wrong, in a fair collaborative editing environment the skeptiscism should be a valuable resource in writing an article.
Do remember however how editors frequently get banned for adding so called fringe material to articles. Perfectly knowledgeable editors are removed from "their" topic while we fail to educate them. I think we should aim for a level playing field? Making the fringe theories guidelines look like Wikipedia only allows negative bias and defamation isn't exactly welcoming or constructive.
It is saddening how we have groups of gatekeepers guarding articles using WP:FRINGE as the universal excuse to delete sources and ban editors rather than work towards formulating proper citations. From that perspective this guideline should probably foremost describe what the fringe article MAY include rather than endlessly repeating what it MAY NOT include. May-not's do not help people write articles. This page should explain how one writes a good article about fringe topics rather than tell the editor to just go away and leave us alone. Does that make sense? 84.104.135.141 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"pseudoskeptical"? Is that possible? Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

@ MBelgrano: while I think you're right about notability, I personally wouldn't mind seeing some claim about impartial coverage. something like: "Coverage of fringe topics on Wikipedia should be impartial, neither exaggerating the importance or relevance of the topic nor burdening the topic with excessive efforts at criticism or debunking." The IPs worry (which is justified to an extent) is that Fringe theory guidelines are weighted towards defending against fringe advocates, and lack anything much in the way of protections for the neutral presentation of fringe topics. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Blueboar: yes, pseudoskepticism is a notable topic. but you already knew that, because I've heard you reference it before. engaged is a little baiting, are we? --Ludwigs2 17:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs... as far as I can recall, this is the first time I have even seen the term used. I think you may have confused me with someone else. I was not attempting to bait... I was questioning a term that was new to me and seemed contrived. Obviously I was wrong on that last part. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
sorry, my mistake - I must be confused. my apologies. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed for political views

FRINGE is relatively easy to define in scientific subjects, where there's a mainstream scientific view, and a literal fringe of pseudoscience around it. But what is FRINGE in issues of political dispute? It would seem to me that the analogy in U.S. politics to "FRINGE" would be extremist political parties or conspiracy theorists/theories with little or no base of support: David Duke, Leonard Peltier, Walt Brown, John Buchanan (American politician), birther claims, Clinton-murdered-Vince-Foster, Bush-blew-up-the-World-Trade-Center, etc. There might be an argument to extend fringe as far inward as Ralph Nader (who has never gotten 4% of the presidential vote despite multiple runs), though I personally wouldn't.

But there is a repeated problem on Wikipedia is the abuse of WP:FRINGE in political subjects as an excuse to exclude notable points of view in violation of WP:NPOV: I have seen editors insist that L. Brent Bozell III, who has published op-eds in mainstream sources such as the New York Times, is "fringe," or that The Weekly Standard (the second-most notable conservative magazine in the US) is "fringe," or even that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is "fringe." This is clearly an unacceptable attempt to evade the WP:NPOV policy. In my eyes, the problem seems to be one-sided: no one claims that Bill Moyers is fringe, though he said that Bush was planning a coup in 2004, but respectable writers on the center-right get tarred with this brush repeatedly. (I've seen talk-page claims that William Kristol, a New York Times columnist, was on the far right, which is self-evidently tendentious.)

How can we craft language in WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE to help nip these disputes in the bud? THF (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe partly on the basis of circulation of the periodical in question? Maurreen (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting. It may be worth thinking about specifically excluding politics from Fringe, considering that politics is a social art and the very definition of "fringe politics" is a political statement in and of itself (read: non-neutral). I hadn't personally considered this before now.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    (e/c) I wouldn't exclude politics outright, particularly since some fringe science positions (e.g. creationism and holocaust denialism) are really just attempts at co-opting scholarship for political purposes. In fact, fringe politics can be identified in much the same way that fringe science can be identified: some group advances a position that goes against conventional understanding, observable facts, and common sense, but asserts it as an undeniable truth regardless (generally resorting to denigrating opponents, or to ungrounded claims about conspiracies that hide the 'truth' and brainwash the masses). the 'Obama is not a US Citizen' debacle is a good example of a fringe politics idea - it flies against all observable evidence and requires the postulation of a massive coverup to gain any semblance of credibility. --Ludwigs2 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Right... yea, I excluding politics outright is probably going overboard. There definitely needs to be more nuanced thinking in the application of FRINGE when it comes to politics, though. Denying the existence of birthers, creationism, and holocaust denialism is an extreme political position in and of itself though, and is definitely something that Wikipedia should avoid doing (I'd say that would risk making the entire encyclopedia "FRINGE". It'd definitely make it non-neutral!)
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been working to improve the neutrality of our Climategate article, I can definitely that the WSJ does publish quite a bit of op-eds in support of fringe views. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This seems to me to be an example of confusing WP:IDONTLIKEIT with WP:FRINGE. If it's in the Wall Street Journal, it's pretty clearly not a fringe political view, by definition: I can't think of an op-ed page that is more in tune with mainstream American political thought. Maybe it's second to USA Today in that regard. (COI disclosure: I've written WSJ op-eds.) THF (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking more in terms of science than politics, but the WSJ does publish op-eds saying that global warming isn't real which is clearly a fringe view point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand why and how this view comes about, but you need to be really careful not to conflate the scientific knowledge which makes such views fringe science/pseudoscience, with the perfectly valid political views which seek to prevent "global warming" hysteria from causing economic damage. The two are obviously related since the topics are connected, but there is not 1:1 correlation between the two. Science is science, and politics is politics, and ne'er the two shall meet. By the way, "global warming" is an old concept that most climatologist have disavowed. Be careful not to turn into a fringe theorist yourself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than WP:FRINGE. I would disagree with saying "If its in the WSJ it is not a fringe view". The Journal might well discuss a fringe political view (especially to explain how that view might impact the ecconomy). That discussion does not change it's fringeness. However, as WP:FRINGE already says, that disscusion does mean that the fringe view point is notable enough for us to discuss it in Wikipedia. (That said, we must also remember that context is important... how and where we discuss it is also a factor... and that is determined by WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The key issue is whether a viewpoint is fringe within the relevant field of study. In the case of climate change, there's a very firm scientific consensus that it's real, it's happening and that it's caused by man-made pollution. That view is supported by the national science academies and the vast majority of scientists in the field. So when the WSJ comments on the science of climate change by saying that it's not happening, clearly it's expressing a fringe viewpoint within the relevant field, just as it would do if it claimed that evolution was not real. However, if it's commenting on the social aspects then it may well be expressing a mainstream viewpoint in the relevant field - in this case politics, not science. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This is what I was getting to above, and is at the core of the problem I think. A fringe scientific view can be a component of a mainstream political view, and there are currently a couple good examples of such things. The mention of birthers is a good example of this. Sure, the idea that people with that political viewpoint may (easily) be classified as a conspiracy theory, but if you think that the political movement itself is a fringe thing then you're just naive. Denying that there are birthers is not going to help the Democrat party in this years Congressional elections, no matter how kooky the people espousing the view are.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with ChrisO -- this is just a misunderstanding of what WP:FRINGE is supposed to cover. User:THF has started this conversation in 2 other places, here's what I had to say there.
Looking at the arguments that User:Postdlf linked to, it would seem that the reason that nobody claimed Bill Moyers was "fringe" is because it was in the article Bill Moyers. If you had tried to include his opinions in Politics of the United States, then he would be fringe there.
It's meaningless to say that "Leonard Peltier is fringe". If you tried to include WP:Fringe can only say that a particular thing that Peltier said is fringe in relation to the particular article you're trying to include it in. There is no need to change anything in WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE to "fix" anything, since nothing is broken
146.187.151.207 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting the 'denying' thing. sure, we need to recognize that the birthers are a distinct political movement, but that doesn't mean that we need to give them more than a token historical reference on articles about the Obama administration. It's perfectly parallel - we discuss flat earth theory in its own article, but we don't discuss it on astrophysics pages; we can discuss the birthers in their own context, but don't need to present them on serious political articles. The only thing we need to be careful about is not to exclude valid minority political critiques by lumping them in with fringe positions, but that's a problem on science articles as well, and relatively easily handled by proper sourcing and discussion. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't edit the political articles myself, so my view of this matter is skewed by the fact that I only really know what's going on based on what you guys describe. It just seem to me that there is some rhetoric here, with the intent to prevent some people from "brainwashing" others. That sets off huge red flags for me, immediately. If you're editing with an eye to preventing certain viewpoints from being covered, then you're not abiding by WP:NPOV. I've dealt with this issue in NASA related articles somewhat extensively, and so I know that the end result of this sort of rhetoric is that significant and meaningful information ends up being inappropriately removed by otherwise well-meaning editors. To quote from the NPOV policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. Meaning, as long as others cover the fact that, for example, "birthers" exist, then so do we. That doesn't mean that we advocate for them, but it also means that we do not advocate against them. We must remain neutral.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not that we really disagree here, by the way. This is more of a question of... magnitude. Degrees. The weight given to X ammount of coverage vs. Y amount (where the believers would want Z=(X+Y)*2 amount of coverage), if you see what I mean.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
yeah, I think we're on the same page I was just confused by the 'denying' term. --Ludwigs2 05:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Religion and materialism

What about cases where religious faith conflicts with the materialism of modern science?

"For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory."

Here we have an idea believed by, e.g., roughly half the adults in America, but which clashes with the methodological naturalism of physical science.

When a religion has an idea which conflicts with mainstream science, should we call the former a "myth" (see Creation myth) to avoid giving it Wikipedia:Equal validity?

And must the Bible be considered as work of literary or theological significance, with nothing to say about scientific matters? If so, this means that Wikipedia would be choosing to elevate "science" over "religion" (or scripture). Am I understanding this correctly?

In our quest to be neutral, have we decided that science is valid and religion is not? Or can we impartially describe the disputes that adherents of science and of religion have had, without taking sides?

  • A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.

I for one would like to read an article and come away with a clear understanding of what "science" says on a topic, along with as clear as possible an understanding of what "religion" says. Better yet, I'd like to be able to understand where and why they disagree. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Science and religion approach the issue of the creation from different perspectives... Science tries to answer the question of how the universe came into being... it tries to answer this question through hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion. Religion trys to answer the question of why the universe came into being. It tries to answer this question through allegory and belief. As long as the two diciplines stick to their respective questions (how vs. why) they can be in harmony... the conflicts come when they try to answer the wrong question.Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
(to OP) I do not see how those issues might inform the coverage of fringe theories. Your concerns sound more to do with issues of neutrality. Have you thought of trying on the NPOV noticeboard? That and/or clarify the relevance to fringe theory coverage.
To give a short answer to the question posed in your (OP's) last paragraph, the reasons why they might disagree are wholly arbitrary. They are really totally different ontological disciplines. (One just as well ask why the (apparent) contradiction between two spouses wearing different sets of clothes.) Any difference are really unimportant, although the reasons for the individual positions of each discipline might be very relevant. Blueboar's explanation was right on. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

proposed change in lead

new:
Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[1] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not in any way become the validating source for fringe subjects. Coverage on Wikipedia should therefor not make a fringe theory appear any less or more notable than it actually is.[2] Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss a theory are required so that Wikipedia does not become it's primary source. It may be hard to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources available but judgement should always be avoided. (See: Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Articles about fringe theories have been the subject of several arbitration cases.
old:
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[3] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[4] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.
Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

This is the first in a series of changes I'm going to propose to make the guideline more helpful with writing articles. The current problem is no longer caused by the fringe contributors but by pseudoskeptics using this guideline as an excuse to remove sourced material. This specific edit intends to make it clear the subjects should not be disproportionately defamed. The guideline should make it clear that neither making things look more credible than they really are nor making a subject look ridiculous is acceptable. WP:FRINGE does not provide an universal excuse to delete sources supporting fringe theories nor does it aim to make such theories look more realistic or accepted than they actually are.

Please make some modifications to the text above and post it below so that we may reach this goal. Thank you :) 84.104.135.141 (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with both the reasons and the substance of this proposal. Do not implement it without getting support from others. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ScienceApologist. I don't find the changes clarify anything. As near as I can make out, the IP is concerned that it is too difficult to discuss Fringe theories on Wikipedia. My response is that it should be difficult to discuss Fringe theories on Wikipedia. It shouldn't be impossible... but it should definitly be difficult. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • While I personally believe that this guideline could use some revising, I'm not really seeing what this particular revision accomplishes. it just seems to have shuffled the material around a bit. ami I missing something significant here? --Ludwigs2 01:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You can see the issue more clearly in this diff, which incorprates what the IP wants changed without shuffling the sentence order around. Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Your intention is to describe what my intentions are. I think I have clearly described my point myself, now it is up to you to describe yours.

@ScienceApologist: If you see anything wrong please be specific and repeat the section with your desired corrections. I have no intention to insert the section into the article, if I would have I would have already done so. My intention is to trick you into saying that you want Wikipedia to judge FRINGE theories and defend that position as you always have. (joke)

@Ludwigs: Indeed I just shuffled the material around without changing any of the points. But as you can see in the keen eye of ScienceApologist and Blueboar this presents quite differently from what it use to be. Their intentions can be generally described as to use the words "fringe", "conspiracy theory" and "pseudoscience" as often as possible creating a guideline that is generally unwelcoming to new editors. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid: 2 - Derogatory or offensive, 3 - ones that imply that Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources, supports or doubts a viewpoint, 4 - condescending toward the reader.

We may wonder how over time this:

  • "it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating mainstream source for these non-mainstream theories."[3]

Changed into:

  • " it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects."

And what the arguments are for making this change (rather than pretend it was all my idea?) It seems perfectly obvious "fringe theories" can be equated with "non-mainstream" but not with "non-significant". The reader is not a nuance.

84.104.135.141 (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

IP: I am well aware of some of the more reactive tendencies of skeptics on wikipedia. Unlike you, however, I am trying to gently (for the most part) pull them back towards something more neutral. I do not have a lot of use for an IP (whom I am beginning to have suspicions about) whose self-admitted purpose is to rattle the cage and get everyone riled up. My life on wikipedia is hard enough without an extra contribution of crapulence from you, thankyouverymuch.
So, assuming you're not a banned user or a sock-puppet, get yourself a registered name and enter the conversation properly and seriously. Stop trying to piss people off and start trying to make things better, and maybe we'll get somewhere. either way, stop mucking around for the sheer sake of mucking around. ok? --Ludwigs2 07:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Ludwigs makes an important point. I think the stated intentions and limited strategy of IP is sound. And I also share the opinion that dogmatic skeptics having an agenda of "damaging the enemy" far above any notion of making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, employing the strategy of inserting reverse peacock and weasel statements into target articles (typically in the lead "this theory/his work is not supported by the scientific community"), is a bigger challenge than fuzzy-minded proponents of the alternative attempting to promote their pet theories. However, I refer to IP's "limited strategy", because if as their larger strategy we include making this proposal as a non-biographic entity I think the strategy becomes not so sound, at all. Let's treasure the integrity of the hermeneutic circle. __meco (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A freely editable encyclopedia should welcome both skeptics and contributors of any kind. Sure, some of the skeptics are pseudoskeptics and they literally feed of trolling people, they are however still editors. If there would be an equal playing field their presence should be a good thing. The encyclopedia should be written by people from all walks of life. Existing rules seem good enough, now lets explain them in a constructive way without insulting the reader.

Given that non-mainstream topics as a rule only have a limited life stock of potential contributors and that skeptics come in virtually unlimited supply plus the conflict of interest thing removing the proponents of the theory from the page, there is now no possible way to write a proper article. Arguing if a theory is right or wrong or endlessly analyzing other editors really has no place on any talk page. We are not here to discuss the topics, we are here to write articles. The discussion is about the article not about the theory and most definitely not about the editors.

Don't you agree?

84.104.135.141 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is explicit: there is not an equal playing field. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you are trying to misinterpret my statement. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

One-way linking

I have a question, why is it beneficial to have one-way linking? I feel that prohibition of displaying true information should be discouraged. If a pseudoscientific topic is related to a scientific topic in terms of subject, there should be two-way linking. And not even in the "see also" section? Just two words mention is not even allowed? We see opposing ideas on see also section all the time. I believe a policy of reciprocation should be enforced instead. What venue should I propose this change? 168.122.251.173 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning beihind this is best explained at WP:UNDUE - in short, while a mainstream topic may have a lot of relevance to a Fringe topic, the same is often not true when you go the other direction. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ For information on determining "prominence", see Wikipedia:Undue weight.
  2. ^ For other pertinent guidelines, see Wikipedia:Notability.
  3. ^ For other pertinent guidelines, see Wikipedia:Notability.
  4. ^ For information on determining "prominence", see Wikipedia:Undue weight.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_13&oldid=1142665337"