Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Independent sources section

This section currently starts out:

  • The best sources to use when describing fringe theories ... are independent reliable sources.

I'm not sure this is totally correct. It really depends on the specifics of what is being described and in what article. In an article that is about a fringe theory, it is appropriate to include a purely descriptive outline of what the various claims made in a fringe theory are... and in that limited context the most reliable source is in fact a source where the claims are made... a non-independent source written by a proponent of the theory. That's an appropriate use of a primary source.
To make an analogy... in an article about a work of fiction, it is appropriate to include a plot summary. The most reliable source for that plot summary is the work itself... the primary source. Now, many of us would agree that fringe theories are works of complete fiction... so wouldn't it be logical that the most reliable source for a descriptive outline (plot summary) of that work of fiction is the theory itself (as presented by its proponents).
Now, I do understand that great care is needed here... appropriate use of primary sources is tricky. And we absolutely need independent secondary sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY and DUEWEIGHT. I absolutely do not want to change that. My only point is that there are (very limited) situations when a non-independent primary sources is actually better and more reliable than an independent secondary one. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the use of primary sources for the basic claims of fringe theories may be more reliable than a secondary source in certain circumstances; however, I see at least a couple of issues with using primary sources like this. First, many fringe theories change over time, such that any one primary source is only a snapshot of that theory and the secondary source would be a better source to capture context. Also, some fringe theories (intelligent design comes to mind) are based on a, shall we say, deceptive pretext about the core and intent of its theory, such that the best description of that theory is still the secondary source. If we are to change this wording, I think we have to be very careful. Yobol (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree that we need to be careful... which is why I raised my concern on talk rather than try to formulate a BOLD edit.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar that in some cases a primary source is most reliable, and I'd add perhaps definitive in describing a fringe theory. The "deceptive pretext and intent" is often part of the theory itself, should be included, and may be why the fringe theory is fringe in the first place. What should not happen is that the criticism of a fringe theory is present with out a description of the theory itself, and that description may be found in so- called, non-independent primary sources. The reader should not have to go elsewhere to find information about the fringe theory we're talking about even as we criticize the theory itself.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC))
Exactly... any good article about a fringe theory should include a neutral outline of the major components and claims that make up the theory. This neutral outline is best supported by citation to its major proponents. A good article would also contain analysis and criticisms of the fringe theory... that analysis and criticism should be supported by independent secondary sources. Indeed, I would say that everything except the neutral outline would need to be supported by independent secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The neutral outline is best written from such sources (and tertiary sources if available). Yes, there are exceptions and I agree that those are "(very limited) situations".
We are talking weight here, correct, and not just definitions? --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar's version which i reverted to says this in best language.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC))
Howso? --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you Ronz. The version in place is badly worded and its language redundant. It actually says the same thing but in less succinct language than the Blueboar version. I am concerned that immediately following a mention of this discussion on another article, Deepak Chopra, you came here immediately and reverted. Too bad.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

Ronz... I firmly believe that when describing a theory (whether fringe or mainstream), one should always cite the primary source, as that is the MOST reliable source possible for such material. Do you disagree with that? Blueboar (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree with your statement as written. If it is the most reliable source possible, even just for description, then it would be more reliable than a secondary source which also describes the same thing (no matter how good that secondary source was). I would also start checking for UNDUE problems - without a secondary source, there is often no reliable way to determine that the specific detail being proposed for citation is significant or representative. Sunrise (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of:

The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

I would suggest something like this:

Reliable secondary sources should be used to determine a fringe theory's notability, prominence and its relationship to mainstream scholarly discourse; the space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration of the secondary sources. Primary sources produced by proponents of the fringe view may be used in accordance with WP:PSTS, but should be approached with caution. Editors should balance the need to describe the theory accurately with the importance of not turning Wikipedia into a platform for the fringe view. If secondary sources are used in place of primary sources, it is important to make sure that the secondary sources accurately describe the primary-source material; editors should check the primary sources rather than relying entirely on the secondary sources and should use high-quality secondary sources where available.

SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that this opens the door to endless objections to a given source -- even an expert source -- based upon the notion that an editor knows better than the expert. The creationist literature is chock full of claims that scientists have misrepresented creationists. It's almost expected that supporters of creationism will claim that their side is being misrepresented, and we'll certainly find some Wikipedians holding that view. Where does it end? On Wikipedia, it has to end with high-quality expert sources from mainstream science. vzaak 05:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and if the sources really are high quality it's often okay (but I have seen very high-quality sources completely misrepresent primary sources, so it's not always okay). The problems arise when editors use poor-quality secondary sources, or good secondary sources that remark on something only in passing. In those cases it's almost always better to use primary sources. But yes, I take your point fully, that it can open the door to silliness. I was hoping that "should be approached with caution" would take care of that. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the opening of the door would let in a lot of horrors. I'd be inclined to change nothing here. WP:FRINGE is only a guideline, and in the exceptional cases where primary source use might be warranted, talk page consensus to deviate from it can be gained in the normal way. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
What I am talking about is not "the exceptional case"... we have lots of articles about fringe theories... and every one of them contains at least a sentence or two that outline the basic components that make up the theory ... When it comes to verifying that this outline is accurate, the single most reliable source possible is the source where the theory was originally proposed... the primary source. For everything else in the article a secondary source is better... but NOT for a descriptive statement as to what the theory consists of. It is the one time when a primary source is preferred over a secondary source, and where non-independent is preferred over independent. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:PARITY gives a lot of lassitude in selecting sources on fringe topics. Are you saying there are fringe notions where no secondary source (of any kind) describes what it even is? Wouldn't that signal a notability problem (except in exceptional cases). What examples do you have in mind? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No... I am merely saying that (contrary to what the Independent sources section currently says) a primary source is better than a secondary source for supporting a basic descriptive statement as to what the theory consists of. I am not trying to say you don't need secondary sources. You still need secondary sources to establish that the theory is notable. You still need secondary sources to establish DUEWEIGHT. You still need secondary sources for interpretation and analysis of the theory... and for everything else that makes up a good article. ALL I am saying is that a primary source is the best source for verifying a descriptive statement of what a theory consists of. This isn't just limited to fringe theories... For a descriptive outline of what Darwin said about evolution, "Origin of Species" is the best possible source... for a descriptive outline of Einstein's theory of relativity... Einstein himself is the best possible source. It is similar to how the best source for a plot summary of a work of fiction is the work itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The best descriptive outline of Darwin's statements on evolution is probably The Beak of the Finch, or perhaps 'Charles Darwin' by Janet Browne (2 volumes). The best outline of special relativity is obviously Wolfgang Rindler, Introduction to Special Relativity. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict...

I agree that in most cases the definitive content for a fringe theory or theorist is the original content that describes the theory. What we are looking for are the best sources for content. There is a tendency to get stuck on the idea of primary, secondary sources rather than the spirit of what those policies and guidelines were meant to do which is make sure we write the best and especially most accurate articles possible for an encyclopedia, a compendium of published information which implies secondary sources. Secondary sources are a given. Primary and secondary are guides for best inclusion. Right now we have articles which contain criticism of a theory with out outlining the theory . We have articles where theories and sources were edited out as not-allowable, fringe content even though that content is the underpinning for the fringe theory in the article This kind of article and editing frankly makes us look pretty silly. I am not advocating the use of primary sources, I'm advocating per WP:NOTEVERYTHING "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" - the use of a primary source in an instance where that source is the best source for the content.
I realize that there is a huge concern especially on articles which fall under MEDRS with using content that is not reliable enough that opens the door for poorly sourced content and leaves us with poor articles. The wording of the guideline must be carefully constructed to allow for the best of the sources however they are categorized. However we deal with sources that underpin "fringe" topics the guides must be outlined clearly in the guideline and not left to contentious article discussion where consensus is often determined by how many editors are already advocates for a POV position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

I think the statement that sparked this debate: "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories ... are independent reliable sources" - is correct. Note it says "the best" not "the required" or "the only". How else are to we to represent "accepted knowledge" (as Olive puts it)? I'd be interesting in hearing about specific articles where this makes us look silly - please name some. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As I asked, "We are talking weight here, correct, and not just definitions?" In the matter of weight, primary sources should have little or no say. When it comes to definitions, then primary sources should be considered, especially from sources that take such definitions seriously (which is hard to establish without secondary sources). --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like some example where our current articles are either using the fringe proponents successfully or where the content of the articles has been damaged by excluding the definitions expressed by said proponents. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment If the only available RS to describe a fringe theory is a primary source, then IMO that particular fringe theory isn't really WP:NOTABLE and shouldn't be covered by us at all. On the other hand, if adequate secondary sources exist to establish notability, then it is OK to use primary sources as statements of personal opinion, e.g., "So-and-so thinks" and "according to so-and-so". In sum, I think simply applying existing standards of notability and primary vs secondary sources is enough. Anything we say here should simply explain how to apply those. We should not create new (redundant) language to cover this already-covered issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. As an example of an article that I think gets the whole source usage thing right... take a look at Masonic conspiracy theories. For the first half of the article, independent secondary sources are used to establish notability and due weight... the article also uses independent secondary sources to support statements about the history of these theories... it also uses them when interpreting and analyzing the theories. HOWEVER... in the second half of the article... when (neutrally) describing the various claims made by conspiracy theorists, the article directly cites the theorists themselves... thus correctly citing primary sources to directly verify that we are summarizing the claims listed accurately. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: "accepted knowledge"? I am quoting the policy, just follow the link. I am making a simple point. The definitive source for a theory is the primary source where that theory is initially presented. This does not mean secondary sources are also useful nor does it mean the primary source is the only RS. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC))
Exactly: "accepted knowledge regarding its subject". The primary source(s) gives us the subject, good secondary source(s) give us the accepted knowledge regarding it. This refers to an old arbcom finding: "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details". I think you are arguing against yourself! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Although I agree w/ Alexbrn (I think), I would reprhase to say it this way
  1. Secondary sources are imperative to overcome the first hurdle - WP:NOTABILITY
  2. Primary sources do not "give us the subject". Rather, they tell us what a proponents say about the subject.
  3. Secondary sources tell us (A) the mainstream view in general and (B) the mainstream's critique of the fringe claims
  4. Secondary sources can also tell us about things people are doing to get evidence on the matter
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Accepted knowledge is both subject and source. The definitive source for the bible, the subject, is the bible itself. There are places within article where we have to cite the primary source.This does not mean we are advocating exclusion of any other sources, but rather are inclusive for verification. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

First you have to kill me to keep me from claiming my version of the bible is "more definitive" than your different version.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh I'm willing to compromise if it means that much... :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

The purpose of WP:FRIND

The arguments being made about the use of primary sources seem to assume that we are talking about a well-defined hypothesis that is testable and generally amenable to scientific investigation. In that domain the arguments seem marginally OK, or at least not completely wrong.

However WP:FRINGE also covers pseudoscience, which is another ballgame. In this case we are talking about something which may not be well-defined, or testable, or generally amenable to scientific investigation. Something characterized as pseudoscience can involve a mixture of science-y sounding terminology, psychology, social dynamics, and esoteric beliefs. A pseudoscience proponent may play a shell game, saying one thing when responding to scientists but another thing when the audience is the general public. A scientist can point to a specific statement and say, "look, this is wrong," but (metaphorically) the pseudoscience proponent lifts the shell to reveal that it was empty. What a dupe! See, scientists just don't understand!

Thus when editors use primary sources for a pseudoscientific topic, they may become (even unwittingly) complicit in the shell game. WP:FRIND serves to pull editors out of the game. Others (secondary sources) have waded through the morass, and it's not the job of editors to give it a try themselves. vzaak 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Vzaak. There are a few problems. Wikipedia is currently engaged in false dichotomy with respect to fringe. It assumes, incorrectly that things are either 100% mainstream or 100% fringe. In reality, these are opposites ends of a spectrum of between the two poles. We aren't delineating, as is policy, between pseudoscience, junk science, questionable science and alternative theoretical mechanisms. This helps out make sweeping generalizations, another fallacy, which leads to constant NPOV disputes. In fact, is there any article at WP that employs this grading system? [1]. Here is a discussion [2] about this very topic. Note the locus of dispute, which is very specific. As WAID, suggests, this is all relative and exists in a spectrum and all of alt-med isn't automatically fringe. DVMt (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
All of which is irrelevant to the issue we have been discussing above... "what is the best source for a basic descriptive statement outlining what the theory consists of."
Let's take an example... suppose someone advocates that sticking beans up your nose cures cancer. Now, let's assume that there are some secondary sources that comment on this theory (perhaps saying that it's total hogwash)... OK, those secondary sources are enough for us to call the theory notable, and so we write an article on Legume-nasal insertion. As part of that article, we would want to include a basic description of what the Legume-nasal insertion theory actually is. Perhaps something like: "Proponents of the Legume-nasal insertion theory believe that beans emit what they call "quantum-dementional L-waves" that when combined with nasal mucus erodes the inner chi of cancer cells. Or in simpler language, that sticking beans up your nose cures cancer." THAT BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATEMENT, laying out what the proponents of the theory say, is best supported by a citation to the proponents who actually say it. That's all we are talking about. Everything else in the ariticle is best supported by independent secondary sources... but not that one descriptive statement. Blueboar (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
One quibble, I would only say that primary sources are OK for that purpose, but I don't agree they are absolutely-positively the best. For one thing, different proponents of fringe ideas frequently say similar but not quite the exact thing. In such cases we can't elevate one as being the statement while ignoring the other, else we're guilty of UNDUE. And even the same proponent might say different things at different times or to different people. If there are good secondary sources that describe the fringe view, I think those are probably "the best" in most cases. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes... I completely agree that for the meta-analysis of DUEWEIGHT, we need to look at secondary sources. Analysis should always be based on secondary sources. I am not suggesting that we change that at all... but, once we decide which aspects of a theory deserve DUEWEIGHT, then we should still cite the proponents of the theory (or various sub-theories) when describing what they say. When describing what someone says... a source where they actually say it is always best. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, that's not the situation I addressed in my post. I also don't see how DVMt's comment significantly bears on what I wrote.
Here is another reason to use independent sources: a pseudoscience proponent may be strawmanning the mainstream scientific view, and there may not be a mainstream rebuttal to the straw man. vzaak 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know that's not the situation you addressed in your post... that is part of the confusion here. We all keep talking about different situations that have nothing to do with each other. The situation you address in your post has nothing to do with the situation I have been addressing in my posts. We are talking about different things. I have been saying that "non-independent primary sources are best in situation X"... people keep replying to that with: "No... you need Secondary sources in situation Y". The thing is... I have no disagreement when it comes to situation Y... my concern is specifically about situation X. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that's an indictment of how you've explained your concern, which appears to allow primary sourced material to say things that are WP:OR because no one else is doing a good enough job explaining said OR. Have I explained it wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Read again and recheck WP:OR. You do seem to have misunderstood the several editors who are discussing this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

Explain it to me again so that I understand, then. Or provide an example of an article that's actually good (and not a hit piece by a partisan) that does it the right way, or an article that's bad that would see benefit from doing it. While doing that, try to remember that trying to change policy to win disputes doesn't work, so avoid trying to show me something from your mediation movement or secret societies. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Another good laugh. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC))
That's the kind of thing that demonstrates that you are not interested in working respectfully with people you disagree with. I'll just add it to the pile. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Is that comment supposed to be an illustration of irony? 55 Gators (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
You should. That's the kind of thing that shows that after multiple good faith comments above when presented with an assumption of bad faith and an insult; I choose to laugh instead of respond in a negative way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC))
Hipocrite... I have already given an example of an article that does it the right way (linked in one of my comments above). It's a good example of when to use primary sources and when not to do so. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It (Masonic conspiracy theories) is not a very good article though, is it? (C class) A lot of the "detail" sources are secondary anyway, but there is some dubious trash among the primaries used. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact that some of the primaries are "dubious trash" is actually irrelevant... they would be unreliable if the article tried to imply that the theories are accurate... but it doesn't... it merely (neutrally) notes that the theories exist. When you are saying (essentially) "Some of the proponents of this dubious trash conspiracy theory say 'X'", the most reliable source for that statement is a dubious trash primary source where a proponent actually says 'X'. When you are quoting or closely paraphrasing what someone says (as is the case in that section of the article)... the most reliable source will always be a primary source where they actually say it. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It's fundamentally not encyclopedic (i.e. tertiary), but instead amateur secondary research into the topic of masonic conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is claiming the theorists believe the masons faked the moon landings, sourced just to this. But is this really part of the theory-at-large, or just one guy who is on the fringe of the fringe? Without secondary sources we don't know. This kind of thing is actually a very good example of why we don't want primary source use being elevated. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
We are still not discussing the same thing ... what you keep talking about is DUE WEIGHT... And I AGREE with you about DUE WEIGHT... you do need independent sources to determine DUE WEIGHT. I have no intention of changing that. The flaw in the FIND section that I have been trying to fix has nothing to do with DUE WEIGHT... what I am addressing relates to VERIFIABILITY , not DUE WEIGHT. I am noting that (contrary to what is said in the section) Primary sources are actually better than secondary sources when it comes to verifying descriptive statements of what someone says. When an article notes that "X says Y about Z"... the most reliable source to verify that statement is a source written by X where he actually says Y about Z. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right, assuming that the primary source isn't too confusing. If you want to really prove that Bob Smith said that "unicorns really do exist", then there's nothing more authoritative than the original source in which he says exactly that. But in some cases, the primary source may be too complex or confusing to really be usable. You probably shouldn't use Finnegans Wake as your source for the plot(?) summary there, either, even though we routinely use books as the (primary) sources for their own contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps if an editor can't understand the primary sources on a topic they shouldn't be editing that topic at all. Without that fundamental understanding how can an editor make educated decisions about any of the secondary sources. Finnegan's Wake, as an example, is the primary source for the novel; we must be able to use it. If we can't understand it, and it is difficult, then perhaps others should be editing there. Just a thought.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC))
So only people who fully understand scientific literature should be permitted to write anything at all about scientific topics? Only people who understand middle English should be permitted to report basic facts about The Canterbury Tales? And nobody at all should be able to write about the Voynich manuscript, because nobody in the entire world actually understands the primary source? This isn't viable.
(You do realize that Finnegans Wake is considered by scholars to be one of the very most confusing works of modern English literature, right?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Its viable for editors to gravitate towards what they have knowledge of. If you can't understand the primary source then how can you possibly select content to reflect accurately the subject of the article. Non scientists might edit some science articles but other science topics may require knowledge they don't have. It makes sense to leave that to those who are more expert. And yes, I studied Finnegans' Wake with Edmund Epstein. Because it is so complex; it should not be tackled by anyone who hasn't knowledge of the work itself, who knows who the experts in the area are, and so the sources, so that in writing they have knowledge of the work as a basis to work from. This is just my opinion of course.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

Because if you can't understand the original source, then it's impossible for you to add material about when the book was published, who the author was, and other facts? I don't agree. In fact, people who know that they don't understand the primary source are less likely to be tempted into original research and POV pushing. There's a reason that we recommend that editors WP:FORGET everything they know (or think they know) when writing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:Forget is only an essay, so I don't see that Wikipedia is recommending this approach. And I couldn't disagree with you more. Wikipedia need experts who can also edit neutrally. Being knowledgeable does not in any way suggest an editor cannot be neutral. I wonder where we'd be on the medical articles if experts did not edit there. We deal with neutrality with collaboration and adherence to policies not by excluding experts or knowledge of primary sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC))
I'll leave this now and apologize for a discussion that side tracks this discussion. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC))
I've not recommended excluding experts. I only reject your assertion that not having understood (or even not having read) a particular book makes it impossible for me to contribute to the article. (WP:BRD is "only an essay", too; essay status does not mean that the page is unsupported by the community.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Could I get everyone to take a quick look at WP:Secondary does not mean independent once again? FRIND is about independent sources, aka independent primary sources, independent secondary sources, and independent tertiary sources. You can comply with FRIND by using purely primary sources. Blueboar is not typing out i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t s-e-c-o-n-d-a-r-y sources for the fun of typing extra letters; he's typing both words because they mean different things. Independence and historiography are unrelated concepts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am most definitely typing both words for a reason... But my point is that when it comes to a descriptive statement about what proponents of a theory believe, the most reliable sources are both primary and non-independent (ie sources written by proponents of the theory where they actually say what they believe). For anything else, I absolutely agree that independent (and usually secondary) sources are best... you need independent sources to determine whether we should mention what they believe in the first place (ie DUE WEIGHT), you need independent sources for analysis of the accuracy/inaccuracy of what they believe, etc. etc. etc.... My only point is that when it comes to verifying basic descriptions of what the proponents believe the best source is non-independent and primary. That's what I am trying to change... and that is all that I am trying to change. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely something that needs to be cleared up, and I agree heartily with Blueboar's assessment of the role of primaries and secondaries. I'd been going back and forth over this policy on another page in a section about a published book. A secondary source claimed the book said A, I looked and the book said B, so I tried to quote the B while leaving the secondary's argument of A. Editors there cited this rule and said that since A was a secondary source, it was impossible to cite any material from the book that might disagree with what a secondary source said the book contained, even if the secondary's interpretation is factually incomplete or incorrect. This is the kind of bizarro scenario that needs to be resolved. Primaries are a perfectly adequate source for determining what was factually said in that same primary. The Cap'n (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Given the discussion above, I would like propose that we amend FIND as follows:

  • The best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories and claims are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects and claims of a fringe theory should follow from consideration of how much those aspects are discussed by independent sources. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

This would resolve my concerns regarding the appropriate use of non-independent and primary sources ... placing WP:FIND firmly in the realm of DUE WEIGHT, without having it (mistakenly) slosh over into the realm of VERIFIABILITY. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Sentences 1 & 3 - OK

  • Sentence 2 - Dubious, because some articles in whole or part focus on aspects of fringe topics. I think sentence 2 invites interpretation arguments on such articles, and I don't see how sentence 2 really adds anything not already covered by WP:WEIGHT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if the opposite approach might be more pointful, i.e., adding something like "Non-independent sources are often useful for supporting statements about what the proponents of a fringe theory say." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yuck. (A) That lumps EVERY non-independent source together, whether they deal with fringe or not. (B) It is 100% redundant with the section in WP:RS about self-statements, so adds nothing. (C) If those objections are overcome, I think "often" needs to be changed to "only".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I intentionally didn't include a statement like that in my proposal is that WP:FRINGE is essentially a sub-page of WP:Notability and WP:NPOV. It is not a sub-page of WP:Verifiability. That is really the core of my concern with the section... The issue of how best to verify a statement about "what the proponents of a fringe theory say" is a verifiability issue that is dealt with in WP:V, WP:RS (via WP:SPS) ... it shouldn't be addressed in this policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
If FRINGE is not supposed to be about verifiability, then it needs to do a much better job of communicating that. When I encounter people invoking FRINGE in general, and FRIND in particular, it is almost always in the context of someone objecting to the use of a source that is published in an academic journal that covers altmed, in an article that is obviously notable. I hear, for example, assertions that FRIND prohibits citing academic journals that cover chiropractic, because chiropractic is entirely FRINGE (a rather dubious assertion) and professors at chiropractic schools aren't independent of their professional field (but MDs and RNs and PharmDs are all independent of their own fields), and therefore the sources in question cannot be used to support information that is admitted to be appropriate to the article and would be accepted, if only it had been published in an obscure mainstream medical journal instead of a major altmed journal. If FRINGE does not address the issue of figuring out whether a source can be used to support a statement, then we apparently need a complete re-write. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeking a major re-write... just a minor change. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I may be misreading it... but I am not seeing any real objections to my proposal. Just suggestions (and some disagreement) on ways to make it better. Yes? No? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I attempted to create a diff in my sandbox to show precisely how your proposed edit differs from the existing text at time of your opening post. Why are you suggesting we delete the sentence "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I took it out because it is either incomplete or overly broad. I agree with the sentence when it comes to mentioning fringe points or claims in articles about mainstream subjects... I don't agree when it comes to mentioning points or claims in an article about the Fringe theory itself.
One of the problems with writing articles about fringe theories is that the few independent sources that discuss them will often simply ignore certain claims. That can mean that there won't be any independent coverage of a point or claim that might well be central to the theory. There are points and claims common to multiple proponents of the theories (claims which appear over and over again in the fringe literature)... such points are obviously central to the theory... yet they are considered so ridiculous that no independent source bothers to comment on them.
An important part of our job, when writing an article about a fringe theory, is to neutrally inform our readers what the proponents say. If a point or claim is repeated by multiple fringe advocates, we have to mention it... even if there are no independent sources that bother to comment on it. We should present it as opinion, and not as accepted fact... but it still needs to be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, consider me opposed to proposed edit. If you want to break it down in pieces I might go along with parts. But we should not delete the sentence in question because
(A) Without independent sources, who gets to determine what is "central" to a fringe theory? If we take on that mantle ourselves, aren't we engaged in original research?
(B) When elements of fringe claims are not mentioned by independent sources, we have no business reporting on them because they lack WP:NOTABILITY.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please go read WP:Notability again, then. Pay attention to the statement that it makes about notability never limiting article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"our job, when writing an article about a fringe theory, is to neutrally inform our readers what the proponents say" ← as has passed into secondary sources and as such become accepted knowledge about the fringe theory. That is fundamental. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, you mix up VERIFIABILITY issues with UNDUE issues. But even focusing completely on UNDUE, its actually quite simple to figure out what is appropriate to mention in an article about a fringe theory. If a particular point or claim is made repeatedly in the fringe literature (ie by multiple proponents), you know that the point or claim is fairly central to the theory... and so is appropriate to mention in the article. If only one or two fringe proponents bother to mention a particular point or claim, then we can call it "fringe within the fringe" and it would be appropriate to omit it from the article.
Note that I completely agree that you DO need independent sources in order to determine mentioning a fringe point or claim is DUE or UNDUE in articles on mainstream topics. What I am talking about is limited to an article about the fringe theory itself. Determining what is UNDUE in an article about a fringe theory is (of necessity) going to be different than determining what is UNDUE in articles on mainstream topics... because the article topic is the theory itself. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Crackpots

Maybe it would be helpful to give an example. Here we have Crackpots Я Us. They've been in the news just barely enough to meet WP:ORG, mostly due to a lawsuit involving whether the founder's children are legally required get vaccines, or whether members of this organization can claim a religious exemption from the public health laws.

According to them, they are an atheist organization that supports survival of the fittest in humans and opposes government interference in the right of other people to make choices that cause them to die. They are pro-drug legalization, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-speed limit, anti-seat-belt-laws (but pro-voluntary-seat-belt-use), pro-polygyny, and anti-welfare. They have written a thousand web pages and published a dozen books on their views and how they apply them to a wide variety of everyday affairs. The anti-vaccination stance is attested to merely by one web page and three sentences in one book, which say that they are slightly concerned that vaccines might interfere with evolutionary natural selection of humans (specifically, by preserving the health and lives of humans who are not wise enough to voluntarily choose vaccination for themselves). The main focus of their writings, however, is the pros and cons of using abortion and drug legalization as a tool of eugenics, and if you looked over their website, you'd find thousands of words directly on these subjects. At least 99% of what they write is not about vaccination.

According to the media, the only things that matter is the lawsuit and the fact that the group was ridiculed in a three-minute monologue by a late-night television talk show host, so what you find in the media is "an atheist claimed a religious exemption" and "anti-vaccination", with no mention attention given to anything else.

Do you think that an article that says, in essence, "Crackpots Я Us is an atheist organization that opposes compulsory vaccination. It claimed a religious exemption from vaccination laws in Crackpots v State" would be a fair description of the organization? Or do you think that a fair description might involve a somewhat more complete picture of the organization than what happened to tickle the fancy of a couple of news writers?

For example, since phrases like "survival of the fittest" and "Darwinian evolution" appear in every chapter of every book and every page of every website they've published, do you think that it would be appropriate to mention something about their belief in natural selection, or would you just skip over that, since the hastily written news articles skipped over that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a good example. What I take away from it, is that you provide full context to the topic. Like good journalism, both sides of the story are presented. Omitting crucial details leave the narrative unbalanced and pushes into a 'radical' version of the original. Consequently, edit wars are likely to ensue, those towing the 'hard line' and those who feels the topic is not representative of the facts. Thank you, WAID. DVMt (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
IMO the example is flawed because the facts contradict. On the one hand, the example says WP:ORG has been met. According to WP:ORG, that means that the company has been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." In contrast, the example also asks us to consider piffly "hastily written" news articles giving cursory treatment to a lawsuit. That runs afoul of the next part of WP:ORG, which says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Finally, freelance journalists are a hungry bunch, and the ones that I happen to know vigorously shake the trees to find something to write about. It's rather difficult to imagine a scenario where a company's publications are so prolific with these ideas but without anyone writing about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I only wish it were true that a couple of piffly news articles were not considered sufficient for this class of articles. Sadly, reality is that a handful of sentences in a two news articles (one regional or national) is enough to prevent deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK... let's amend the example: Similar scenario, except let's say that (due to a court case) the group has received a lot of media coverage for its stance on vaccination, and no coverage for the group's stance on other issues. However, the group's own literature goes on and on about the other issues, while the vaccination stance is covered in only one small pamphlet.
Now, when writing our article about the group... what should we include?
Obviously the media coverage justifies discussing the vaccination stance in some depth (it is what brought the group into the public eye after all)... However, I don't think we should completely ignore the group's stance on other issues. In order to give a neutral, unbiased account of what the group is, and what its members stand for, we have to mention them. Yet WP:FIND implies that we should completely ignore these other issues... simply because no independent source has bothered to discuss them. That's wrong.
I would be happy to say that we should give MORE weight to things that are covered in independent sources... but that does not necessarily mean we should give NO weight to things that are only covered by the proponents. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"In order to give a neutral, unbiased account of what the group is, and what its members stand for, we have to mention them" ← It's 180° the other way according to WP's particular definition of neutrality. We represent the significant views (as represented in RS, etc, etc) and ignore what isn't on their radar. Think of it another way. If zero publications have seen fit to mention something, why should Wikipedia be the only publication on the planet that bucks that trend? I think what you are really arguing for is a change to the WP:NPOV policy to remove the constraint that the views we include are those "that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
But in an article about a fringe group... the group's own views are significant. Further, any group's own self-published sources are reliable (primary) sources for statements as to what the group's stance on various issues is (no less than, say, an encyclical issued by the Vatican would be a reliable source for what the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is on the same issue).
Remember, what is and is not considered significant changes from one article to the next. I would completely agree (to use our example) that the views of "Crackpots R US" on the issue of drug legalization is not significant enough to mention in our Legalization of marijuana article... HOWEVER, in an article on Crackpots R Us, those same views are significant enough to mention. Why? Because they are the views of the subject of the article. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"in an article about a fringe group... the group's own views are significant" If the other views are not covered by secondary ind sources, then for our purposes those other views are to be ignored also. If it were otherwise, we could visit one of their staff parties to get polling data so we can include their views on the old Burger King vs MacDonald's issue, and anything else that suits our fancy. They would just have to write those things down, and voila! Wikipedia will include it. (wrong) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not wrong... but incomplete. When determing weight in an article about a fringe group... a lot depends on what the self-published fringe literature stresses... if the fringe literature stresses the claim that McDonald's is evil, and how all true believers should thus go to Burger King... then YES, that is something we should mention (in the article about the group). The very fact that they give weight to the issue tells us that the choice of fast food chain is a significant issue to them. If, on the other hand, they don't stress it... if say it once in passing, and don't make a big deal of it... then no, it isn't something we should mention. It obviously isn't significant to them. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
An attempt to ascertain a group's "significant" or "central" fringe beliefs that were ignored by secondary sources always requires analysis of the group's own publications. When an ed makes such an analysis, the conclusions the editor draws are a product of the editor's original research, and therefore don't belong in our articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice try, but No... what I am describing is called sourced based research, which is explicitly allowed by WP:OR. As editors do this with every source we read and use to create an article. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't find the phrase "source based" in WP:OR so please provide a quote of the language you're referencing in WP:ORNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh... Well I'll be darned... I see that the exact words "source based research" actually isn't in the NOR policy (at least not any more)... which surprises me since we use that phrase a lot on both the policy talk page and at NORN. (We use it when explaining the first paragraph of WP:NOR#Using sources). It may be a phrase that was in the policy in the past, but got edited out at some point. - That sometimes happens when you have been editing for as long as I have... phrases you remember being in a policy get edited, and so are no longer there when you quote them... They are usually replaced by other phrases that mean the same thing, but say it in different words. (which is what seems to have happened here). That said... the first few sentences of the Using sources section are what I am talking about. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin removed that phrase in 2010. I'd say "when you weren't looking", except that you edited the page just a couple of days later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that happens to me too. So the text you're relying on says

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. * * * If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.

In your example, when the editor reads the organizations claims in various materials and then says those claims are "central" or "significant" to the organization, that editor is going beyond the sources (which merely say that the organization said those things) to assert an editor's opinion about something not verifiable by secondary sources. I supppose one might argue that a position statement that says "the following claims are central to our organization" is OK, but really now.... the frequency that secondary sources ignore such shopping lists from rootin' tootin' WP:NOTABLE orgs is so close to zero (in my opinion) that trying to squeeze in language to allow arguments over the issue amounts to needless WP:CREEP.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
If the organization says "Here are our central beliefs", then the editor is absolutely not committing OR by writing, "According to Crackpots, their central beliefs are...".
But in this case, all I'm asking you is whether, in addition to the statements given above that are verifiable in my hypothetical news articles, could you add a sentence that says, "They also support abortion and drug legalization", and cite one of their websites or books (perhaps the 600-page-long book, Why Crackpots is Pro-Drug Legalization and Always Will Be, written by their founder) to support that sentence. Or would you say that they're a fringe group, and their main focus was irrelevant to the news articles' church–state–atheism–man–bites–dog narrative, so who cares if our readers get a seriously and misleadingly incomplete view of the organization? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
In any given article about a WP:NOTABLE organization, a mention that their mission statement says they support abortion or legalization doesn't even touch on fringe, so the proposed edit in this thread is moot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a FRINGE organization. The way some editors read this guideline, everything about them is "fringe-y" at some level, even the names of the prominent members or their tax status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
"It's a FRINGE organization." Then this is all moot because the guideline under discussion is about fringe theories. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, can you provide an example of an org for which some fringe claim is "central" or "significant" even though that org's advocacy of those fringe claims has not been covered in secondary sources? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Most schools? Seriously, there are very few true secondary sources about schools, including high schools. (There are many independent sources about high schools, but WP:Secondary does not mean independent.) I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a secondary source that says that what's most important or significant about Local High School is education of teenagers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
That's so generalized it doesn't really provide a good example. Please show me the publication list for a specific org in which they make such frequent reference to a specific fringe claim that us lowly eds can determine the claim is "central" to the org, even though secondary sources about the org have not mentioned the orgs advocacy of that claim. If examples are not readily available, then this thread is about needless WP:CREEP; and if examples are readily available, then having a few identified examples will go a long way to facilitating the debate/discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Do it yourself: Look up the high school nearest your home. Try to find a true independent secondary source (e.g., one that provides analysis of the school as an organization) that actually discusses the central purpose for the school's existence. You are unlikely to find one. I've tried it for the schools near me. I have found none that state what the school's central purpose is. If you will indulge me in saying that the school's central purpose is academics, then I have found none that provide more than a trivial "analysis" of specific aspects of academics (namely, compare-and-contrast on standardized test scores and a very superficial compare-and-contrast on very broad points of curriculum, e.g., "School X has this name-brand program, but School Y uses this other name-brand program"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
That's an academic exercise (yuk yuk). We're discussing an edit that would allow us to use primary sources to mention advocacy of specific fringe claims even though secondary sources have not covered that advocacy. What specific fringe claims have been officially advocated - without press coverage - by your local highschool?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
My local high school apparently claims that teenagers can realistically benefit from a class starting before 8:00 a.m., which is contradicted by all research on the point.
More pointfully, how do you decide whether a claim is FRINGE if nobody except the primary source talks about it? Are you just supposed to magically know that an idea that nobody else talks about is—or isn't—FRINGE? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources change from one article to the next as well; their reliability is dependent on the content they reference. "Reliable sources" is not a one size fits all imperative.

On some articles the topic can be so complex, that is doubly important to have the expert voice of the primary source if there is one, to explain, define and underpin the secondary sources. The primary source is the RS for the content. In a sense the primary source is the base-line statement while the secondary sources provide the comment. Both are necessary. How necessary each is, is determined by "weight" and that weight played out in the article's content helps determine the NPOV of the article.

As an aside: Independent is used as if it is a clearly visible ruler for measuring a RS. In fact independent includes a range of "involvement", and is not a clear black and white determination for including or excluding content. Seems to me the trap we fall into easily is in thinking the policy is the thing when in fact the article is, while the policy guides rather than dictates. Focus on the word of the policy rather than why the policy is useful renders a dead policy , a cliche driven, narrowly used and eventually misused policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

Olive, Your comment that independence includes a range of "involvement" is actually a good one. For example, two different people (or groups) can be independent from each other... and yet both can be proponents of the same fringe theory. If each self-publishes a book... are those books "independent" sources? You can argue that both ways. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
We represent the significant views (as represented in RS, etc, etc)
Yes, Alex, we do, and for the question of "what does this group believe", the group's own publications are highly reliable sources. You must consider them when determining due weight.
This is not unique to FRINGE: ERGS demands that you consider the subject's own assertions or religion and sexual orientation. It does not require that this be repeated in an independent source. Sometimes WP:ABOUTSELF sources are the most authoritative ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's use a real world example. This [3] 2013 document was submitted by the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) to the World Health Organization. Given that the WFC is a member of the WHO, and are using this as a report on the current status of the profession, is this a reliable source? DVMt (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
For the fact that they asserted the conclusions in the report, yes. It's use as an RS supporting the various assertions is increased if there is a thundering herd of endorsements from other professional organizations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the majority of your point, thanks for sharing! Regarding the 'thundering herd' that doesn't seem necessary as the WHO is arguably the most reliable and credible health organization representing all the regulated health professions in the world. [4]. The 'endorsements' would be the cherry on the top but, generally speaking, international health profession organizations usually don't applause other's status reports ;)

Source Evaluation

Community question: How is the reliability of this source regarding the conclusions Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine [25], a minority of the chiropractic profession has retained a perspective unorthodox to current orthodox scientific views [5]. Neuraxis (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary source; fringey journal; chiropractors writing about chiropractic – a poor source for anything other than what chirporactors like to say about themselves (and that would likely be to give undue weight). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. BMC is fringe? So when we have research done by physios writing about physiotherapy, or architects about architecture, we should dismiss this as well? You do realize that no where on WP states that primary sources can never be used. That argument is a little bit weak, especially when you suggest that an op-ed and letter to the editor suffices as calling OMM pseudoscientific. I see a bit of a double standard here. Neuraxis (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the journal BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine has got a bit of a reputation - it publishes stuff on homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. - and so should be approached with proper care; primary sources can be used, generally as a supplement to material contained in secondaries or in exceptional circumstances (so, not here). For a fringe topic like Chiropractic, WP:FRIND applies so the idea of taking "in universe" content from its advocates content is also problematic. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Really, a criticism from a blog? Also, that's not how PS can be used at all. " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ". I wasn't asking for your spin on the topic. Since I've had this discussion with you previously, and it was littered with logical fallacies and you ducking my questions (as you just did above). I'm going to disengage discussing this with you further. I recognize the difference between skepticism and cynicism, your edits and logic suggest you're the latter. Neuraxis (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not just "a blog" but a post at ScienceBlogs (owned by National Geographic) and written by David Gorski, a rather more reliable source for CAM stuff than BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a blog post that strangely redefines "alternative medicine" as meaning "things that definitely won't work better than placebo", by explicitly excluding, for example, 100% of all forms of herbalism and nearly all forms diet, nutrition, and exercise. According to the blog post, if you go to the self-described alternative medicine store, and buy a bottle of herbal extract that you read about in a self-described alternative medicine book, then you're engaged in the "very old, very science-based" practice of strictly non-alternative science-based medicine. Except, you know, that the opposite of "alternative" is "conventional", not "science-based". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the unqualified phrase, "a fringe topic like chiropractic" is entirely accurate.
Also, this source is writing about attitudes held by various professionals. It's basically a survey. I'd accept this on the same grounds that I'd accept PMID 19019329, a survey in which obstetricians say that there's no evidence for or against bedrest in pregnancy (there are definite harms to bedrest of more than a couple of days), they don't expect it to provide any sizeable benefit in the stated case, and they'd recommend it anyway. Neither of them are trying to support bad science or pseudoscience; they're reporting accurate facts about their survey results. You wouldn't use a source like this to say "bed rest saves babies" or "chiropractic cures cancer"; you'd use it to say "X% of these professionals believe that X works, and Y% believe it doesn't". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

First sentence needs improvement

The first sentence of WP:FRIND is:

Above, Blueboar proposed alternative language for the whole paragraph. I just want to focus on the proposed first sentence which was:

  • "The best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories and claims are independent reliable sources."

That is close, but what I propose is:

I do not understand the use of "notable" in the current language. WP:Notability is about whether a topic warrants its own article, as per the 1st sentence of that guideline. For those who want to keep the current language and not amend, could you please explain: a) why there is reference to notability here with respect to sources; and b) what "notability" means, with respect to a source?

I also am unclear as to the reference to WP:WEIGHT in the current language, again with respect to a source. In my understanding, WEIGHT is a technical term in WP describing how much space to give content on a given topic in an article, and how to frame that content, not about how much ... authority (not sure that is the right word) to give a source (which I think is the intention here).

This arises from a content discussion on Talk:Acupuncture. A journal invited a pro-acu and a con-acu pair of articles. Quackguru is opposing use of the "pro" article as a source, on the grounds that it is not "notable" and while there is grounds for this objection based on this sentence in this guideline (to his credit), I have no idea what "notable" means with respect to a source so I cannot have a rational conversation about whether the source is "notable" or not. Guidelines and policies should provide a rational basis for working out differences of opinion.

May we amend as I suggest? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Of the three choices presented, I currently prefer the first option. Independent reliable sources are the best sources for describing fringe theories and claims in any article; independent reliable sources are the best sources for determining whether fringe theories or claims are deserving to be the primary subject of a stand-alone article (i.e. WP:N); and independent reliable sources are the best sources for determining how much fringe theories or claims are discussed in articles of which they are not the primary subject (i.e. WP:WEIGHT). While primary sources may frequently describe fringe theories or claims more fully (and careful use of them may be permitted), I am hesitant to state that primary or self-published sources in this regards are "better" for Wikipedia purposes. Regarding your specific example, I do not see that this section of the guideline refers to what may be referred to as "notable sources"; however, the views of a notable person or organization may outweigh the views of a non-notable person or organization depending on the subject. Location (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
my question was stupid. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Independent reliable sources are essential for establishing notability and due weight... but they are not not necessarily best for description. When describing what a group believes, the best source is one written by that group. An outsider may misunderstand or misrepresent the beliefs. So... when describing what the advocates of a fringe theory believe, the best source will be one written by those advocates themselves. That said, any article on a fringe theory needs to include more than just a description of what the advocates say. To achieve NPOV, we also need to describe what the detractors of the theory say... and that (of course) is best sourced to the detractors.
In other words... to write a well balanced article on a notable Fringe topic, you need both independent and dependent (advocate) sources. Different parts of the article are best sourced to different kinds of sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually the best source is not necessarily written by the group. Organisations sometimes intentionally misrepresent themselves or use words that they interpret in a way that outsiders might see as self-serving. I can think of several racist groups that do this, trying to make themselves seem more presentable. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Doug... our job isn't to opine on what a Fringe groups says about itself... our job is to neutrally report a) what they say about themselves (best cited to their own words), and then b) balance that with what others say about them (best cited to independent sources). That's what taking a Neutral Point of View means. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That is a complete misrepresentation of WP:NPOV. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Not at all... Remember that we are talking about a very specific and limited set of articles - articles where the fringe theory is the actual topic of the article. You can not neutrally write a neutral article about a fringe theory without at least mentioning what the advocates of that theory say. It would be like trying to write an article on the Constitution of the US and not mentioning the Federalist Papers. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
What "taking a Neutral Point of View means" is best found on the Neutral point of view policy page. E.g., "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Nowhere on that page, or on the linked Verifiability policy page, could I find any support for the idea that it is "our job is to neutrally report a) what they say about themselves (best cited to their own words), and then b) balance that with what others say about them (best cited to independent sources)." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
We should defer to secondary sources, and be careful to avoid taking it upon ourselves to describe directly any fringe things/group - especially if this draws on dubious primary sources. WP is an encyclopedia that digests reliably-published knowledge which addresses fringe things/groups, not a secondary work that works up that knowledge itself. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I could not disagree more... A statement outlining someone's opinion is the one situation where we should not defer to a secondary source... but go right to the primary source. You can not get a more reliable source for "Person X believes Y is true", than a source written by Person X actually saying Y is true. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's reasonable to disagree in general, but for WP you'd be out-of-line with a core guiding principle, that we are producing a work which is at all times "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If something hasn't appeared in secondary sources it probably isn't "accepted knowledge". Who are we to make WP the only publication on the planet that mentions something that other secondary/tertiary sources do not? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And I couldn't disagree more - all you get is "Person X states that they believe Y is true". They may be lying. Confidence tricksters lie about their beliefs all the time. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

ANY source could be lying. By your logic, we could not cite a Papal Encyclical in support of a statement about Catholic dogma... because "the Pope could be lying". We could not cite Einstein for a statement about the theory of relativity, because Einstein might have been lying. Get real. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording of WP:ONEWAY has always bothered me

WP:ONEWAY currently states:

To me, this is misleading as it implies that as long as there is one reliable source which connects a fringe theory to a mainstream topic, the burden of WP:ONEWAY is satisfied. Consider, for example, Apollo lunar landing conspiracy theories. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles written about the Apollo landings on the Moon. If at least one source about the Apollo lunar landings also covers lunar conspiracy theories, that opens the door for the article about the Apollo lunar landings to be a WP:COATRACK for lunar landing conspiracy theories. It seems to me that one source should not override all the other sources. I'm not really sure what the solution is. Perhaps this wording should be changed to...

Suggested wording #1

...or...

Suggested wording #2

I'm not honestly sure what the right solution is, so I'm throwing this out there to get feedback/suggestions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it currently an actual issue?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I could live with the second suggestion. Limits links, without being overly restrictive. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Surely if a RS links a fringe theory to a mainstream one, that's reason enough for a possible "see also" - whic is only meant to be tangential a suggestion for other article of interest ... What concrete problem has there even been here? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The concrete problem is proponents of fringe theories insisting that fringe theories also be included in coverage of a mainstream topic. Most proponents of fringe theories are not content with a See Also link. Usually, they want a dedicate section or even full legitimacy of the fringe theory as if it carries equal weight. WP:ONEWAY seeks to avoid all these situations, but I don't think that it's doing a good job. How do we fix this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a case in point for context? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Does every discussion on how we might improve the wording need a case for context? Indeed, sometimes it is better to discuss policy issues without having a specific article in mind. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It helps discussion progress. For a concrete example, I looked at our moon landing articles where the fringe stuff is mentioned in the main Moon landing article, and seemed fine. Is there an actual or threatened problem anywhere? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I strongly agree with the sentiment. But I'm a little concerned about Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep - we're only slightly re-wording the guidelines now - but I can see demands for clarification in the immediate future. The present rule is a 'bright line' rule that easily administered. When you add words like "a consensus of" or "few" to a rule, you immediately open up lines of argument and protracted/repeated debate of the kind that the pro-fringe nut jobs are capable of endlessly pursuing. That in turn requires tighter definitions - which would likely mean additional rules...and then WP:CREEP.
The WP:CREEP guideline does inform us that unless there is a concrete example of a problematic situation, we shouldn't add new rules...although, granted, we're only amending the wording of an existing rule - I'm concerned that it opens the door to more rules being needed.
Hence, I have to weakly oppose both proposed wording changes - not because they are wrong, but because without a cause-celebre, we don't have a need - and without a need, we open the door to instruction creep. We need a clearer way to say what we mean here - preserving a bright line rule, but allowing for occasional outlier WP:RS to mention a fringe theory without providing a loophole through which a truckload of "See Also"'s can be driven.
Perhaps it should be that the one reliable source has to do more than merely mention the fringe theory. Perhaps it has to discuss it at length - perhaps it should be required to do something other than debunk the fringe theory to warrant a "See Also". I'm not sure even that is both sufficient and necessary though.
Default action: Do nothing.
SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
One of the the problems with having such a low bar is that it flies in the face of WP:UNDUE. Here's what WP:NPOV says:
"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.
This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (emphasis not mine).
So, one the one hand, WP:NPOV says we should consider the broad spectrum of reliable sources on a subject, but WP:ONEWAY says that we can throw that out based on a single source (even if it's an insignificant minority). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a simple "see also" link constitutes WP:UNDUE ... it's more of a relevance question. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read all of WP:ONEWAY. This isn't about simple "see also" links. It's about the broader issue of whether or not fringe viewpoints should be included in articles about mainstream topics. Should the article on the John F. Kennedy's assassination cover the Illuminati? Should the article on Barack Obama cover whether he's secret Muslim? Should the article on physics cover Time Cube? Should the article on Queen Elizabeth II cover whether she's a reptilian humanoid? NPOV says that viewpoints held by an extremely small minority should be excluded. ONEWAY implies that it only take one source to override this. Which is it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If this isn't about what to include in "see also" links... why did you focus us on the sentence relating to "see also" links? I am now confused as to what you are actually concerned about. Perhaps you could start over and explain your concern in another way. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Take two

WP:ONEWAY currently states:


This is fine, and I agree with it. However, later it states:


To me, this second sentence is misleading as it implies that as long as there is at least one reliable source which connects a fringe theory to a mainstream topic, the burden of WP:ONEWAY is satisfied. Consider, for example, Apollo lunar landing conspiracy theories. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles written about the Apollo landings on the Moon. If at least one source about the Apollo lunar landings also covers lunar conspiracy theories, that opens the door for the article about the Apollo lunar landings to be a WP:COATRACK for lunar landing conspiracy theories. It seems to me that one source should not override all the other sources. I'm not really sure what the solution is. Perhaps this wording should be changed to...

Suggested wording #1

...or...

Suggested wording #2

The point that I'm trying to get at is that WP:NPOV requires that we look at the broad spectrum of reliable sources whereas ONEWAY says (or at least implies) that a single source - even if it's an insignificant minority - overrides all the others.

How should reconcile NPOV with ONEWAY? I'm not honestly sure what the right solution is, so I'm throwing this out there to get feedback/suggestions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Madeleine Duncan Brown once appeared in the "See also" section of Lyndon B. Johnson, and her allegations were previously mentioned in the LBJ article. I removed all references to her in the LBJ article under the reasoning that it was never a major story to be considered anything approaching a significant part of LBJ's history, however, it is possible that one could have argued inclusion in that there were a "few independent reliable sources" that discussed her in connection with LBJ. I think it is sufficient that her article is tagged with [[Category:Lyndon B. Johnson]]. I tentatively support the addition of "few or" as suggested in #2. I'm OK with the flexibility that editors are given in judging by consensus what "few" means. - Location (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom:@Blueboar:@Alexbrn:@SteveBaker:? Would anyone else like to weigh in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I still don't like it. #1 says that a consensus of mainstream papers have to mention the fringe theory. That's an insanely high bar. There are likely to be a HUGE numbers of papers on any given subject - and to expect more than a relatively few percent of them to mention a fringe theory is asking a lot. We actually do want VERY prominent fringe theories to get a "See Also" - but they could be incredibly prominent and still not reach the level of a consensus of papers that mention them. Also the word "consensus" (in a Wikipedia context) has very complex and overloaded meanings...a consensus isn't a majority...it's going to be ikky to rule on. #2 just added a vague "few" word that's going to cause difficult discussions.
I know it's tough - but in areas like this where the fringe theorists grab anything they can to push their POV, any vagueness is going to result in endless disputes.
Sadly, I don't have alternative wording that I like better - my preference is to leave what we have alone until we can come up with something better. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I support harmonizing the language between policy and this guideline, but the policy has "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views" which is to me even broader than the current wording. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
But even that quote from WP:UNDUE contradicts WP:DUE (both are part of WP:NPOV) which states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." So, one part of NPOV says not to include it, and another part says not to exclude it except perhaps the See Also section. Which brings up another contradiction. WP:SEEALSO states that the 'See also' section should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article and thus, many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although it notes a couple exceptions. So, by including it in a "See Also" section is basically like saying that it belongs in the article text. What a tangled web we weave! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Giving proper weight to various extreme minority and fringe views is always a bit tricky. It is a really a matter of WP:Consensus as to whether a specific view belongs in a specific article or not. The same fringe view might belong in one article and not in another. Relevance and context is important.
Assuming the consensus is that the view should be included in the article in some form, we then get to an equally difficult discussion over how much weight to give it (dose it deserve a see also... a passing remark in one sentence?... a short paragraph?... a detailed section?)... again, what is appropriate is going to depend on the specific article topic, and the specific fringe view. There is no stock "one-size-fits-all answer).
For example... I think it appropriate for our main John F. Kennedy article to mention in passing that all sorts of conspiracy theories exist regarding his assassination... and for that article to link to our John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article )for the benefit of those who want to know more)... However, it would be inappropriate for that main article to say much more than that a passing mention, or for it to go into any of these conspiracy theories in much detail.
On the other hand, it is absolutely appropriate for our John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article to go into some detail about the various conspiracy theories (although, even there, we must give DUE WEIGHT to the individual theories... the most prevalent and repeated theories get more weight, and the less prevalent and repeated theories get less weight...or no weight at all).
Change the specific article topic... and change the specific fringe view under discussion... and the dynamic that governs due weight changes completely. Each decision is unique and must be determined uniquely. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Further reading

I frequently notice fringe books and other sources in the "Further reading" section of various articles. Does Wikipedia have a guideline about this? Should it be handled similar to WP:ELNO? Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:FURTHER items are not required to be reliable sources. It's often the best place to stick a work that is (or was) prominent, but is now outdated or historical, or one that is a prominent example of the woo that the article is talking about.
However, there's no rule requiring you to keep junk sources, so if it feels like WP:REFSPAM or self-promotion, then kill it. (I'll add my advice to spam fighters: if you're doing a lot of this, then keep moving. Don't stop and argue with people who disagree with you. If you remove it, and someone restores it, then let it stay. Move on to the next article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

note - added explicit reference to Quackwatch and SBM to WP:PARITY

Note - in these difs I added explicit reference to Quackwatch and SBM to WP:PARITY. We use these all the time under PARITY and it will be useful to have them mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

In fields related to health and medicine, the websites, Quackwatch and Science-Based Medicine (see Mark Crislip, Steven Novella, and David Gorski) are often useful sources in this regard.[1][2]

  1. ^ Szabo, Lisa (18 June 2013). "How to guard against a quack". USA Today.
  2. ^ Arabella Dymoke (2004). The Good Web Guide. The Good Web Guide Ltd. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-903282-46-5. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Quackwatch is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information. Its aim is to investigate questionable claims made in some sectors of what is now a multi-million pound healthcare industry.
Please get consensus for this. Sources are not carte blanche acceptable and or reliable They are reliable specifically per the content they support.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
Thanks for talking. The content I added did not give carte blanche; that is not an accurate description of the content I added, which was "are often useful". I copied the proposed content above, to clarify the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Good addition by Jytdog. Littleolive oil, the addition does not give blanket license to use these sources but says they are "often useful" in the context of WP:PARITY - which is so, is it not? Elsewhere we call out publications as generally to be avoided (e.g. the journal Homeopathy) so this kind of of naming of sources is precedented. If this text can reduce the general wibbling that often seems to erupt when Quackwatch/SBM is used, it will prove beneficial indeed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Blueboar above. His words apply here. Each decision concerning sources and content is unique.... (my paraphrase). Identifying specific sources (especially since this comes on the heels and even during an ongoing discussion about QW) implies that source is acceptable in any article a user wants to add it. Are we going to start identifying RS sources within our policies and guidelines is the question we have to ask ourselves seems to me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
General wibbling may be necessary to make sure sources are reliable per content, Since QW is already pushed because "its already used all over Wikipedia", I doubt we need more implied support for this source. Let the source be discussed per specific content rather than cementing its acceptance by identifying it in a policy or guideline. And I am uncomfortable with the addition of this while discussion is ongoing on its use. Are we in a hurry?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
Olive, specific wibbling is often necessary and useful; general wibbling (of the "never use Quackwatch" or "Quackwatch is always right" type) is not useful, though a favoured perma-rant of some Wikipedians. The proposed change here is rather good in getting the point across that SBM/QW are examples of the type of publication which can be useful when WP:PARITY applies. That's right isn't it? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
olive, nothing in what i proposed contradicts what Blueboar said. anyway, your objection has been stated and your reasons given. Alexbrn's and my support are clear. let's see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
and by the way, it is not in the article now. once you contributed i re-deleted it. i am totally fine letting discussion unfold in good time. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Both Quackwatch and SBM are non-peer reviewed, self-published blogs that have no impact factor and are not indexed by any scientific databases. They are, by all measures, pseudoscientific sources -A1candidate (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks for your contribution to the discussion, A1. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It may not be the intent, but this will likely be interpreted as carte blanche permission to insert Quackwatch into fringe-related articles. What is the impetus for this proposal? Was there some specific challenge to Quackwatch? - Location (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I very much doubt that it will be taken as carte blanche. As I wrote above, both are used liberally already in alt-med, FRINGEY articles. To answer your question, they came up in Vani Hari, Feingold diet, and I brought Science-based Medicine in a very interesting way (that even made me some uncomfortable, but in a fun way) on Oseltamivir‎. Alt-met proponents (e.g. in my view, A1 and Olive Oil) don't like it when these sources are used in alt-med articles (hence their opposition is no surprise); and A1 has been on a bit of tear of late going after Quackwatch, in language similar and even more vociferous as that above and to be frank that is what prompted my thought to add it here explicitly. (plus I could never remember WP:PARITY) Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Al-med proponent. Nope, not necessarily so. And way too simplistic. The world of health care is not so black and white. Please deal with the issues concerning the source and not what an editor might or might not support which is a stawman. MEDRS is an over riding guide and I'd like to see it be consistent. Its not now. That's my impetus, not whether I'd for example, take antibiotics for pneumonia which I did. Let's stick to the issue. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
my apologies - I was asked why i cited this and went too many steps in explaining. struck. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Jytdog's edit. It merely provides examples of sources that are often used when WP:PARITY comes into play. In no way does it suggest the sources may be used carte blanche. The examples appear at the end of PARITY section. This is about PARITY. It often happens that new editors revert Quackwatch or other sources when PARITY applies, so having the examples can help in that situation. Manul 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jytdog and Manul. The point of this edit was to show that it is ok to use the source in this context. It's not the highest quality source we can get here, it's not completely unreliable, and it tends to be useful in many cases. We're trying to avoid both people saying it should always be used, and folks who think it should never be used. This seems to do the trick to me. There has already been consensus a few times over at RSN, Arbcom, etc. that the source has a use in specific cases:
Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand the necessity of this. Arbcom appeared to rule that it was not an unreliable source and various discussions appear to show that it may be used as a reliable source in context. If someone challenges the use of Quackwatch in a fringe article, why is it so difficult to point to those? Since when do we attempt to guide content by listing sources that may be use to refute fringe material? Should we also insert, "In articles related to JFK conspiracy theories, Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History is often a useful source in this regard."? This seems like a case of WP:CREEP. - Location (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It’s mainly because the question comes up so often and in a number of articles that it would be worthwhile here. There may be some editors who want to use it all the time, but the problem I’ve been seeing more is that there are sometimes a select few editors who oppose it as a source no matter the context even when they get pointed to the general consensus I listed above. The question comes up so often, so the intent here is to outline the general consensus in those related discussions above that the source can be (not necessarily is) reliable to avoid the automatic dismissal (or acceptance) of it. Since this is for a broad topic and not just a single thing like JFK, it seems an appropriate thing to point out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but it's extremely unlikely that this would achieve what you want it to achieve. If a fringe editor is not swayed by pointing to previous discussions that have formed the general consensus, then he or she is not likely to be swayed by pointing to a section that states certain sources "may be useful". (Incidentally, I have found material that touches upon JFK conspiracy allegations has been inserted into at least 200 articles. It wouldn't surprise me if Bugliosi's ~1,700 page, 1.5 million word book is larger than Quackwatch.) - Location (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I prefer the text say "can be useful sources". I support the proposal as long as editors don't use these sources to argue against reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This comes up often enough that a mention is reasonable, and the proposed wording is reasonable in the context of WP:PARITY (I don't see how the proposed wording could be construed as carte blanche as written). This basically restates what is already common practice in fringe med articles. Yobol (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposed (I have reverted the addition)... I do understand the motivation here... but a policy page is not the place to promote specific sources (no matter how good or useful they are). Save that sort of thing for the project page. I am also concerned that the addition overly focused the section on fringe medicine and health claims. Yes, this is where a lot of the battles with fringe pushers are currently being fought, but I have to remind everyone that this policy is about dealing with fringe topics in general, and NOT just Fringe science and medicine. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whether or not something may be a good source is outlined in WP:RS and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As an alternative, I would encourage placing this material in an essay discussing how to use sources that promote or refute fringe medicine and health and claims. - Location (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of fringe science

Looking at reference 3, the Saturday Review's "A Consumer's Guide to Pseudoscience" I read a very interesting definition of fringe science that I think should be quoted at length on the project page, rather than left for the few like me who bother to read the source. Specifically, this is helpful:

"One can visualize the situation in science in terms of concentric circles: At the center is the body of time-tested, universally accepted ideas that are set forth in school and college texts. The first circle out from the center is the frontier, which interacts constantly with the center, feeding it new ideas that the center, after lengthy testing, adopts and assimilates.
"If we move beyond the frontier region of a science, however, we come to a hazy outer circle area that I like to call the fringe. The fringe is characterized by a scarcity of hard data and by a general fuzziness of ideas that make the average scientist very uncomfortable. It is a zone in which neither accepted scientific writ nor reasonable extrapolations of scientific knowledge seem to apply. For these reasons, it is an area that scientists generally prefer to avoid."

I particularly like how fringe science, in this example, is characterized by a "scarsity of hard data," "general fuzziness of ideas," and a zone which not even supported by a "reasonable extrapolations of scientific knowledge."

Are there objections to my including the above two paragraphs, quoted from the Saturday Review, at an appropriate place in the project page?—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

revival of "Mainstream" discussion

Per WP:MULTI issues should be discussed in one place only; see WP:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for reformation of 'fringe theories' and the supposed 'neutral stance' of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Mainstream" has nothing to do with anything.

  • In deciding whether to write articles about things, we look to whether they are notable, meaning that they are significantly talked about. Doesn't matter if the things are legit or not. See Wikipedia:Notability.
  • In deciding how to write articles about things that we have decided are notable enough, we try to maintain a neutral viewpoint, which means that we address the concept in a stale, detached, objective manner and don't make value judgments about it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

That's it. — Omegatron 22:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! I've been trying to express something like that, but have obviously failed! This guideline is just plain absurd, confusing, biased, unnecessary, useless. Lakinekaki
Legit might as well be reliability. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Reliability of sources pertains to how trustworthy they are for the things that are cited to them. This is orthogonal to the legitimacy of what is actually being said. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
Completely bogus claims can be cited with a reliable source, as long as they're attributed. You're not using the source to say that the bogus claim is true, you're using the source to make the who and what of the claim verifiable. — Omegatron 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
To me, this guideline has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the theory ... The key to this guideline is indeed notability... a Fringe theory must have achieved a degree of recognition (ie coverage) in the mainstream for it to be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia (either as its own article or as a section of some other article). That recognition can be approving or disapproving of the theory... that does not matter... all that matters is that it can be shown that at least one mainstream source has taken notice of the theory and discussed it in some detail. Blueboar 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, notability. "Mainstream" is not notability. Notability refers to coverage in peer-reviewed journals just as much as it does newspaper articles written by people who flunked high school science classes. We need to stick to our actual notability policy and not shoot off on tangents about peer-reviewed research. If it's worthy of note, we write about it. — Omegatron 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Your last sentence is where I have a problem... how do we determine if something is worthy of note? "Worthy" is subjective, I may think some totally rediculous theory is "worthy" of being noted, but you may disagree. No, we have to draw the line at things actually being noted. I would say that publication in a peer-reviewed journal is certainly a great way for something be be noted (and for scientific theories I would agree that it is probably the best way). But there are other ways for something to become notable... such as being discussed in "mainstream" newspapers. Blueboar 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is definitely worthy of revival. Funny how when people make sense, like Omegatron in this instance, the conversation and their views seems to be ignored, and subsequently buried. I totally agree with Omegatron. Wikipedia is overly biased to a liberal point of view. Yet, Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view. A great example would be the condensing attitude Wikipedia has on pages pertaining to "conspiracy theories". Anyone that values a actual neutral point of view would be able to see the systematic bias of Wikipedia. I think a reformation of Wikipedia is needed.

2607:FB90:2704:A755:3B93:DB19:B7B7:6832 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are proposing 'a reformation of Wikipedia', you are nailing your theses to the wrong door. I suggest you find a church with a larger congregation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Funny how I posted this hours ago. Yet when I added in the comment about Wikipedia reform half an hour ago, is when the sarcastic Wikipedia egotists reveal themselves. 2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84E (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Suit yourself - nobody is going to take much notice here. Though why you chose to drag up this ancient thread I have no idea. There have been much better criticisms of Wikipedia posted much more recently. Including some that even cited evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that. I'm just so used to the egotism and sarcasm on Wikipedia, I wasn't sure what you meant. I followed your advice, and posted this under the village pump for policy changes. If you don't mind, I could really use those sourced arguments to help make my case. If you don't want to do the digging, I can understand. I'll dig them up myself. 2607:FB90:422:2134:AADE:CFC:FCD8:E84E (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Axing the Jimbo quote

Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether. --Jimmy Wales

I moved this quote out of WP:FRINGELEVEL because the quote is really about NPOV, not FRINGELEVEL. Actually, I'm not sure the quote is helpful since it is just repeating NPOV. I also don't like the (deserved or undeserved) perception of quoting an "authority". If we must re-describe NPOV in FRINGE, then we should do it as regular prose instead of reaching for a quote. Manul ~ talk 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Books advocating a fringe theory

I wonder if somebody from here can provide a comment at Talk:The Lost River#Danino, Kazanas & mainstream scholarship. It is a book that advocates a fringe theory. But the editor that created the article insists that we should follow the format of articles for books, which means that the fringe theory aspect goes without mention. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

you should post this here: [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard] Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Roger, thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Independent vs any other kind of source?

As it appears here, what is an "independent source"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

see WP:INDY sources from woo-pushers are not reliable sources about woo... outside of reporting what woo-pushers say about it, that is. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fringe topics and the use of Quackwatch on MEDRS

There is currently a discussion concerning fringe topics and the use of Quackwatch at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). There was some disagreement about where to have the discussion, so I'm posting a link here as well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ban (title)

This Croatian guy is trying to give prominence to a bunch of discarded theories of "Aryan", "Gothic", "Iranian" etc. theory of the term which all ring emotional to any true Croatian nationalist. The term is in the five most recent Serbo-Croatian etymological dictionaries published in the last 50 years squarely sourced as a Turkic (Avar) loanword. The article is an obscure topic so nobody cares. Since he thinks that I'm some kind of "Yugoslav nationalist" somebody else needs to tell him

  1. that what some irrelevant historians (who have no training in historical linguists and as such no authorities) "think" is irrelevant in the presence of established sources
  2. That the 10KB paragraph on the "history of research" that is entirely dated to 19th-century and earlier speculation is non-encyclopedic and we don't care about it. This is not an etymological dictionary. Even on Wiktionary obsolete theories that are no longer mainstream are not mentioned. The only reason why he insists that we have them is because they are in favor of the bullshit Iranian theory. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This talk page is to discuss our policy/guideline(s), not specific articles like you are talking about. The better venue for this is the fringe theories noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What about articles on strange phenomena?

In a Wikipedia article that covers a notable strange case in history, where strange phenomena happened for which there is no official or widely-accepted scientific explanation, is it correct for the article to include fringe or non-scientific theories (like UFO or supernatural activity) that have been proposed as a explanation by researchers of these subjects? --Savig (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In and of themself? Probably not in my opinion. However, when such ideas gain enough public attention that the phenomena of public attention being paid is itself news, we might be able to report on that aspect, if not the crackpot idea directly. Depends on WP:RS quality. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_20&oldid=1137414203"