Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Better explanation of Fringe needed

Under "Identifying fringe theories" we have "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." And then things promptly start to fall apart to the point that it is easy to misread "fringe" as meaning crackpot, Pseudoscience, or cult science and nothing else.

Is the idea that the Great Sphinx of Giza thousands of years older then is generally believed fringe? Yes. Is it crackpot, Pseudoscience, or cult science? No.

The same is true of the Pre-Clovis theory. In fact, given that for the settlement of Australia from 42,000 to 48,000 BP we know that boats of some kind needed so the idea that similar boats were used to cross the Bering Strait is possible and that any coastal settlements before the appearance of Clovis from 13,500 to 13,000 BP would have been wiped out by rising sea levels.

The wording really needs to reworked so that fringe is not so POV on the Pseudoscience end of things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point is valid... "crackpot" ideas, "Pseudo-academic" theories, and Cult Science are sub-sets of Fringe... not the definition of fringe. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

well, that's easy enough to do, in a limited sense. For a start, the first paragraph could be rewritten as follows:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream views of appropriate scholarly fields of study. This may range from new scholarly theories that have not yet developed a proper body of research, to older, mostly refuted theories that have a cult following in the non-scholarly world, to eccentric ideas which make claims or presumptions that seemingly contradict established scholarship. In general, an idea can be considered fringe when it presents itself as a significant revision of academic knowledge, but lacks academic support or acknowledgment for that claim.

The whole section (including the pseudoscience subsection) would need pruning, though, because there's been a lot of effort to push this policy in the anti-pseudoscience direction, and the writing is all out of whack. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Fringe does include Pseudo-academic theories, so we can not leave these out. But I agree that we don't want to make it appear that all fringe is Pseudo-academic. I like your wording above. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I didn't say to remove it. it just needs to be pruned. I'll try a full rewrite over the next couple of days and post it here. --Ludwigs2 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the new lead in and if there is not any disagreement will at least replace that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The way "fringe" is applied in actual editing is as a reason to exclude views from articles. It means, as a practical matter, that an idea is not worth serious consideration. Therefore, it does mean "crackpot." Minority views are not the same as fringe. We include minority views. We exclude crackpot ones. Noloop (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be the way it is applied but that is certainly not the way the first sentence is worded. It is ironic that WP:Fringe itself has WP:NPOV problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nor is that the way the guideline is supposed to be applied. The proper way to view wp:FRINGE, if you ask me, is as an expansion on wp:UNDUE: topics that (for whatever reason) conflict with standard scholarship need special consideration on wikipedia, to prevent wikipedia from becoming a forum for promoting or refuting those ideas (and to avoid the battleground mentality that results when die-hard advocates and die-hard skeptics go after each other). Scientific and scholarly perspectives should carry more weight than popular lay theories, and well-established scientific theories should carry more weight than relatively new, relatively unknown theories, and both points should be applied with careful consideration of context. People who try to use fringe primarily as a 'tool to exclude' are misapplying the guideline. --Ludwigs2 06:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 06:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is also way too often abused per the talk pages of Pyramid_scheme where comments regarding "legal pyramid schemes" in books printed by such reliable publishers as Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, Oxford University Press were called "fringe" in an effort to be removed. It was insane!--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fringe is not merely an expansion on WP:UNDUE; such an expansion belongs in WP:UNDUE. It already contains the principles you describe. There is no logical reason to have a category "fringe" if fringe is just a word for "significant minority," with no implications that differ from the policy for minority views generally. The policy on handling minority views works fine in that case. What does differ from a minority idea is a crackpot idea. There is a difference in principle, not just degree. That's what justifies a separate guideline. It's a different idea. Fringe, in essence, does mean crackpot. Noloop (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's a misconception, and not a particularly encyclopedic idea. Encyclopedias do not make judgements about the material they present, and the label 'crackpot' (like the labels 'racist', 'sexist', 'antisemitic', 'liberal/conservative', 'offensive', and good old-fashioned 'stupid') is not an adequate reason to try to exclude material from the encyclopedia. The thing that makes wp:FRINGE necessary is that there exist ideas which claim to challenge valid scholarship, but which would normally have a negligible impact on scholarship except that (for one reason or another) they have captured the public imagination or acquired a devoted set of adherents. Wikipedia needs to describe those ideas fairly and accurately, without indulging editors who are on a crusade either to promote or refute the idea. wp:UNDUE isn't sufficient to the task.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between a policy and a guideline. a policy spells out a principle; a guideline expands a principle into workable models. If you're suggesting that FRINGE should be a policy which establishes the principle that 'crackpot ideas are not welcome on wikipedia' well... that's just wrong-headed. Otherwise, treating FRINGE as a guideline which expands UNDUE into a particular range of topics seems the best way to go. --Ludwigs2 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the current version of WP:Fringe states it is not limited to crackpot, pseudoscience, or cult science: "Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." In the late 1950s a fringe theory called plate tectonics became mainstream after 200 years a being dismissed as crackpottery. The Norse colonization of the Americas was still somewhat fringe when In Search Of... showed the "Lost Vikings" episode in 1979. Pre-Clovis still is fringe thought evidence is mounting that it may have validity. Not all fringe theories or positions are crackpot, pseudoscience, or cult science; some have very good grounds for their positions as the examples above show.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of having a category for fringe theories is to define some guidelines for editing that aren't already included in WP:UNDUE. If a group of editors decide something is a fringe theory, not just a minority theory, what are the implications for editing? The only principle I see is that a fringe theory may be excluded from the main relevant article (although it can be discussed in an article about the fringe theory). So, the article on the Apollo missions should exclude the theory that the moon landings never happened. If that's not the practical implication of designating something "fringe," then what is? Noloop (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Small minority viewpoints can be excluded under wp:UNDUE - there's no need for a separate guideline on that point. The problem FRINGE addresses are cases where a viewpoint purports to be (or may in fact actually be) scholarly, but is mostly advanced by non- or pseudo-scholarly sources. The Apollo moon landing hoax theories are excellent examples: The proponents of this theory claim it is scholarship and suggest that their methods are proper scholarly methods (in that case historiographic methods), but in fact no scholarly disciplines accept or embrace the theory as a meaningful part of their discourse. The only sources currently supporting the position are non-scholarly or self-published sources. However, there are quite a number of non-scholarly sources - even some quite reputable publishers, I think - who have published material on this subject because it carries a certain public appeal. NPOV makes no distinction between kinds of sources (aside from the basic, difficult-to-apply distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources), so some statement is needed to the extent that popular but unaccepted theories should not outweigh conventional scientific understandings, no matter how extensively they are published in non-scientific venues.

So, the purpose of Fringe is to keep minority theories from being over-represented in more scholarly articles by weight of lay publications, and to keep advocates and skeptics from imposing biases on articles about the theory itself. And all of that is just a clarification of how UNDUE should be applied with respect to this particular class of topics. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit more to it than that. Sometimes FRINGE applies to ideas that are minority academic ideas (properly, "research on the fringes"). These ideas are often under-developed proposals that have a number of strong advocates who, finding frustration in trying to get acceptance through the usual channels, turn to Wikipedia to promote the ideas. I can't tell you how many times I've come across an article that had a tiny little sentence about some parochial idea had by a single researcher sourced to that researcher's work published by a not-so-big-name outlet. How we handle these kinds of situations is very delicate, and WP:FRINGE helps a lot. Sometimes it helps explain how to include the idea, in fact (e.g. a fringe academic who has been debunked becomes, in some sense, easier to source and write about than one who has not received notice). ScienceApologist (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FRINGE is an explanation of WP:NOTE (at the article level) and WP:UNDUE at the statement level... but the purpose of WP:FRINGE is more to say what can be discussed (and how to discuss it)... rather than what can not be discussed. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

90% of "discussions" on Wikipedia are people not listening, just arguing for the sake of arguing. What a waste of time. Noloop (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So, that's you're way of saying you're not going to listen to us? Breadcrust on a stick, Noloop, either make a better argument or admit that you're wrong. I know this 'sour grapes' thing is a valued Wikipedia tradition, but I'm kinda sick of it. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You made the case for me: "either make a better argument or admit that you're wrong." Noloop (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, guys. I'm listening to both of you. The topic is ideas with limited or no scholarly support. The bone of ~~content~~ contention is whether the purpose is to exclude them or to give guidance how to apply UNDUE so that a marginal theory doesn't get over-represented just because it is mentioned in reputable but unscholarly publications. Blueboar concurs that its purpose is not to exclude but to balance. That's my view too.

The place for excluding ideas is when the idea is presented in its own article, and the means for excluding it is Notability. "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." In particular, the Notability policy does not say an idea that is insufficiently notable to merit its own article should be excluded from an article about something else. Should this guideline say that? That seems to me to be the most we could do about outright exclusion of something. Bn (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one other warrant for exclusion is given, and on the other hand it appears that it's OK to mention an idea even though you might not be able to write a dedicated article about it. Under Independent sources we say "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." Earlier, under Reporting on levels of acceptance, we say "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight." Together, these say that an idea that might not merit its own article, because its notability is borderline or minimal, might nevertheless be mentioned in an article. If that is the case, then editors who argue against such mention on notability grounds have a frail tool in their hands. A corollary is that the number and quality of reliable sources need not be so great for such mention as they must be for an article. "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Does this reflect established consensus? In the Examples section, should we add some that are not sufficiently notable for a dedicated article, but are sufficiently notable for mention in some other article? Bn (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, and with what ScienceApologist says above. When I put this all together in my head, it looks like this:

it's OK to exclude a theory from the encyclopedia entirely if it is not a notable topic (per wp:NOTE).
it's OK to exclude a notable theory from a particular article (on an article-by-article basis) when the mere act of including it would give it an undue prominence, making it appear to be part of the scholarly discourse when in fact it isn't. This keeps non-scientific theories and the kind of scientific micro-theories that SA mentions from looking like they challenge established theories.
otherwise, it is not a question of exclusion but rather one of balancing

as a side note, much of the wikipedia drama-trauma around fringe theories occurs with respect to the second point. It boils down to the relationship of wp:undue to fringe topics in their own articles: To my mind, UNDUE has very little application on a fringe article except to prevent or offset claims towards truth, superiority, or greater acceptance in the scientific world. Other editors argue (implicitly, anyway - pardon me if I put words in their mouths) that UNDUE suggests that fringe theories should only be described from the perspective of reliable mainstream perspectives (problematic, since such sources will normally be critical of, and often overtly hostile to, the fringe perspective, which to my mind induces a distinct bias). Given a whacky idea, we should describe the wacky idea in its own terms (with appropriate controls), not try to describe how the wacky idea appears from an entirely non-whacky perspective. This might be worth a discussion in its own right - endless reams of talk page diatribe could be avoided if we could get a clear guideline on how to deal with fringe articles in specific. --Ludwigs2 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your first point is overstated. Given that WP:NOTE can only exclude articles as a whole, not parts of articles, it might better be:

it's OK to exclude an article about a theory from the encyclopedia if its subject is not notable.

One question I am raising is whether that by itself precludes any and all mentions of such a theory in any article whatsoever. That would make a simple rule:

If an article is not notable enough for an article, don't mention it anywhere.

Your second point assumes this rule. (If it didn't, it would not say "notable theory", it would only say "theory".)

A practical corollary is for editors to recommend to advocates of such a theory to get a dedicated article accepted first, and if they've got the references to make that pass muster then come back and discuss getting it mentioned in this other article. That would neatly peel away the WP:NOTE and WP:RS issues so that discussion could properly focus on WP:UNDUE. Trying to tackle all of these at once makes for a confused and confusing talk page.

If this is so, then the passage from "Reporting on levels of acceptance" that I quoted above may need to be revised. "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight." Is that sufficient notability to merit a dedicated article? (The other quote, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles", follows directly from the "no article, no mention" rule.) /Bn (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Better term than "Fringe" needed

At the beginning of the preceding section, BruceGrubb noted how we try to establish neutrality in this guideline, but

then things promptly start to fall apart to the point that it is easy to misread "fringe" as meaning crackpot, Pseudoscience, or cult science and nothing else.

At Talk:Fringe_theory#Example_of_Fringe-to-Accepted_Mainstream_Theory, Blueboar observed that

people tend to get upset when we label a topic as "FRINGE"... it is often seen as being a complete dismissal of the topic... but that is not what is intended. Here on Wikipedia we don't make a value judgement between "pseudo" and "proto"... both are considered FRINGE. If we pointed that out in clear language, we might help more people understand the policy better.

We seem to be in the posture of old King Canute commanding the waves to retreat and not wet his feet. Maybe we should recognize the reality of what "fringe" means to people out there in the English-speaking world.

The term "fringe" itself is tendentious because the usual interpretation is pejorative. The implicit understanding is "lunatic fringe". The basis of the metaphor, the literal meaning of the word fringe, does not denote something of the same kind but secondary, it denotes a decoration or ornament that is inherently frivolous and dispensible.

"Marginal views" might be a better term (meaning "marginalized views" in many cases). Then "controversial theory", "pseudoscience", "pseudo-history", and "fringe theory" can be clearly delineated subtypes.

Lumping these distinctions under a pejorative label, no matter how much we insist that it really has a neutral meaning, ensures the continuance of wasteful bickering. Those who want it to be a pejorative warrant to proscribe ideas they don't like will continue to feel fully justified in taking it as such. Those who like those ideas will continue to take umbrage. And those who are truly seeking to build an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view will continue to get caught up in the middle. Bn (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is the subtype categories become a new battle ground especially "controversial theory" vs "fringe theory". Furthermore for the most part any theory that "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study" tends to get thrown into the "lunatic fringe" as that time. Plate tectonics was considered part of "the lunatic fringe" back when it was still called continental drift (Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth By Naomi Oreskes pg 72), Heliocentrism supports were similarly called lunatics (The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory pg 311), and even the Big Bang Theory was called lunatic. This doesn't address the real problem.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In emphasizing the negative conseqences I suppose I have suggested that all will be mellow if only we change the name of this guideline. You're right, it provides no guarantee. However, the status quo does guarantee that when we talk about idea X as "Fringe" the default reading by the majority of readers not conversant with this corner of Wiki-jargon will be that idea X is categorized by Wikipedia as lunatic. Worse, there is considerable evidence that more than a few editors who are familiar with this guideline and with the policies on which it is based (including NPOV) still prefer to read it that way. Strong measures seem to be called for to make the relevant distinctions unavoidable. Bn (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not Wikipeida's job to change the English language. Yes, the word "Fringe" has negative "lunatic" connotations to some people... but that is not how actual word is defined nor is that how we use it in this guideline. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to change the language, I'm proposing that we use it more wisely. Certain problems recur because of the pejorative associations of the word Fringe.

The definition in the RH dictionary is

something regarded as peripheral, marginal, secondary, or extreme in relation to something else: the lunatic fringe of a strong political party.

Secondary means subordinate in some recognized way. Unless the tail is trying to wag the dog, this would be uncontroversial, and not Fringe. So we're not dealing with the entire meaning of "fringe" here, we're only dealing with peripheral, marginal, or extreme. Extreme is the part that raises people passions. I'm proposing that we jettison these two parts of the meaning of the word "fringe", the irrelevant part and the troublemaking part. I'm suggesting that we talk about peripheral or marginal theories as peripheral or marginal theories. Let's leave name-calling like extreme (or "lunatic" as in dictionary's example) out of our editorial guidelines. Bn (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's those who insist that "fringe" really has a neutral meaning here who are trying to change the language. Bn (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I rather like 'Fringe Theories' - it's got umph. we could be a bit more neutral (and a bit more accurate) if we called it 'Unorthodox Theories' - and maybe we could improve the introduction/nutshell by pointing out that the guideline applies to all unorthodox theories, not just the crazy ones - but 'Unorthodox Theories' is an awfully clunky title. --Ludwigs2 21:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marginal theories has the same denotation without the same connotations. Think a bit about why "fringe theory" has "umph". If you use a word with "umph" you tend to get "umph" back. Bn (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Art is the only thing that makes life more than a plodding irrelevancy - even cave men knew this. don't sneer at umph qua umph.

--Ludwigs2 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... point taken about art. But is that what we're talking about here? Encyclopedia-making is a craft, but ... an art? I don't see anything in policy that says épater les bourgeois. (Maybe there should be ...

) Bn (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell should mention neutrality

The nutshell says: "To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be 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 nutshell mentions only notability and its principal content guideline, verifiability. The nutshell should also mention neutrality (though the article is more specifically focused on part of that policy, due and undue weight).

The reason is that notability is sometimes mistakenly invoked to challenge mention of an idea within an article about some other topic. This is an error because the notability policy applies to an article as a whole, it does not apply to mention or discussion of the idea in some other article.

Consider the possible circumstances in which an editor might challenge inclusion of material about a fringe idea in an article about something else.

The idea does not have its own article in Wikipedia because it has been unsuccessfully tried and was not shown to be notable. In this case, we should direct them to the relevant history and discussion. Maybe they have reliable sources to demonstrate notability.
No one has tried to write an article about it before, so its notability has not been tested. We should encourage those who want to talk about it to first create a properly sourced article about it. (It might belong as a section in a more general article on a fringe topic.)
The idea does have its own article which has passed the test of notability. The relevant test for inclusion in this other article seems to be undue weight. Notability is no longer at issue.

That's why the nutshell should mention neutrality, or due and undue weight), or both. Bn (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the nutshell should summarize all topics in the lead. Feel free to be bold and craft a suitable addition to the nutshell. LK (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the bold change per BRD. Changes to the nutshell should be discussed. Verbal chat 17:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Um... not really the best of reasons to revert, Verbal... the edit was discussed... between two editors in this very thread ... and ten days without a negative comment is an indication that since then the idea has some degree of support (or at least no clear opposition). It is fine if you want to re-open discussion... but "not discussed" is not really valid in this case.

I support the edit. WP:FRINGE is closely related to both WP:N and WP:UNDUE. That relationship should be made clear in the nutshell. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here's the reverted nutshell:

To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.

The original is unclear about the scope of WP:NOTE. It may be that Verbal wants the special qualifiers on WP:RS to be retained, extending what is said in WP:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. How about this:

To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and should be 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. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.

IMO it's better to leave the harping on particular kinds of RS for that section of the guideline and keep the nutshell simple. Bn (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just puzzling why we say it "should" be referenced in this way. Policy says it "must" be referenced properly. "Must" states policy, that's why. Here, we are putting further restrictions on what is mandated by WP:RS, which an editorial guideline can do.

But I still think we'd be better to leave these extensions of WP:RS to the section "Identifying fringe theories" and keep the nutshell simple. -Bn (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have started a new section below. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Other recent reverts by Verbal

This change was made with the notation "Notability applies to existence of articles, not to content in articles":

Otherwise it is not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia about the theory.

This was reverted to:

Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

The original misrepresents the scope of WP:NOTE.

Bn (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ugh. is it a violation of wp:CIV to point out that Verbal has a long history as a revert-monkey? I wish there was a place to nominate him/her for a 'most inappropriate username' award, because I have never once seen him/her actually discuss a change to an article in talk. all bite, no bark: bad mojo.

In other words, I have had this problem before, I sympathize, and if there is anything you can think of to do about it I will happily (nay, eagerly) assist you. --Ludwigs2 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to gang up on Verbal. He's doing a great job of that himself. Bn (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This change (indicated by bold face) was made with the notation "Clarify the pertinence of notability."

"An article about a fringe theory must satisfy the criterion of Notability. 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. ...

This was reverted to:

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. ...

This paragraph is about references, it is not about notability. The discussion of reliable sources applies to all mentions of fringe theories, whether in a dedicated article on a fringe theory (where WP:NOTE applies) or elsewhere in Wikipedia (where WP:NOTE does not apply).

I propose this change:

Discussion of a fringe theory must be 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.

Bn (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[Moved text: I deleted a reorg proposal that I had here and put it in the new section about improving the coherence of the article.] Bn (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar made these changes (indicated by bold face):

Our WP:NPOV policy states that conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected may be excluded from articles about scientific subjects, unless the issue has been covered by other high-quality reliable sources as an alternative position. This is because discussing such topics may give the theory undue weight within the context of that article (see WP:UNDUE). While WP:NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article, it does not require that every position existing be included. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas, so long as there are appropriately reliable sources.

(Other changes not indicated in bold face were the italicization of "majority" and "significant-minority" and making two article links.)

These seem to me to be good changes in accord with the discussion about cleaning up the article. Discussion?

/Bn (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would favor a return to the version just before Verbal's revert. [1] LK (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to this? Verbal? /Bn (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

he won't say, he'll just revert if he doesn't like it. go ahead and do it, and if he reverts I'll revert him. it's he only form of communication that works. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reorganizing for less repetition and more coherence

The article is repetitious and lacks coherence.

For a start, consider the section "Identifying fringe theories". The second and third paragraphs belong in the preceding section, "Reliable sources".

The second paragraph talks about "extensive and serious references" etc. The third paragraph talks about evaluating those references for undue weight. It can go in the section about references too. If there's no objection, I'll move those two paragraphs accordingly. I'll change the lead of the first to say The theory must be discussed extensively, and in a serious manner, ... Notability is discussed in the section "Notability versus acceptance" and clearly does not fit here. Comment?

I thought that for the big picture we might consider the three governing policies, "Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability", as the centers of gravity for three main sections for grouping what is there. However, there is a great deal about WP:RS, which supports all three. /Bn (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell

I do not know if Michael Johnson intended to revert the recent change to the nutshell (diff), but I want to endorse the established nutshell.

Established nutshell: To be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be 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.

Proposed nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.

I do not find the previous discussion (above) to be a convincing justification for the proposed nutshell. The proposal seems a redundant rehash of the core policies, whereas the established wording provides guidance (which is what a guideline should do). Sure, it's just a guideline and it does not overrule anything, but the established nutshell is a helpful attempt to describe which ideas are sufficiently notable for inclusion here. There may be a case for appending a brief version of the first sentence of the proposal to the established nutshell. The second sentence of the proposal gives too much comfort to those who would like to create an article on a fringe topic (it is too easy to focus on the encouraging start of that sentence, while discounting the "must meet the test of notability"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous nutshell does emphasize WP:RS. I suggested a way to include this language in the new nutshell (though I believe it is redundant). The main problem with it is that it says that WP:Note applies to all matters under discussion here. It applies only to the existence of a dedicated article about a fringe theory. Most of the Sturm und Drang is about discussions of a fringe theory being included within other articles. That is why WP:NPOV must be the lead idea. WP:NOTE is included specifically w.r.t. existence of a dedicated article.

The second problem with the previous nutshell is that it puts undue emphasis on exclusion of fringe ideas. The primary focus of this guideline is balance. If there are no reliable sources documenting recognition of a connection between fringe theory x and established theory y then mention of x in an article about y is unbalanced representation per WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight.

The detailed advice is given in the body of the article. /Bn (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Those who would like to create a dedicated article about a fringe theory should attempt to do so. Talk of giving them comfort, evocative of the phrase "giving comfort to the enemy", is needlessly adversarial. Their attempt will stand or fall on the strength of their reliable sources. Period.

The language elaborating on WP:RS could be included, but it's a bit complicated because the advice given in this article for inclusion in another article is a bit different from the advice for a dedicated article. Here's an idea of what it might look like:

To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must document the relationship. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. The idea should be 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.

/Bn (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following nutshell as shorter and more to the point (justifications can be left for the article itself). LK (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fringe ideas should not receive undue weight in other articles, and should only be included if reliable sources document a relationship. If they are notable, fringe ideas can be expanded on in articles devoted to those ideas.

For convenient comparison side by side, here is the present nutshell:

To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.

The proposed amendment is 78% the length of the original, a bit shorter. Neither is very long. Whether it is more to the point depends upon whether we think NPOV and the meaning of "fringe" are not to the point.

Things omitted:

1. Prominent mention of WP:NPOV, which is the core motivation of this guideline and the basis of WP:UNDUE. (People understand about neutrality even while they are quarreling about the implementation of UNDUE as an aspect of it.)

2. Brief definition of what a fringe idea is ("an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field").

Things added:

3. The sense of "in an article about a mainstream idea" is generalized to "in other articles".

I don't think we should lose (1) and (2). We could gain (3) by amending the present nutshell to say "in an article about something else". If smidgens of length are critical, that's actually a wee bit shorter.

If you believe (1) and (2) are not "to the point", we should discuss that. Bn (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability by collection

I'm noticing a lot of people lumping disparate fringe theories together in articles with brain-dead titles like "Alternative theories of foo" or "Fringe theories about bar". I feel that people are using these articles as dumping grounds to keep the mainstream articles free of cruft. This is not okay unless there are verifiable secondary sources which describe the sum of those ideas as related or part of a single topic. Basically, there are three options for fringe theories:

Incorporate them, properly weighted into the main article keeping in mind WP:ONEWAY and WP:UW.
Make articles about them if they are notable
Excise

That's really all we can do. Collecting small little sections in catch-all dumping-ground articles is NOT okay.

Should we be explicit about this here?

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a good approach in principle. The sound idea behind this is that if you have information on something that doesn't quite have the notability for a standalone article, it's still a good idea to list it somewhere so that people who are looking for it will be able to find it. Wikipedia is, after all, primarily a repository for useful information, not for lofty and polished prose. For example, see Runic_magic#Other where I am parking references to assorted runic cranks that wouldn't have notability elsewhere.

The trick is to find an article where such a list is appropriate. While mergism in principle is a very good idea, just making up a contorted title like "alternative theories of foo" is a bad idea.

Then there is WP:SS. The "incorporate them" approach in some cases results in overly lengthy sections. In such cases, it is appropriate to split these into sub-articles. Sub-articles do not need "stand-alone" notability as long as it is made clear that they inherit the notability from their parent article even if they focus on one aspect just to take load off the main discussion. An example would be Phaistos Disc decipherment claims or Atlantis location hypotheses. These imo are valid article titles, because there are notoriously many such decipherment claism / location hypotheses, even though they are exactly the kind of "fringe collections" you are talking about. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Except aren't there a variety of secondary sources written about those claims and hypotheses you are pointing out? There are, at least, entire television shows about them on some of the more seedy networks ;). The problem is really one of sourcing. An article may list disparate ideas centered around a common theme such as 2012 doomsday prediction as long as there are secondary and tertiary sources which reliably link them. Finding primary source claims that aren't mentioned elsewhere and just parking them in an "alternative theories" article to get them out of the "mainstream" articles is avoiding the issue, which often is that primary source claims that haven't received serious notice by independent sources just don't belong in Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best way to approach this issue is through wp:NOT. A collection of disparate theories with a common focus would probably fall under 'repositories of loosely associated topics'. the only question then would be whether that should be brought out here as a fringe clarification of NOT or whether NOT should get some tweaking to cover this kind of thing more explicitly (NOT needs some copyeditng anyway, mind you - I just noticed that wp:NOTDIR and wp:IINFO overlap in odd ways). --Ludwigs2 18:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot

This involved editors who have rarely edited the two articles in question, which I find a bit odd. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Incipient edit-war

This change appears to be controversial, but thus far I can't really understand exactly what the dispute is about, because it's a bit hard to follow through edit summaries alone. Could one of the parties who feels strongly enough to reinsert/revert this material open a thread here expressing their concerns? MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Short version:

SV (and Elen of the Roads too I think) has a long standing belief that, as they currently stand, this page and some other policy pages (e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:IRS) promotes what she calls the 'scientific point of view', as opposed to the neutral point of view. SV has written an essay about this, but I can't find it right now. (SV, I'm sure you'll correct me if I've mis-stated your position)

I, and most other editors here, believe that this page and the lead are largely fine as they are, and that WP:NPOV demands that weight given in articles be proportioned by Reliable Sources, which means that fringe views are marginalized, and some are excluded completely. We believe that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should first and foremost describe mainstream academic thought, and that WP:NPOV is designed to promote that. This is in line with Arbcom rulings (see [2] and [3]), and is the practice of all other respected encyclopedias.

LK (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence: it's probably best not to speak for other editors (be that making claims about what SV or Elen think, or even about what 'most' editors believe). I'm not sure about what Elen and SV think, and I suspect you're wrong about what 'most' editors think, so we might as well just make our own arguments for ourselves and leave it at that.

I will say that (speaking historically) this guideline has frequently been used to promote a radical skeptic position (which is itself a form of pseudoscience that masquerades as scientific opinion). There is in fact a distinct scholarly viewpoint that needs to be respected on wikipedia - to my mind the purpose of FRINGE is to distinguish properly between scholarly viewpoints that are accepted in mainstream scholarship and other viewpoints that are mostly notable because they have have a following or have created some conflict in the mass public. But not even scholarly viewpoints can be promoted to the exclusion of other notable viewpoints without violating NPOV. A serious encyclopedia should be just as serious about non-scholarly topics as it is about scholarly ones; it just needs to keep them in proper perspective.

However, I don't really think that's what SV was doing with her edits. I've been holding off wading into it myself until I can get a better sense of what's going on; we'll see what happens. --Ludwigs2 06:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the claim that the material SV tried to revert was "trying to introduce spov" (SV's edit notation of 16:17, 14 September 2010). Are phrases like "scholarship in its field", "mainstream idea", "field of study" too suggestive of mainstream scholarship in the sciences? The section on pseudoscience obviously is not relevant to non-science subjects (Led Zeppelin, say, or Leona Helmsley, or philately) except where some aspect of the subject notably has called for scientific investigation. Certainly, reliable sources for many subjects are non-scholarly and are not understood to be organized in or representative of a field or discipline—but even if there is a field of "Helmsley studies", say (I've been surprised before!), it's not a field of science.

I wonder if a clearer separation would help, treating fringe science separately from other ideas that are neither science nor pseudoscience, they're just notions about something that aren't broadly accepted or matters of consensus among folks whose publications deal with that something. Some of you folks have been assessing such stuff here for years. Is that a sensible approach? Bn (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The governing factors would still be NPOV, UNDUE, and (supporting these) RS, but the applications of these for the two kinds of subject matter are naturally discussed in somewhat different terms. My suggestion is that separation might be less confusing for editors seeking guidance—and also for editors seeking consensus here. Bn (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a psychological truism that people generally debate with their internal representation of others, not with others directly. It takes a distinct effort of will (and a lot of practice) to ignore what you believe someone is saying and look at what they are actually saying. That goes trebly on the internet. I've always found SV's edits to be reasonable and well-considered (not that I always agree with him, mind you), so I'm not sure what Lawrence is saying.

I actually believe that what this guideline needs is more generalization, not separation. it's worth reading though the original proposal for this guideline - january 2006 revision - to see how things have shifted. The emphasis on science was picked up at a later date; the original thought was to distinguish mainstream ideas from non-mainstream ideas, so that Wikipedia itself doesn't turn into a validating source for non-mainstream ideas. Note how debunking and disparaging references are used in the proposal not to debunk or disparage but to establish the notability for the non-mainstream theory. I think it would be best to get away from this whole peculiar emphasis on pseudoscience and back to a broader discussion of mainstream and non-mainstream ideas.

I'll give people another day or so to see if anyone want to comment on this, and if not I'll try some rewrites. I just ran across this the other day: I may try to incorporate some of it here, since I think it applies. --Ludwigs2 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I could see that working. Accordingly, the differences in how policies are applied to science and how they are applied to other fields are wrong-headed and should go away.

Here are two very big changes I see since the original proposal:

These guidelines refer specifically to the creation of entire articles about said topics, not to the inclusion of alternative points of view in individual articles. These guidelines do not speak to the content of the articles, which are still completely subject to WP:NPOV and other policies.

In its present form this is an editing guideline which is about the content and (in contrast to e.g. WP:NOTE) is not about the existence of articles; and it is also about the inclusion of "fringe" ideas in non-"fringe" articles. The fact that WP:NOTE does not apply to the inclusion of "fringe" ideas in non-"fringe" articles, and that WP:RS in such cases specifically requires sources that affirm the association of the two ideas, has not always been clear. Bn (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also from the original proposal, an illustration of the difference between WP:NOTE for an article vs. WP:RS for a passing mention:

The theory [probably] does not ... deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mentioning of it in the main Port Chicago article since its internet presence is very large[ly] due to the aforementioned fringe websites.

A source for subject-matter X must be considered reliable or representing consensus by those knowledgeable about subject-matter X, and the fact that experts in a perhaps more general or more generally accepted subject-matter Y that X intrudes on believe that subject-matter X is entirely a bunch of hooie is irrelevant to that very narrow pertinence. Bn (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

While you're looking at this, the section on pseudoscience begins with "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific...", but after that subordinate mention of reliable sources the ensuing treatment can easily be read as giving guidance for making an independent judgement of whether or not something is pseudoscience. For example in the lead-in "Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience—for instance, for categorization purposes—include ..." followed by a list of types and examples. Something may be classified as pseudoscience if reliable sources say it is pseudoscience. If the typology of pseudoscience provides guidance to editors then we should be more clear just what guidance it provides. Does it give guidance when to suspect pseudoscience and look for confirmation in reliable sources? Kind of slippery ground. Bn (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all fields are academic

Slight revision proposed for this passage in the section "Identifying 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.^[1]

Not all areas of expertise are enumerated in the referenced [field of study] article. If there's no objection, I'll move that reference to the footnote (with appropriate context) and simplify to say "in its particular field". Bn (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The revision was completed and accepted before the end of September 2010, so this section of discussion can freely be archived whenever convenient. Bn (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Length of fringe articles

I've seen this type of discussion for example at Talk:The_Gene_Illusion#Drastically_cut_down_the_page ([4] vs [5]) Alas, there's nothing specific here about the length of articles about fringe topics. I suggest that something along the lines of: on a fringe topic the exposé of the topic itself should not exceed that granted in mainstream critiques of it. This should prevent obscure fringe topics from having giant articles with only a line or two of criticism at the end. (I was particularly impressed how even that sliver of criticism was considered non-neutral in the tag on top of the giant version!) Tijfo098 (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for putting it this way, but that's silly. The length of an article on a fringe topic is dictated by the material needed to describe it correctly. Excessive length usually indicates advocacy (someone trying to argue out some point of the fringe topic in detail) and that can chopped at will, but we're not going to leave important parts of the description of a fringe theory out because there aren't enough critiques, or pad fringe articles with redundant or excessive critiques just to add more lines of opposing text.

You should think of a fringe theory article as a "gorilla cage" article. the theory itself should be described in its natural setting with enough detail to give the right idea, and criticisms or mainstream views should be included with enough prominence to be sure that the gorilla can't get out of the cage, but not so much that they get in the way of people observing the gorilla. People want to see a gorilla in a natural habitat; they don't want to see a whipped looking thing cowering in bricked-over corner. Same thing goes for fringe theories: describe them as they are, add just enough critique to make sure everyone understands the theory's (lack of) place in the scientific world, and let it go. --Ludwigs2 05:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it so unreasonable to assume that orthodox critiques of a fringe work will summarize and address its main claims while glossing over elaborate details that can obscure what the fringe stuff is all about? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreasonable? well, it's not impossible, but it's a bit unlikely, and I see no reason to make over-generalized assumptions of that sort whatsoever. The problem is that 'critiques' of fringe views are most likely to come from two types of sources:

scientific research that disproves a particular concrete claim of a fringe view without discussing the view itself in any particular depth (except through the lens of mainstream viewpoints.
skeptical opinions, which intentionally deal with the fringe topic is a prejudicial manner (for the purposes of debunking) and rarely give an unbiased assessment of the principles of the theory.

Neither of these sources is generally adequate for giving an effective description of what the theory says. Better would be to use reliable non-scientific journalistic sources, if available (journalists will generally describe the theory reasonably well, both giving it its due and explaining why it doesn't work).

Keep in mind that these are articles on fringe topics, not articles against fringe topics. Again, if you go to the gorilla cage, you don't want to see tons of signs informing you how stupid the gorilla is when compared to humans. you just want to see the gorilla, with the understanding that it's in the cage for a reason. --Ludwigs2 15:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Fringe

{{Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed, see template talk:Fringe. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A "quack watch"

Is there a quack watch on wikipedia for editors who are attempting to insert their fringe theories into mainstream articles, for example, attempting to find any article in which they can place their awesome newly discovered theory of why pseudoscience is real and cool? I realize this is a common-as-dirt-occurrence on wikipedia, but I think having a single board, somewhere, where the latest promoter of some fringe theory can see that they are merely one of thousands of fringe-pushers to stop by wikipedia with their pet promotion, might give the impression that there are easier places than wikipedia to promote the fringe-upchuck of the month. Is there such a place? --Kleopatra (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought this was the place (ie/ to discuss such issues plaguing WP) - however I could be wrong. Shot info (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent place to note current concerns with problematic fringe editors. Many editors who keep an eye on fringe articles probably also watchlist this talk page. Right now the fluoridation articles are being hit pretty hard by a slew of socks and IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the place to do it: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎ -- Brangifer (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe so, and such a list would probably be a violation of Wikipedia policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone proposing a "list". -- Brangifer (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We focus on the edits, not the editor. So, I don't think we should list problematic editors ... however, if there is an article where there is a problem, you can point us to it. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical consusions

A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here[6]. PPdd (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theory journals misleadingly quoted for POV

Note: It was suggested to post notice at WP:Fringe about the following important discussion taking place, copied in part to this WP:Fringe talk page section

A subtle question came up at talk:Acupunture here[7]. An alternative medicine journal with an authoritative sounding name was quoted in the acupuncture article in a way that misleads readers about "medical" conclusions in a way which meets MEDRS, but is not in the "spirit" of MEDRS -

"The American Academy of Medical Acupuncture (2004) states: 'In the United States, acupuncture has its greatest success and acceptance in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain.' "[8]

This sentence is techincally true, but it leaves an ordinary reader with the impression that a national "medical" academy has concluded acupuncture is successful in general, and has "great" success in treating pain. That is how I read it, until I investigated and found that the AAMA is a POV pushing organization that is not peer reviewed by independent medical practitioners. This seems to be an end run around MEDRS prohibitions about using alternative medicine journals as RS for medical conclusions. Does anyone have a suggested fix of MEDRS to handle this subtle problem of "misleading by quoting medical conclusions by alternative organizations that have assumed titles of authority "? Note: the following was copied from WP talk:RS. PPdd (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are thinking of adding this to WP:MEDRS, this discussion should take place at WP:MEDRS. Not here. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I put it here (WP:RS) because it is about "alternative science journals" in general, in addition to alternative medicine journals. ~

Fair enough... Well, from a purely RS standpoint, I would agree with the statement.

As a further thought, when you get around to discussing it at MEDRS (and I expect your proposal will require some discussion) I would suggest leaving a note at both WT:FRINGE and WT:NPOV, pointing to that centralized discussion. The issue relates to multiple policies and guidelines, and a full discussion now, ending in a broad consensus now will help prevent potential conflicts later. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on cenralizing the discussion. I also agree that this will be a major decision for modifying WP:RS or WP:MEDRS (or WP:Fringe or WP:NPOV), since it will affect a huge number of edit war-prone articles (and likely stop a huge number of edit wars and interminable and multi-repeated talk page debates. I got accused of "canvassing" last time I posted a vote on a related topic at relevant talk pages, but I fully agree with the need for multiple notifications, and a centralized discussion. PPdd (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note:The above block was copied from WP:RS to centralize the discussion. PPdd (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please commet at the centralized discussion location at MEDRS here[9]. PPdd (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note... My comments above were cut and pasted from WT:IRS... and related to the language of a specific proposal that PPdd posted at that page (saying he wanted to add it to MEDRS). Please see the WT:IRS talk page for proper context. That said, the issue of when it is appropriate to cite "alternative journals" (and when it is not appropriate to do so) is an issue that the contributors to this guideline should be involved with... It seems that the centralized discussion is taking place at WT:MEDRS... please swing by and opine. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe journals

Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe journals is being discussed here[10]. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific status of astrology

There is a proposal at Talk:Astrology to revise the current introduction of the article.

I have not been extensively involved in the discussion, but my opinion of the proposed changes is that they obscure the pseudoscientific status of astrology by cherry-picking information, presenting disputed or misleading statements as fact, and giving more preferential treatment to the pseudoscientific viewpoint than to the scientific one.

Since astrology is cited as an example in this guideline, I am posting a notification here to invite participation by other, as-yet-uninvolved editors. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology, together with phrenology is an archetypical pseudoscience; however, it is not a fringe theory and should not be considered in Fringe theories as millions of people have at least a passing interest. A fringe theory is something like cold fusion, or 2012 astrology. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theories is about scientific acceptance not popularity. Creationism, Ancient astronauts, and the Bermuda Triangle are all examples of fringe ideas that are popular with the general public.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's entertainment value only, then it's not fringe. If people take it seriously as predictive of the real world (and some unfortunately do), then it is clearly fringe. Fred, it might help to actually read what ArbCom had to say about fringe topics before trying to say what is and is not fringe. Not to mention if you remove astrology then nothing would count. But maybe that's the ultimate strategy, I don't know. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please be precise. Astrology is referred to as a pseudoscience on wikipedia because large numbers of highly reliable sources refer to it as a pseudoscience. It's pretty much the pseudoscience poster-boy in the real world. Also, I would not refer to astrology as a 'fringe science', since there was never a point where astrology was accepted (and later rejected) by mainstream science as potentially workable. Astrology is nothing more than a religious/metaphysical concept that got glossed over with scientific-sounding rhetoric in the 19th century - pure pseudoscience in the same vein as creationism.

No, creation science is not pseudoscience, it is real science. It uses the same hard evidence as the old earth views, the same scientific, geologic, fossil records ect, so it is no different than the old earth view. It's merely a different interpretation of the scientific evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimel23 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, references to some 'ultimate strategy' by wikipedia editors is both uncivil and slightly paranoid. I suggest you redact that statement. thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Astrology and astronomy were used interchangeably and science before c1600 was more akin to what would be called philosophy today; so stating "never a point where astrology was accepted (and later rejected) by mainstream science" is not exactly right. As shown by Carl Sagan in his Cosmos book "Planets" was listed as a cause of death as late as the 1600s. In fact, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei were all employed as astrologers not astronomers.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki should be clearer what a fringe idea or theory is

In everyday science there is an endless debate about the nature of the world we live in. Todays lone researcher can be tomorrows nobel prize winner. Only a certain number of ideas are mainstream the rest have opponents either way with maybe a gaggle of believers in the middle of the spectrum of ideas.

Some users are abusing WP:fringe in for example economics where if the subject is not believed by most people then it does not deserve to be heard and wiki editors can be blocked from editing by endless trivial abuse along the lines of minority belief WP:weight WP:Fringe

If wiki is going to be the source of knowledge in the future people it could be a return to the dark ages. Some of the stuff going on at fractional reserve banking is just plain weird — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewedwardjudd (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, have you actually read the policy? It does not ban articles on Fringe theories... it talks about how we determine which fringe theories should have articles, and how to organize such articles and discuss the theories. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is the point Andrewedwardjudd was raising. I agree that there is a misuse of fringe see Talk:Multi-level_marketing's and Talk:Weston_Price's archives regarding Focal Infection theory for examples, and we could do with a better definition. I think Ludwigs2's attempt (see Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_15#Better_explanation_of_Fringe_needed explains things better.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this the passage you mean?

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream views of appropriate scholarly fields of study. This may range from new scholarly theories that have not yet developed a proper body of research, to older, mostly refuted theories that have a cult following in the non-scholarly world, to eccentric ideas which make claims or presumptions that seemingly contradict established scholarship. In general, an idea can be considered fringe when it presents itself as a significant revision of academic knowledge, but lacks academic support or acknowledgment for that claim.

I can see this preceding the present opening paragraph. Ludwigs2 was going to come back with a more comprehensive rewrite, but I didn't see that in that archive. Is it elsewhere? Bn (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Change "must be evaluated appropriately" to "must not be given undue weight"

In the section "Identifying fringe theories" I propose changing "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in an unrelated field must be evaluated appropriately" to "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in an unrelated field must not be given undue weight" so as to allude specifically to that part of UNDUE. The present phrase suggests that a Wikipedia editor should contribute evaluative language, and to do so would be inappropriate per WP:NOR. Bn (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(I meant to say "so as to allude to that part of NPOV" i.e. WP:UNDUE.) Bn (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is far better wording.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I too agree, "not be given undue weight" is better wording. LK (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A change in wording

If I may explain:

[11].

I'm not sure whether this change will be reverted, but I'd like to explain my rationale.

Essentially, the version earlier stated says that since we don't exclude criticism that isn't peer-reviewed, we shouldn't exclude proponents that aren't peer-reviewed.

But there's a problem with this construction.

The fact is that there is more non-notable commentary from fringe-theorists than there is editorial space (not literal computer memory, but possible editorial space that can achieve WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, etc.) to include their views in fringe articles. What seems to be the driving principle behind this guideline is that what belongs in fringe articles are the statements of fringe theorists that have received considerable notice from outsiders. The lack of peer-review can be used sometimes in such cases, depending on the situation, to show a lack of interest. A no-name creationist who writes a blog about some idea thought up in school one day is not going to have his ideas included in Wikipedia. If the self-same creationist got his idea published in a peer-reviewed journal, likely that would be of some interest to us and, I'd hesitate to guess, would rise to the level of include-ability. Am I wrong in thinking this?

If my argument above is correct, I don't think it is outrageous to say that using lack of peer review for creation science ideas is necessarily an argument to avoid when discussing why particular ideas of creation science proponents are excluded. It's just that there are other ways to establish notability for a creation science believer than to get their idea published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, is all.

I guess what I'm saying is that criticism of fringe theories is necessarily held to a different standard than fringe theories themselves by virtue of the general expertise exhibited by those doing the criticism. A lack of peer-review for a critique of a fringe theory is far less damning than a lack of peer-review for a fringe theory itself for the very reason that the critique is something that helps establish notability while the fringe theory itself cannot be natively notable.

This may seem a bit pedantic, but it appeared a little weird to me when I was reading this guideline. Full disclosure: I referenced this guideline in an AfD for Rhawn Joseph, which is what brought me to this page in the first place, but I did not reference this section and I'm pretty sure this has no relevance to the AfD debate in question. (I may be wrong in this, though. These issues are very complicated.) I hope I am not abrogating some rule here by acting boldly with this edit. Alternatively, I hope that people reading this might understand where I'm coming from and can address the issue if indeed this change is not warranted.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Moved to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Astrology Mildly Mad^T_C 14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Parity section

The wording of the parity section is such that it invites wiki-lawyering, especially the following sentence:

Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia.

I have all to frequently seen this guideline quoted by apologists of fringe views as an invitation to use any in-universe source regardless of whether it has been mentioned in the mainstream sources or not. The sources are usually self-published, or published in in-universe pseudo-"journals" that conduct no editorial review in any meaningful sense of the term. The authors are usually self-appointed "experts" that have, at most, received recognition only in-universe, and are therefore of undeterminable reliability. These sources are used to support OR and SYNTH on scientific, historical, philosophical and other academic content in Wikipedia's voice, and even to challenge peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Another problem is that apologists interpret this policy as an invitation to describe a topic from their in-universe perspective in articles on the topic itself, again in Wikipedia's voice, rather than how it is described in reliable third-party sources.

For example, the article on Astrology is heavily sourced with fringe in-universe sources of unverifiable reliability, many posing as academic sources published by sham acdemic societies in sham journals. These sources are not being used merely to illustrate what astrologers believe in, but to support material on the history and philosophy of the topic in Wikipedia's voice.

We need to spell out specific guidelines on which types of sources can be used, with clear-cut examples of what types of sources are allowed and what types aren't. The Parity section is being interpreted as an exception to WP:RS, even though the sentence preceding the paragraph in question specifically states: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this section can be used to argue for the use of fringe sources. First of all, it seems to be about sources used to criticize fringe theories, not promote them. Second, all it's saying is that you can use non-peer-reviewed but otherwise reliable sources to critique a fringe theory. So, for example, you can use popular science, journalistic press, etc. for critiques of a fringe theory. I could be wrong, but I think that's what it's saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that it IS being widely quoted. And frequently at that. See here: [[12]] The section has been quoted at least half a dozen times on the talk page of that article in the last two months alone. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To make DV's point clearer, this argument does not concern science-related issues. He is objecting to the use of references to astrological books and journals on matters relating to the philosophy, history and principles of astrology. He objects to a reference to an article published in an astrological journal which is astrologically peer-reviewed and deemed to have a good reputation within the astrological commuunity, but determined to be an unacceptable source for scientific controversies. The point about it not being an acceptable source for science-related matters has been accepted, but because of that DV now objects to any reference to this or other well known astrological journals/books on the history, principles and philosophy of astrology too. I cannot think of any other specialist subject which is prevented from referencing the books and journals which are considered notable in that specialist subject, for general information about that specialist subject. I'm not sure this is really the best place for this question, which is essentially about what constitutes a reliable source for fringe subjects - for astrology I would assume the same policies apply as set out on WP:RS, and that articles, papers and books that are published by reputable publishers known to engage in fact-checking and having a good knowledge of the subject are not problematic, since this is where those with expertise in the subject are most likely to publish their work. If this isn't the right place for this question, maybe it needs raising somewhere else to bring an end to very time-consuming debates that have left a lot of editors demoralised and confused -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how an article by a self-appointed "expert" in a sham "journal" published by a sham "scholarly society" qualifies as a "reputable" source? Or how we could verify any information contained in it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to focus on your negative language because it makes this kind of discussion contentious when it needs to remain calm. There are no 'sham scholarly societies' involved. The two well known peer-reviewed astrological journals I am aware of are 1) Correlation, the peer-reviewed journal of the Astrological Association of Great Britain (distinct from its more regular publication The Astrological Journal, which is not peer-reviewed), and 2) Culture and Cosmos, which focuses on papers related to the history of astrology, published in association with University Wales Trinity Saint David. Both appropriately meet the criteria for fact-checking and expertise within the subject, and can be viewed as trusted sources for general astrological information. (By that I mean, where there is no point of scientific controversy involved) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If this discussion were at WP:RSN, the response would be that it all depends: an astrology publication is a reliable source for statements about what astrologers believe, but that same source is not suitable for a refutation of a scientific source. Per WP:PARITY, the scientific source does not need to meet the normal standards required for a statement about science at Wikipedia. Further, an astrology publication is not suitable for making a statement in Wikipedia's voice. I have not followed recent developments at astrology, but a made-up example would be that it is ok for the article to say something like "astrologers believe that the position of the planets at birth has effects that are discernible in later life"[astrology ref]. However, it would not be ok to omit "astrologers believe that". Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem with that in that astrology has no clear spokespersons who can be relied up to say what astrologists believe. There are plenty of organizations that CLAIM to be qualified to do so, but no third-party evidence that they are indeed so qualified. Furthermore, it's very difficult to determine if there is anything at all that qualifies as a widely held belief in the astrological "community". From what I've been seeing, the beliefs of present-day astrologers seems like a free-for-all every-man-for-himself make-it-up-as-you-go-along use-anything-you-can-that-impresses-the-suckers circus. For Von Daniken's beliefs, the spokesperson is obvious. For creationism and Intelligent Design, there are clearly established organizations which have received abundant third-party coverage so that they can be considered as spokespersons for the movement as a whole. Even so, we do not allow them to define the movement in their own language, and certainly not in Wikipedia's voice.

You also seem to be assuming that astrologers' opinions on scholarly topics like the history and philosphy of astrology have any significance or validity simply because of the fact that they are astrologers, and that they and their buddies acknowledge them as "experts". For example, could you rely on information on lay investiture, the Arian controversy, transubstantion or the meaning of the Eucharistic ritual that comes from an article in a self-published unofficial Catholic pseudo-academic "Journal"? Does one gain special insight into the academic aspects of Catholicism or astrology sumply by virtue of being a Catholic or an astrologer? If I wanted useful information, I would find an article by a real scholar, and if I couldn't find one, I would rather do without. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that whenever it comes to the matter of WP:RS, the answer should be “it all depends”; and I don’t see a problem with what Johnuniq has suggested. DV is arguing for something different - a blanket prohibition of all astrological books and journals, on the basis that he personally does not know them or the subject well enough to know whether the content or sources are reliable. There is no reason to assume that astrological journals promote ‘buddies’. The Astrological Association of Great Britain has a good reputation for promoting a critical study of astrology and would not have held that reputation since 1958 if it wasn’t capable of knowing what the philosophies and principles of astrology are. Matters of historical significance need to be sourced to authors or books that have a reputation for good, reliable knowledge of the subject. Academic sources wherever possible but I don’t think we should be excluding influential works with good reputations for knowledge of specialist areas - such as, for example, James Holden’s History of Horoscopic Astrology, for information about the history of horoscopic astrology, or the articles published in The Traditional Astrologer for information about the traditional principles and practice of astrology - on the basis that the author’s reputation for good knowledge in that area is unknown to DV, or the book/journal is not published by an academic press.

The safeguard is that any content deemed controversial on WP can be challenged on the basis that it is not correct or properly representative of the subject. But this hasn’t happened. No editor, no anonymous IP, absolutely no one who admits to having good knowledge of the subject has challenged the reliability of the content as a representation of what the astrological principles are or what astrologers believe. Those who are properly informed will do this if they read content that is not properly informed, with reliable sources in hand to support them. Or those who are able to improve, improve. Part of the story of astrology is what its own influential historical sources have reported, and what its prominent proponents and practitioners are saying today. I agree this should not be presented in WP’s own voice, but in terms such as ‘According to astrologers’, or ‘according to X…’. The area where this directly connects to the Parity statement is where the page currently says "Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well". I'm assuming this is the crux of what DV objects to and wants to see changed here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in the Astrology controversy and support DV's suggestion for clarification of this point. Zac's point about needing to use pro-fringe sources in order to describe a fringe viewpoint is a separate matter. WP:PARITY doesn't relate to it, and should be reworded to make that clear. DV's concern about "which astrologers represent astrology" is another separate point that needs a full airing in an appropriate forum, maybe FTN. The parallels in religion articles, also in politics articles, are too numerous to mention. (Who best describes the political position of the Ruritanian Revolutionary Liberals? The party's leader, or a notable political scientist who is strongly opposed to the party's policies?) Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY is needed for two reasons: (1) Some fringe topics are highly notable but, due to their obvious lunatic character, have not been critically examined in any reliable sources. In such cases we have a lower sourcing standard for fact-oriented criticism of the fringe ideas. (2) Even when a fringe topic is debunked in highly reliable sources, the coverage usually concentrates on invalidation as opposed to a description of how it is conceived by its proponents, and the various cultural factors surrounding it. It should go without saying that in such cases ordinary-quality reliable sources can be used for this non-scientific, non-fact-based information (and in fact may be more reliable if they describe it in depth as opposed to throw-away comments in a debunking), but unfortunately it doesn't. Some fundamentalist anti-fringe editors try to prevent accurate descriptions of fringe topics, desiring articles that consist only of debunking but none of the background information that is necessary to understand it. (In a particularly extreme case related to a medical fringe theory, an editor even insisted that a government report and New York Times articles were insufficient sources for the history of a medical debate because they didn't satisfy WP:MEDRS.)

Given its function as preventing excesses either way, the language of WP:PARITY must be carefully balanced, and it is not avoidable that it will occasionally be abused in one direction or the other. These are just general comments on the background and function of WP:PARITY that need to be taken into account. Hans Adler 12:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't comment on what's been happening on the astrology page. But I know that I'm currently seeking opinions on whether an article published in a tabloid is reliable enough to "balance" a consensus opinion of some highly reputable experts. It boggles my mind that there is even a question that wikipedia should accord equal time to a point of view widely ignored in the technical press. Granted that the relative levels of expertise are probably incomprehensible outside of network security -- and for all I know this is analogous to what some people are saying above -- I find it difficult to believe that this truly represents Wikipedia policy, or that it should, if it does. Maybe the source of the problem is in the attempt to "balance"? is the only thought I have on this at the moment. I am just shaking my head. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's not analogous to the above - Hans Adler hit the nail with his comments. But this shouldn't be a problem since WP's policy do not seek to 'equalise' or 'balance' the consensus opinion of highly reputatable experts. That would violate WP:UNDUE.

I think a point that should be clarified is that while WP:PARITY may allow for the use of "in-universe" sources to describe views of fringe enthusiasts (and be clear that use of such sources need to be clearly attributed as in-universe), whether or not any material in said sources can be included must also pass other hurdles including that it is described in independent sources (per the section titled "Independent Source"). It seems clear that fringe enthusiasts citing PARITY need to be reminded that you cannot interpret one part of the guideline in a vacuum from the other parts. Yobol (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Other fringe theories besides pseudoscience

Several points:

WP:FRINGE is heavily weighted to pseudoscience. I have been involved with another type of fringe theory that has nothing to so with science, the Shakespeare authorship question, and I think it should be made clearer that the fringe guidelines apply to those types of fringe/conspiracy theories as well.
It would also be nice to have some further clarification of WP:ONEWAY, which seems to be the least-understood section of the fringe guideline. I have been involved in several discussions that went on far too long because the advocates did not understand the basic principle behind it or have a clear idea of its application. Too many times a passing mention in a reliable source has been touted as connecting the fringe theory and the mainstream topic in a prominent way. The discussions on this page and the talk page of a mediation that was overtaken by arbitration are good examples.

If these could be addressed it would save lots of time that could be better spent writing articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We could perhaps make it clearer that fringe science is a subset of fringe scholarship. The categories established by ArbComm translate quite easily into social science and humanities. Have you seen the work on WP:HISTRS, which should help in these cases? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I had not, and thanks for that link. Is there any such clarification about WP:ONEWAY? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that WP:FRINGE is so weighted towards pseudoscience that Fringe science and Protoscience basically get lost in the shuffle. However, WP:HISTRS has it own set of problems as most histories are written by non historians. For example, Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association gives a thumbnail sketch of Focal Infection Theory history but Pallasch doesn't have a degree in history so does this make his unreliable regarding medical history?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The differentiation in the guideline: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories is never used when WP:FRINGE is brought up in discussions. The only use of FRINGE I have encountered in WP is: "It's FRINGE, we don't want that in WP". I would like to see a much improved guideline, with less chance of misuse, misinterpretation. The guideline talks about "Proponents of fringe theories ..." and how they have misused WP to promote their ideas. A proponent of fringe theory is not equal to a WP-editor that wants to contribute to an article about a verifiable, notable fringe topic (like me :-)). Yet every second comment I get is an insinuation on me being a POV-pusher and misusing WP. Just look at the comments from this IP Special:Contributions/128.59.171.194 in this AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell_(2nd_nomination). He was even praised for his comments for "keeping physics subjects free of trash." This is the reality of WP:FRINGE and how it is used in WP.

(ec)It just appeared to me, that my comments here on this talk page will encourage some editors to attack me for being a FRINGE POV pusher "trying to rewrite the rules to suit his promotional activities". --POVbrigand (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@POVbrigand, misuse of WP for debunking fringe ideas is also a problem. @Bruce, WP:HISTRS is still under construction; although it is worth defining "historian" in it, we are also trying to define all the circumstances when reliable history is written by non-historians. Feel free to come over there with examples like that. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@POVbrigand-One is forced to fend a buncha "shootin'-from-the-hip" trash talking to edit certain articles, I agree. Not defending this, just acknowledging the problem is real. I just don't see that the way this guideline is worded is causing the problem. The truth as I see it is that this guideline has somehow remained relatively even-handed and sensible despite attempts to hijack it and use it like a carte blanche license to blow past or turn core policy on its head, and to supplant wikipedia's NPOV with a DIY "skeptics" POV. I see the behavior-but I don't see anything justifying the behavior written in the guideline. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I edit a lot of articles dealing with or are related to conspiracy theories, and I've encountered the exact same problems that the OP has mentioned. I've long thought that wording of this guideline is inadvertently slanted toward fringe science. IMO, fringe is fringe is fringe. It should not matter whether it's a fringe viewpoint is about science or history. Is there a way to simplify ONEWAY so it makes it's meaning clearer? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that the history of this guideline is that it was written with a connection to the scientific method, I'm of the opinion that this slant is justified. I contend that what makes an idea pseudoscholarship and/or fringe is the extent to which the idea is criticized as a contravention of the process of the scientific method (and ideas that have received no third-party notice are excluded because we cannot conduct a source-based evaluation of such). Where we find notable fringe theories that aren't strictly pseudoscience (such as the Shakespeare authorship question or 9/11 Conspiracy Theories) we find that the way they abrogate the consensus of the relevant academic communities is where the ideas are contraventions of the scientific method. When someone does pseudohistory, it is related to some fundamental misunderstanding of the empirical facts of the past which are questions that are providentially addressed by the scientific method. The Oxfordian approach is pseudoscholarship because the observational evidence as to who wrote Shakespeare's plays is clearly in support of the Bard of Avon over any other proposed hypothesis. In this way, the question of pseudoscholarship or fringe theory aligns with the types of observational evidence and hypotheses used in the scientific method. Likewise, various 9/11 conspiracy theories are pseudoscholarship simply because they contradict empirical facts and the alternative hypothesis proposed does not comport with empirical reality. This is how pseudoscholarship can be demarcated: in the realm of testable hypotheses and empirical reality. In this way, I propose that fringe theories on Wikipedia as described in this guideline are most efficiently distinguished by looking through the lens of the scientific method. That's not to say that only the subjects of science are the purview of fringe scholarship: it's just to say that the easiest demarcation comes from the methods most often used in the sciences (and that includes, incidentally, history and the social sciences).

Broadening this guideline away from "science" needs to be done carefully because there are ways that people try to marginalize legitimate academic debate by using the majority/minority determinations as a bludgeon that does not distinguish between fundamentally flawed approaches and approaches that are sound but only attempted by a few. For example, Howard Zinn's reading of the history of the United States is not a fringe opinion nor is it pseudoscholarship even though his approach is not necessarily the most common approach to history when compared with the approaches of others. Zinn's reading of history has no problem with any connection to empiricism. Instead, detractors of Zinn must approach the subject as one relevant to the politics of historiography. Contrasting this with, for example, David Barton's reading of history, the difference is that while Zinn's history documents events that actually happened, Barton denies the empirical reality of certain events while proposing other events happened which simply did not. Barton's pseudohistory is "pseudo" because he is in opposition to empirical reality while Zinn's history is a minority idea because his work comports with proper scholarship and, most plainly, with the scientific methodology of determining what are the facts of history. This is why I think the connection to the scientific method is a valuable one: it forces people to think about the epistemology of the claims. If we aren't careful in the way we phrase this guideline, competing schools and opinionated approaches will use this guideline as a bludgeon without asking about the truth-value of the claims being assessed. A strictly anarchist view of the history of the labor movement is not a "fringe view" until it starts to make claims that contradict empirical reality. WP:UNDUE kicks in to demand that we not overly-emphasize or de-emphasize and anarchists' reading of history, but as soon as an anarchist claims an illuminati-type conspiracy theory, that's when WP:FRINGE kicks in because now the claim is subject to empirical test (there either is or there is not an illuminati and the evidence or lack of evidence as to its existence is what concerns those applying this guideline).

Or let's take a less hypothetical example. Jean Baudrillard famously wrote that The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. In the critical theory sense his ideas are not at all subject to this guideline because his claim is directly addressing what "reality" or "surreality" mean in terms of event-definitions, summative history, the media, etc. But certain readers of Baudrillard have taken his thesis to extremes and claimed, for example, that various historical events that we generally describe as "The Gulf War" did not actually take place. Those readers are subject to the application of WP:FRINGE, but Baudrillard himself is just a social theorist with a unique perspective.

128.59.171.194 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't buy it that even "fringe science" is defined here this way. For example, a do-it-yourselfer can develop a perfectly empirically derived, scientifically valid theory in their garage lab but it's "fringe" if the scientific community doesn't know about it or care enough to pay attention to it. This policy isn't meant to define how to judge the quality of a topic's "evidence" or "backup" (empirical evidence or any other kind). It's meant to help judge a topic's notability in its respective arena. The opening para of the guideline says this. A premise or topic may or may not be "fundamentally flawed"; but that has no bearing on how wikipedia judges how to cover it. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a guideline that has two purposes: 1) to determine which ideas are notable enough for inclusion or mention and 2) to show how notable fringe ideas should be covered in Wikipedia. You seem to think that this guideline only has the first purpose. A fundamentally flawed premise that has marginal third-party coverage that is uniformly criticizing it as such must necessarily be treated differently in Wikipedia than a premise that has received marginal coverage and so is notable but does not suffer from the same critiques. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree; it does say how it should be covered as well. But this is the part I disagree with: "A fundamentally flawed premise that has marginal third-party coverage that is uniformly criticizing it as such must necessarily be treated differently in Wikipedia than a premise that has received marginal coverage and so is notable but does not suffer from the same critiques." It makes no difference if the premise is "fundamentally flawed" or not. Not to editors here. Anything that gets "marginal" coverage that is uniformly "critical" should get the same treatment. This is per the NPOV policy, especially the WP:Undue clause, describing how much weight to give claims, when claims need attributions etc. What I'm getting at-two things. First, this test of what is or isn't good "science" is a different animal than what is or isn't a fringe topic per the WP:Fringe guideline. And what is or isn't "Fringe" will often have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific empiricism. And second: this guideline does not invite editors to engage in some kinds of judgements about the merits of any particular theory-it advises how to conform the coverage it gets here commensurate to the coverage it's given or receives in the mainstream. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two issues here. I'm not saying that Wikipedia editors are capable of evaluating good and bad science. I'm saying that there is a fundamental difference between a respected minority opinion within an academic community and an idea that is dismissed out-of-hand. The ideas that are dismissed out-of-hand, I contend, are done so because, rightly or wrongly, they are judged by sources to be in contravention of empirical facts or the scientific method. This isn't a "test", this is the difference between a minority idea and a fringe idea. Editors are not required to make the judgments themselves: they simply look at the sources. When an editor is evaluating the reliable sources that deal with intelligent design, it's clear that these ideas are subject to the guidelines at WP:FRINGE because they are criticized in a certain way. When an editor is evaluating the reliable sources that deal with queer theory, it's clear that these ideas are not subject to the guidelines at WP:FRINGE even though this is, in a purely numerical accounting, a minority approach. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

^ For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science.

[1] For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science.

[1]