Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Bold suggestion: Rename/overhaul

Copied from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

I trired to re-read the discussion above and the policy itself, it comes to my mind that a good deal of confusion is the disparity of the policy title and its main point/nutshell: " To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. "

It other words, it does not matter how we graded the views that differ from mainstream: what matters is that they are non-mainstream. Clearly, there is a continuous spectrum and some ideas may float within this range. (For example a bold mainstream hypothesis may become dubious in view of new data, but the proponent will jealously defend it. While he does decent science, it may be called "minority view", when he slips into adding unjustified assumptions, mainstream starts dismissing him altogether, thus shifting into "fringe" area; and at the extreme the proponent may even go full crackpot.)

Therefore I will suggest to rename the policy into Wikipedia:Non-mainstream views (NB: not "theories") and focus more on the WP:DUE aspect, rather than on splitting hairs about the term, which is mostly pejorative indeed: I quickly browsed Google Books and most of them who refer to "fringe" actually focus on pseudo-science. In other words, we must focus on a reasonable classification/recognition of the degree of acceptance, rather on the degree of fringeness of a claim/view/theory, i.e., avoid sticking to label-sticking. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

From the perspective of a relatively new editor, I certainly agree that this policy / guideline area needs an overhaul. But, there really are topics that are pseudoscience / fringe. Like, for example, flat earth, creation science, and Time Cube. We need a policy to deal with those sorts of things, narrowly construed. JerryRussell (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "Pseudoscience" is rather well-defined and easy to deal with. We can have articles on notable pseudoscience, but no regular articles on, say, Earth or bird control can include anything pseudoscientific. We don't cite Time Cube in Greenwich Time article. And this is rather adequately covered already. If you think something is missing, please make specific suggestions. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we're both saying that the problem is, all sorts of minority theories are categorized as "Fringe", which is a pejorative, and then treated the same as pseudoscience. We have some policies like PARITY and ONEWAY that seem like they should be used only for pseudoscience, while WP:DUE is much more widely applicable. FALSEBALANCE is part of the NPOV policy, and seems pretty general and flexible; I think I classed it unfairly with PARITY and ONEWAY above. I think the proposal is to do away with the Fringe label, and use "non-mainstream" except when "pseudoscience" is clearly applicable. JerryRussell (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What about simply renaming the board to "Fringe theories and pseudoscience"? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion was to avoid specific labels altogether, thus allowing the inclusion of not exactly fringe, but really minority/nonnotable views. In particular, quite often we see pieces of text like that " Profs A and B in a 9 November 2024 study of psychodermic response based on a sample of 68 volunteers concluded that psychos respond to skin stimuli slower than mainstream theories predicted." Of course we have WP:EXTRAORDINARY/WP:PRIMARY/WP:UNDUE, but why not cover it all neatly here, as applied to the specific case of something which is not mainstream (whether yet or already). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• if you start with the NPOV policy, and the discussion oF WEIGHT and of PSCI there, and the clear discussion of how you determine WEIGHT and what is UNDUE based on what (actually) reliable sources say together, you can see that the FRINGE guideline just complements the NPOV, and does so in a way that is pretty clear. If you start with FRINGE and work backwards, it is much harder. And we cannot legislate WP:CLUE; it does take an understanding to deploy FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:CLUE redirect to a bot. I guess it was not your intention? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I see your point. However I don't want to "start" with FRINGE. Please re-read my suggestion. I said that the text of the guideline does not match its title. My suggestion is to rename the policy and make the explanatory part more general. Another option, which is possibly less drastic, is to start the guideline with the phrase which clarifies our language, something like, "In wikipedia parlance, a fringe theory/view/claim is broadly understood to be a theory/view/claim which gained very little or no support in mainstream science. These minority views may range from outright pseudoscience to novel bold ideas or new experimental results which did not enjoy a general acceptance or confirmation yet. While typically the term 'fringe' is used pejoratively, in Wikipedia we understand it literally: 'on the fringe of the mainstream knowledge' and therefore fringe views have little or no weight in general Wikipedia articles. " Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oops, my bad. We already have something like this. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." However IMO it is misplaced into the section "Identifying fringe theories". IMO the definition must be at the very top of the lede. This will remove misunderstandings due to tl;dr right away. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with this renaming and believe "fringe" is POV while "non mainstream" or "extreme minority view" are more objective. I especially believe that any policy stating only rules suitable for hard science cannot be invoked in the human sciences (history, religion, biography, even economics or ethics or philosophy) and proposed some ways to deal with that as below - which I suggest be a different policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

        I don't understand how Wikipedia

        • avoids that the "fringe theory" accusation (it is a pejorative term, isn't it?), avoids that freedom of speech approach is undermined,
        • avoids that the (formerly) fringe theory of quantum mechanics is not ridiculed and
        • how to access the option that the fringe theory of a politic scandal actually turns out to be true (e.g. Watergate). -- Gunnar (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

          Then go solve your problem. Or not. This is not the right place to do either, since this page is for improving the page Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Historicism in science and intellectual history

• Historically influential theories that are either believed by non-specialists or which are still applicable to some scope of problems, or which have influenced language or methodology, must be differentiated because they are part of intellectual history as well as science. Examples:
  • "F=MA" was considered literally to be true by 19th century scientists, but now is seen as an approximation that applies at low speeds and neither vast nor tiny masses. It was sufficient to get to the Moon.
  • Social Darwinism was another historically influential or tragic theory that had huge influence (racism, eugenics, forced sterilization) and did not generally die out until decades after World War II (partly caused by such views), bhy which time humans had developed enough nuclear weapons to destroy all advanced life on Earth thus making the endpoint of unlimited "darwinian" competition undesirable.
  • "the ether" has been suggested as just another name for dark matter but its characteristics were never clearly defined
  • Particle physics and electromagnetism have two quite different explanations for matter that have waxed and waned over centuries, so it would be incorrect to state one as consensus and the other as merely historical - even if 19th century texts employ more wave & 20 century employ more particle terminology.
• Such theories properly fit into intellectual history cannot be ignored nor all their followers necessarily treated as ignorant. In some cases it was not yet possible to experiment or see the logical consequences of a theory. In others terminology has been used to obscure similarity with more current theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2017‎

Pseudoscience

There are arguments that are constructed to look like science, but aren't. To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider that:

• Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. It incrementally changes models and generally does not reject good explanations of phenomena from prior theories.
• Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Corruption of science itself is often usually claimed.

Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself. Watch specifically for:

• claims that solved problems are impossible to solve (e.g. Biblical creationists)
• reliance on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (e.g. parapsychology)
• indulgence of a suspect theoretical premise (e.g. claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy).
• conflations of terminology that allow incoherent definitions.

An example of the latter is climate change. Obviously the Earth's climate has changed drastically over its history, but the phrase in its scientific meaning refers to recent rapid unprecedented changes (at least unprecedented within human time on Earth). A highly motivated lobby [1] present the scientific consensus or dominant paradigm as having some problem, but it has proven impossible to disprove either global warming as an overall trend or the narrower anthropogenic global warming or the even narrower CAGW. While all the alternative theories of warming are "fringe" and studies citing them or claiming to support them have all proven irreproducible (as with parapsychology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2017‎

Motives of pseudoscience

Often pseudoscience theories are proliferated as part of a crapflood - a tactic in information warfare whereby a truth in plain sight can be rendered hard to believe by dilution. If the percentage of people believing the science motivates action can be reduced below some critical supermajority, it becomes easy to delay such action, and profits continue. It is not necessary for any new theory to emerge, only to prevent adoption of - and action on - the dominant one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2017‎

discredit consensus or establishment

Be careful to differentiate consensus from fringe status, to find answers to the fringe objections in the consensus, and to be especially watchful of WP:COI problems among sources. It can be useful to just enter the name of the theory with "debunked" in a search engine and see who has directly responded to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2017‎

discredit or delay policy

Consider medicine as the best analogy for differentiating between science & policy: No matter how many fringe theorists claim that arsenic is good for you, it is still illegal to dump it in your well, and you are entitled to defend yours based on the medical consensus that it is harmful. An argument about how scientific consensus may change is not an argument to ignore policy based on the current consensus.

In any given decade, less than 1% of scientific consensus from the previous decade is typically challenged at all, so it would be entirely wrong and dangerous to claim that safety critical policy is ever dependent on scientific total certainty. It literally never is, policy decisions (as in medicine) are made based on best known science, and if that changes, then, it changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2017‎

Is this a hoax or a fringe theory?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Is_Warsaw_number_a_hoax?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would say it is BOTH. Looking at the history, hoax material was added to a Wikipedia article about a fringe theory. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Based upon

Regarding this, the Wikipedia:Based upon essay is about what articles should be based upon rather than what any individual statement should be based upon. Of course, the essay can be expanded to address statements in addition to what type of sources an article is primarily or half based upon. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

RM involving interpretation of WP:FRINGE (and MOS:WTW)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020. Some of the more circular debate there involves interpretation of MOS:WTW with WP:FRINGE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

POVFIGHTER

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing#POVFIGHTER. Summary: A provision has been added to WP:TE that appears to have implications for this page and editorial activity relating to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to better refer to specific fringe categories

Currently we have a single shortcut to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Spectrum of fringe theories section: WP:FRINGE/PS. However, there are three broad categories listed in the section: Pseudoscience (PS), Questionable science, and Alternative theoretical formulations. Our single shortcut seems to refer specifically only to the first category, pseudoscience.

In conversations on topics where there is potential for miscategorization of distinct theories that either overlap or are commonly grouped together in the vernacular, this leads to significant debate about whether or not a certain idea is fringe or not.

For instance, this has come up multiple times regarding COVID-19 and theories about laboratory origins. Generally people think of the pseudoscientific conspiracy theories regarding bioengineering, but this isn't the only topic. There's also some questionable/junk science, either from those without relevant experience or far outside the norms of peer review and open transparency. Generally the problem comes with the alternative theoretical formulations, specifically an unknown collection and inadvertent exposure to a bat virus in a lab environment. This is very clearly an area of legitimate scientific inquiry (as the joint China-WHO team evaluated it, but not the bioengineering theory), but also arguably fringe for being the apparent minority opinion. I can refer to WP:FRINGE regarding any of these topics, but this can be misinterpreted in multiple ways.

My proposal is to add two additional shortcuts, WP:FRINGE/QUES (or similar) and WP:FRINGE/ALT (or similar). This would allow easier distinction when used on talk pages, avoiding the potential baggage of implying valid scientific inquiry of a minority perspective is pseudoscience, and vice-vers-a. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorism

I missed the discussion in January and wanted to add an additional view.

Conspiracy theory has a clear meaning in academic literature. It is an alternative explanation of events that involves an all-knowing, all-powerful and totally evil group whose actions are unreported in mainstream sources. Such theories are not falsifiable, because any evidence against them is dismissed as obfuscation by the conspirators. Much of conspiracy theory writing uses dubious or false facts and faulty logic.

As an article in The Conversation says, "Conspiracy theories are deliberately complex and reflect an all-encompassing worldview. Instead of trying to explain one thing, a conspiracy theory tries to explain everything, discovering connections across domains of human interaction that are otherwise hidden – mostly because they do not exist."[2]

9/11 Truth fits all the elements of a conspiracy theory. It claims that the U.S. government murdered 1,000s of its own citizens as a false flag operation to justify the war in Iraq. In order to do that, it would have been able to carry out an elaborate covert action and keep it secret, despite the fact that hundreds or even thousands of people would have been in on the secret. The adherents explain the findings of experts by claiming they are part of the conspiracy.

In my opinion this is similar to the case of terrorism. It is a concept studied by experts and we expect expert opinion before we use the term. We don't expect that a reporter has sufficient expertise.

There is a clear distinction between conspiracy theories and plausible if unlikely alternative explanations which may elude news reporters, although conspiracy theorists may adopt alternative explanations and add in the elements of a conspiracy theory. In fact, Wikipedia draws a clear distinction between pseudoscience and alternative explanations in its Fringe theories|.

To use a current example, conspiracy theorists have seized on the Wuhan lab leak theory which fits in with their pre-existing views on Communism, the U.S. government, the globalists, and xenophobia. Yet the WHO and Dr. Fauci see it as a possible if unlikely source that has not been ruled out.

TFD (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Bangalamania (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Relationship to MEDRS

It might be useful for WP:PARITY to mention WP:MEDRS. The fact is that editors do not require an "ideal" source to add information about notable quackery. We can say that Chromotherapy is quackery without producing a peer-reviewed review article published within the last five years in a reputable journal; it's enough to produce any reliable source to describe such obvious nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Relationship of WP:FRINGE to other policies and guidelines

Over the past few months, there have been several discussions about instances of WP:FRINGE being misused as a justification to disregard other policies and guidelines. The most important of these was the Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case, in which Rp2006 was topic banned from all skepticism related BLPs for (among other things) editing with a conflict of interest, and excessively negative editing of BLP articles about individuals associated with fringe topics. [3] During that case, one of the workshop proposals was for a principle which would have clarified that WP:FRINGE must be used in a way that is consistent with other policies and guidelines, [4] but this principle was not incorporated into the final decision.

In a discussion about this issue at the village pump a few months ago, Masem made an insightful comment about how WP:FRINGE also has been used to circumvent RS policy: While I agree that we should still be relying on quality RSes for discussion of the state of a fringe theory without legitimizing, the issue that has been the core of this entire thread has been about how editors with a strong anti-fringe stance seem to go out of their way to knock any type of legitimacy of sources that would be the appropriate type to use in these cases that happen to give a bit of support or non-stigmatizing coverage of fringe, and then thus claim there's no coverage of the fringe view in RSes and thus no need to cover it - a line of circular logic.

WP:FRINGEBLP already makes it clear that the usage of WP:FRINGE cannot supersede the requirements of BLP policy. I suggest that the WP:FRINGE guideline should contain a similar clarification about its relation to other Wikipedia policies and guidelines: namely, that WP:FRINGE also cannot supersede the requirements of WP:COI, WP:RS, or WP:V. 2600:1004:B110:A468:C55C:DD85:8E2:95C5 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to include something like that. Obviously COI, RS, and V apply everywhere; but the entire point of FRINGE is that it does have some effect on WP:RS / WP:V (hence WP:PARITY, which does unambiguously override the normal requirements of WP:RS in limited and specific circumstances.) The policies are not in competition with each other - WP:FRINGE is a supplement to RS / V and affects the reliability of sources. But more generally the underlying problem is that, aside from very new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, anyone advancing a WP:FRINGE theory is going to believe that WP:RS / WP:V back them up. In a dispute like that it's useless to say "well RS wins", because the underlying dispute is going to focus on how the policies intersect and which is more applicable. And generally I am skeptical of efforts to write policies that are too "hard" (in the sense of "always do X, never do Y, Z always wins") outside of narrow areas like WP:BLP / WP:MEDRS where there is a compelling reason we need to do so or the fundamental definitions of essential core policies. Having a policy that comes down too hard on one side of a dispute discourages discussion and consensus-building, which is bad because the majority of cases are at least somewhat context-sensitive and deserve more discussion than someone just linking a single policy. That is to say - WP:RS / WP:V apply everywhere, yes, but you have to make your specific argument for how and why they apply, which includes considering supplemental policies like WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"WP:FRINGE is a supplement to RS / V and affects the reliability of sources" - I've seen editors routinely make this argument, but as far as I'm aware it has no basis in policy. WP:RS does not mention the viewpoint of a source as a criterion in determining whether or not it is reliable. According to WP:RS reliability is based on more objective criteria such as age, the reputation of the publisher, and what statement it is being cited for. Obviously if a publisher consistently presents fringe theories, its reputation will suffer as a result, but WP:RS requires these types of judgments about a source to be based on the source's reputation, not based on the viewpoint itself.

This argument also fails to address Masem's concern about circular logic. Normally, determinations about whether an idea is or is not fringe would be based on the balance of viewpoints that exists in reliable sources, which are objectively defined by the criteria of WP:RS. But if the reliability of sources is itself based on whether or not they present fringe views, then decisions about whether or not an idea is fringe can become completely disconnected from the source material, and are left to the discretion of Wikipedia editors. In other words, this would allow virtually any idea to be classified as fringe, if Wikipedia editors want it to be classified that way, and decide that all the sources supporting it are therefore unreliable, even if they satisfy WP:RS in every other respect. 2600:1004:B110:A468:C55C:DD85:8E2:95C5 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I was the writer of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_170#Fringe,_Anti-fringe,_and_Turning_Wikipedia's_Values_Upside-down. Agree with the 95C5 IP: WP:FRINGE does not exist to have some effect on how we select reliable sources, but to explain how reliable sources determine what is fringe. We don't edit based off our personal beliefs or some list of acceptable and unacceptable ideas, we edit based on what the sources say. A good essay talking about this issue is User:Apaugasma/No._We_are_not_biased. MarshallKe (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• To the extent that WP:FRINGE is a supplement to another policy, I would say it supplements WP:NPOV more than WP:RS. The point of FRINGE is to explain both when and how we cover fringe views. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This is definitely the origin of WP:FRINGE -- almost a supplement to WP:WEIGHT. It just so happens that these days WP culture is to argue over reliability rather than neutrality. I appreciate that shift as a rhetorical clarification for how actual editing happens, but it has its limitations just as NPOV does. In particular, evaluating sources is necessarily circular. This isn't just the situation in the context of this guideline, but it perhaps becomes more apparent here since sourcing on fringe articles tends to look a bit different than on mainstream articles. In any case, there isn't a strong argument for replicating the wording of FRINGEBLP to apply to all other PAGs as if this guideline can be ignored if you find some line or interpretation elsewhere that you think supercedes it. The only reason we have a caveat in the FRINGEBLP section is because we have a special obligation to make sure that BLPs as a class of articles are taken care of in a special way. jps (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have no objection in principle to a carefully worded clarification to FRINGE with the object of preventing questionable editing by overly enthusiastic anti-fringe editors. But, I would caution that great care needs to be taken that FRINGE is not materially weakened. There is no shortage of people and groups who have, and continue to aggressively attempt to promote all manner of nuttery in the encyclopedia. PROFRINGE editing is by far a greater problem than the occasionally over-zealous behavior of those attempting to curb these pernicious POV editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Ad Orientem for the most part. We should clarify FRINGE to prevent abuse, accidental or intentional. Obviously, its all dependent what the proposed changes actually are. Bonewah (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm with Aquillion here in that The policies are not in competition with each other. (I am by default dubious of any proposal that tries to "clarify" proper editing by playing acronyms against one another, as in my experience, these tend either to be bikeshedding or an attempt to push a pet cause by cloaking it in wiki-jargon. I'm not presuming anything about the motives of anyone in this discussion, just saying that for me personally, any such proposal will be an uphill battle.) I also concur with Ad Orientem that PROFRINGE editing is by far a greater problem than the occasionally over-zealous behavior of those attempting to curb these pernicious POV editors (in fact, I would italicize by far). I don't find the argument about "circular reasoning" to be persuasive; to me, it reads as a slippery slope down to a worst-case hypothetical. Moreover, and perhaps I am echoing jps here, one could make the same accusation about editing on any topic. (Nor does it really seem connected with the ArbCom case that prompted this discussion, as that was principally about COI editing, not demarcating fringe from non-fringe or insisting that a particular source must be reliable because it toed some imagined party line about fringe topics.) The problem with trying to tweak the words in any one guideline to prevent abuse is that there's always another guideline, always some other way to wiki-lawyer, always another argument to drag out and delay until the editors standing in your way have had to move on to the next crisis. Words can only do so much when it's people who are the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've also seen that circle of reasoning run in the other direction, now and then. "The fan wiki for my favorite TV show is exhaustively detailed, and it has a reputation for reliability (among fans — who are the people who'd know best!). Therefore, it should be designated an RS, and omitting the table of the 100 best episodes as ranked in a 1997 poll violates UNDUE." I wouldn't want to modify guidelines in a way that would fuel that kind of argument, either. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• As I said in my comments on the similar workshop proposal in the Skepticism and coordinated editing case, I agree that something like this is needed. In addition to the discussions linked above by the IP, DGG made a proposal along these lines to Arbcom in October, so he might want to offer an opinion about the current proposal. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• FRINGE had a purpose 15 years ago, when the encyclopedia was under attack by various esoteric groups intending to turn it to their own purposes, most notably scientology, but also various forms of what no reasonable person could consider objectively valid medicine or science. They have all successively tried to create walled gardens of articles representing their positions on the world, or on the relevant parts of it. This created a serious problem for a nascent encyclopedia, for the intensity and devotion of the adherents was sufficient to sessentially shut out all other contributions in the field. In the extreme of Scientology, their central organization was banned from participation altogether; in the case of most of the others, the increasing number of sensible and intelligent contributors made it possible to keep them in limits. (though there were serious difficulties with some, notably Homeopathy, which was one of the cause of the split with Citizendium, which proposed to treat these on a equal basis with reality.

The world, and our contributors, has changed. The dangerous social movements of our time are not represented significantly in Wikipedia, at least the English Wikipedia. Our problem now is just the opposite: making sure that the varied world of human opinion, sensible and not, is fully explained and represented.

"Fringe" can mean a great many things--but one of the things it does not mean, and must not be confused, with is a possibly valid testable scientific view, whose conclusions are not accepted because of social or psychological or political reasons. The classic example of this is Mendelian genetics, which was not accepted in the Soviet Union because the implications of it were considered incompatible with the Stalinist concept of Marxism. We should not tink that we here arefree from such implications. We do not judge science by voting, or whetherwe like the conclusions.

I read with utter amazement the view above that we are in danger from the proponents of fringe. What we are in danger from, is those who reject the serious consideration of testable theories because they do not like the implications, or the supporters. A pseudoscientist is someone who pretends to accept the scientific method, but actually conducts their work in such a way as to avoid the usual investigations and proofs. A pseudoscience supporter in Wikipedia is someone who rules out sources because they do not like what they say.

Even more generally, the basic rule remains that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It includes all of human knowledge that can be expressed in the media it uses. It devotes the necessary space to considering them in proportion to the available sources and the amount of space needed to explain. It does not decide if the sources are correct or fair or honest. It summarizes what is written. It can give background: it can provide evidence that very few people believe in something. But it can say nothing in its own voice whatsoever--it has no voice of its own. It is not a textbook. It is not advocacy. It has no doctrine. That something is in the views of 99% of us wrong or perverse or even dangerous it makes no difference whatsoever about how we present it. We are not here to protect the world. We are not even here to educate the world. We are here to present in a free manner the information by which the people in the world can educate themselves.

I should expand in great length, by reviewing our overage of everything controversial. But let me give an illustration. One of my acquaintances here, of politically extremely conservative views, is a historian who has written school textbooks of the history of various midwestern states. I decided to examine his books, to see if his claimed neutrality was real --and let me tell you, I read extremely skeptically indeed. But I could not have told what his politics was, if I had not known previously.

the first step towards of this would be a contents rule, that we never say something is fringe, or false, or true, or controversial.I would not modify the rule: I would remove it. To use a previous example of mine, we don't even call Stalin a tyrant. Reporting what he did will make it clear, and reporting the views of his supporters will make it even clearer. But if any of us say that we know something to be true, or false, or unproven, we can only be asserting either that we are supernaturally inspired, or that there is nobody better informed or more intelligent. We all know what we think today, but we can not tell if we will still think it tomorrow; how can we dare enshrine it as a judgment in a work of reference? DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A very odd time to be saying we are not "in danger from the proponents of fringe", in the middle of a very nasty war, arguably driven by fringe historical ideas! Your post seems to deal only with scientific fringe views, which may be better controlled than they were (though I wonder how closely you follow the fringe noticeboard). In areas around history, fringe views seem to be flourishing, and are arguably more dangerous, as we are seeing. I wonder which will end up killing more people, anti-vax nonsense or the war in Ukraine? Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please pardon me for inserting something here to keep the sub-thread together. I was indeed talking about science primarily. The part of history that deals with what actually happened is a science because it is testable by observation; the part that deals with motivations is not. Only for the part of social questions that is testable by experiment or observation does the concept of fringe or pseudoscience even make sense; in other areas, our judgements are prejudices, and fringe means no more than "small minority". I cannot prove the principles of human rights, but I believe in them. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"The part of history that deals with what actually happened is a science because it is testable by observation" - wow, what an astonishing remark! Unbelievable. Words fail me. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG, for a thought-provoking post. I will leave the in-depth analysis to the wiser Wikipedians, but I too find the "not in danger" from fringe assertion remarkable. Indeed, I would say the danger is at least as great as it has ever been--though yes, perhaps it is better filtered here than it was fifteen years ago. But there is a bit of this with which I wholeheartedly agree, and that is a general posture of epistemic humility: we don't know what we don't know, and should be mindful of that. But I also don't think that should be an excuse for paralysis. Yes, in a century, many things we think of as unassailably true will be seen as silly, and perhaps some things we think of as "fringe" will be accepted as fact. I don't think that means we need to be less critical or less discerning. My view, at least, is that Wikipedia is not a stenographic service that records human knowledge in a sort of great capacious compendium, but rather an interpreter of the emergent quality of human knowledge--though people will always find ways to disagree, as a species, there are some things on which we seem to have settled. The shape of our planet is an easy example. Though there are of course dissenters, I would argue it is within the realm of emergent human knowledge that we live on a sphere (or at least an oblate spheroid). So, again, I think DGG's position is well taken, but for me it goes a step too far. I think we should be mindful of our own limitations, but I don't think we need to surrender to them (with apologies for the martial metaphor). I think it is incumbent upon us to continue monitoring for fringe and labelling some content as such, while trying to retain some of that humility I mentioned. I fully understand that this is an unsatisfying place to land, but for me, it's the worst possible solution except for all of the others. Just some unasked for musings! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Indeed, I would say the danger is at least as great as it has ever been--though yes, perhaps it is better filtered here than it was fifteen years ago. Expanding on this, I'd suggest the primary reason such perspectives are well controlled today is because of FRINGE, not a sign that it's no longer necessary. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• @DGG: The world, and our contributors, has changed. The dangerous social movements of our time are not represented significantly in Wikipedia, at least the English Wikipedia. Our problem now is just the opposite: making sure that the varied world of human opinion, sensible and not, is fully explained and represented. This feels wholly at odds with the current state of things, both the world and Wikipedia. It may not be Scientology anymore, but now it's Ivermectin and Trump and Russian Disinformation, on top of older topics that never went away like sex/gender and race/intelligence.

the first step towards of this would be a contents rule, that we never say something is fringe, or false, or true, or controversial. Why do we need to nuke FRINGE to 'never say something is false or true'? That's already what FRINGE says: we should put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Saying true/false is an issue of application, not of the guideline itself. Same with the potentially loaded word "fringe", particularly in article space.

We all know what we think today, but we can not tell if we will still think it tomorrow; how can we dare enshrine it as a judgment in a work of reference? I strongly disagree with the idea that we shouldn't identify current mainstream and non-mainstream ideas as such, as the alternative would result in a failure to function as an encyclopedia. We should not attempt to preemptively WP:RGW by assuming the currently accepted mainstream view might change in the future. We're a WP:WIP, and it's better for us to err on the side of, for instance, mainstream published meta-analysis scientific consensus, rather than presenting one person's pre-print papers funded by political activists as if they have an equal weight purely on the off-chance that this one person got it right. While they're non-mainstream, we should say so. When they become mainstream, we should say so. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

DGG is making a straw man argument. No one is saying that Wikipedia editors should determine what's fringe from their own personal knowledge. What's fringe is determined from what the preponderance of reliable sources say. It occasionally happens that something that's considered fringe at one point in time will become mainstream 15 years later, in which case that will be clear from what reliable sources say, and Wikipedia's coverage will no longer treat it as fringe. The current policy on fringe is consistent with all the core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. NightHeron (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"the first step towards of this would be a contents rule, that we never say something is fringe, or false, or true, or controversial."

DGG's suggestion would be a major step in the direction of the death of truth. Wikipedia may not be here to WP:RGW, but it still has a reputation as the "good cop of the Internet".

It is false that the Earth is flat. It is false that the Middle Ages never happened and that the historical records of them were forged as part of a conspiracy. It is false that the Apollo moon landings were faked. It is false that Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. presidential election. It is false that vaccines cause autism. If Wikipedia cannot say these things are false, it becomes useless. Gildir (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t disagree… However… in a BLP about a Flat Earth advocate (etc) it does not actually matter whether the earth is flat or not. All that really matters (in the context of a BLP) is that the BLP subject advocates for a flat earth (etc).

This is were some of our more zealous “anti-fringe” editors have difficulty maintaining a NPOV. Instead of neutrally describing the fact that the subject holds certain beliefs, they focus on describing how flawed those beliefs are. A BLP isn’t the right place to do that. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It depends. A BLP of a Young Earth Creationist might well have comments about that person from scientists showing how wrong YEC is. I don't see a problem with that. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and I believe it is important when creating a holistic portrait of a person to point out if they have have strong views or goals that are in tension with society at large, whatever the merit of those views. Sometimes that tension is a key factor in a person's notability. As such, I think we do have to sometimes dwell on "wrongness," or as I would prefer it, "tension," but as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it is a matter of how much detail to give. The appropriate place to go into detail about the “wrongness” of a view is in the article about that view (be it Flat earth, or YEC, or anti-vax conspiracy, etc) - NOT the Bio articles of the view’s proponents. Keep the focus of a bio article on the person, not on the view. It is OK for a bio article quickly note that a person’s views are controversial… but we shouldn’t go into the details of why they are controversial in the bio article. That’s what links are for. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You are of course quite right that it's a question of degree and that context is crucial. But sometimes I think we have to limn the controversy to make it clear. I don't believe we should treat "this person thinks the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Aramaic" (a largely rejected but facially plausible theory) and "this person thinks the world is flat and surrounded by an ice wall" the same. I would agree that it's possible to go TOO far into such matters in a BLP, but I think not going into detail about they "whys" of controversy is a move too far in the other direction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Precisely, there are questions of judgement. What is infuriating (and this is an increasing trend on Wikipedia) is the push to treat such questions as something that should be pre-decided by enshrining one-or-other absolute position as "law" by means of a policy change. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fringe is still a problem. Current estimates are that 250,000 Americans have died as a result of antivaxx misinformation. Changing the rules so that Wikipedia didn't call out fringe-as-fringe would not only be unintelligent, but immoral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone objects to calling out fringe as fringe… the question is where to do so. Doing so in an article about the fringe idea is the right venue… doing so in a bio article is the wrong venue. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. "Bio articles" are about people's lives and deeds (without deeds they would generally be non-notable, except for world's tallest man etc.) If those deeds obtrude into fringe areas and Wikipedia airs them it needs to call out the fringe-as-fringe. This is baked into NPOV and is non-negotiable core policy. We don't indifferently write about David Irving's notions about WW2 without pointing the fact that he's a holocaust denier. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I don’t think anyone objects to calling out fringe as fringe DGG seems to advocate for precisely this in his comment above. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If those deeds obtrude into fringe areas and Wikipedia airs them it needs to call out the fringe-as-fringe. This is baked into NPOV and is non-negotiable core policy. This right here is exactly why we need to clarify FRINGE. FRINGE is not a license to "call out the fringe-as-fringe" anywhere and everywhere nor is it "baked into NPOV" The FRINGE page itself clearly states "(fringe theories) must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea" and that in articles about a fringe theory to maintain "the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." What it does not say is to go out and shout loudly anywhere and everywhere you can how wrong those theories are. As an example, i give you Nicholas Wade wherein it was argued by multiple editors that Wade's biography must include multiple paragraphs of criticism of his work but not Wade's response to those critics:

here "Wade's reply is WP:UNDUE when weighed against the stated view of over 100 geneticists and biologists. ... "Perhaps I should also have pointed to WP:FRINGE, since one of the things these geneticists are criticizing Wade for is the view that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence." ::::here Using FRINGE to coatrack the biography "Again, i want to emphasize, this is not an article about race and genetics, its an article about Nicholas Wade. Again, I want to emphasize that this argument is a non-sequitur. Our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE apply to the whole project, just like WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:MPOV do." ::::here "Why on earth would we want to use this BLP as a platform to uncritically present Wade's fringe view that the scientific consensus on race is an anti-evolutionary myth?"

here "Given that A Troublesome Inheritance promotes a fringe view claiming evolutionary genetic effects on differences in IQ and in social/political activities between races and nations -- a view that's rejected by the consensus of geneticists -- it is sufficient that we have the one sentence that's already there quoting a well-known person (Charles Murray) in support of those fringe views."

here "You say this article is not the place to weigh fringe claims against mainstream views, but I am certain that the correct such place is everywhere on Wikipedia. There should be no dark corners or walled garden of Wikipedia where fringe views are presented uncritically."

I could go on, his talk page archive is full of these.

This isnt about debunking bigfoot or flat earth, its exactly what DGG said What we are in danger from, is those who reject the serious consideration of testable theories because they do not like the implications, or the supporters. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Whether it's Bigfoot, holocaust denial, fake cancer treatments, or some guy's bonkers ideas about lab leaks and race, Wikipedia calls out bonkers ideas out as bonkers. Wikipedia does not take a stand on fringe topics, for or against; but omits such information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise includes and describes such ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. WP:PROFRINGE editors don't like it, but that is NPOV folks! Alexbrn (talk)

Wikipedia calls out bonkers ideas out as bonkers Even if it were possible to reliably separate bonkers ideas from merely unpopular ones, you are still incorrect. Wikipedia isnt here to "call out ideas" one way or the other, but to present verifiable information in a neutral fashion. Bonewah (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but, to me, sometimes presenting that information neutrally involves saying that "most people think this idea is bonkers." I think we're all sort of approaching the same idea from several oblique angles. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and "neutral" means fringe idea must always be contextualized by established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. So long as we're doing that, all is good. If this Wade person had fringe ideas, they will be identified as such in his bio precisely because of Wikipedia's special commitment to neutrality. WP:PROFRINGE editors would just love it if biographies became a place for a "free hit" of nonsense! Not gonna happen. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC)I agree, the object is neutrally, not "calling out as bonkers". If saying "most people think this idea is bonkers." is the best way to do that, then we should say that. In my mind an ideal clarification of FRINGE would make clear that FRINGE exists to support Neutrality, not override it. Bonewah (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral in the sense of of "in proportion to prominence in reliable sources", which should mean that bonkers ideas are called out as bonkers when reliable sources are calling them bonkers. With Wade, we had an author who became much more prominent because of his book that promoted fringe views. Editors were adamant that we should extensively quote Wade's response to the hundreds of experts that refuted his views, seeking to present Wade's views in equal proportion with the experts. If FRINGE didn't exist, this suggestion would rightly have been rejected on basic NPOV grounds. I am grateful, though, for the clear guidance of FRINGE. I'm not sure what proponents of the proposed change hope to accomplish with "this guideline must be followed in a way that doesn't conflict with policy", but if the intent is to weaken the project's ability to present content neutrally, then I'm opposed. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Bonewah's world: "Most people say the Holocaust happened". Yeah, no. See WP:ASSERT for why your idea is a NPOV disaster. Alexbrn (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, No. In fact, editors were adamant that Wade not be quoted at all while quoting his critics extensively. In Wade's biography. Even when the sources sited quoted Wade's responses in full. Even in spite of clearly stating in unambiguous terms that WP:Neutrality "...means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."(emphasis added). FRINGE does not supersede Neutrality, thats what i would like to accomplish. @Alexbrn, personal attacks so soon? Pace yourself, this could take a while. Bonewah (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting you think it a personal attack when faced with the upshot of your approach. If something is wrong, Wikipedia say it's wrong; not that "most people think" it's wrong. There are always loonies to push any fringe notion, so it's never unanimous. Alexbrn (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's an example diff of what I'm talking about, in which an editor attempts to present Wade's quoted views in equal prominence to that of the experts. FRINGE is helpful in explaining why that's counter to the goals of Wikipedia. Many supporters of giving additional weight to Wade's view kept stressing that it's his biography, as you are doing here, which is not a factor in determining due weight. After a flurry of edits removing and restoring the lengthy Wade quote, rather than allow the obviously due expert letter criticism to stand in the article, your suggested compromise was to remove mention of the letter entirely. Overall, the affair is a counterexample to the suggestion above the we find ourselves in a world where Wikipedia is not in danger from promotion of fringe views. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC)Well, i never said that Wikipedia should say "most people think" it's wrong or anything like that. Just like i never said "Most people say the Holocaust happened". And, yes, likening someone's views to holocaust denial is generally considered a personal attack, especially when the stated view was as unremarkable as Neutrality > Fringe. Bonewah (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You said it's not Wikipedia's job call out bonkers ideas. But just to be clear, you'd agree that Wikipedia should call David Irving's various pronouncements about the Holocaust wrong//dishonest (as RS says). Yes? Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to my comments that a BLP is not the right venue to go into details in an attempt to rebut the subject’s fringe views, I will also say that a BLP is not the right venue to go into the details of the subjects’s views. A BLP should summarize the views… and link to other articles where we go into the details.

To give an imaginary example: if Ima Nutter is notable for advocating that the moon is made of cheese, then we can summarize that advocacy with:

“Nutter is a leading proponent of Lunar fromageology (the fringe theory that the moon is made of cheese). He differs from other lunar fromageology advocates in that he believes that the moon is primarily made of Cheddar cheese while most believe that it is made of Limburger. He has authored two books on the subject - “Cheesemakers of the Gods” and “The Cosmic Whey”.”

Note that my example does identify “Lunar fromageology” as a fringe belief… but only IN PASSING. There is no need for the BLP about Nutter to include a point by point refutation of Nutters’s advocacy of Lunar fromageology… because that should all be done at the linked Lunar fromageology article. All the Nutter BLP really needs to do is identify that Nutter is an advocate of it, and summarize how his brand of advocacy differs from other advocates. The focus of the BLP should be on Nutter and not on “fromageology”. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of editors don't understand the biographies are composite articles per WP:NOPAGE, typically a composite of "The Life of X" and "The works of X" (for major figures, we actually split these articles). Both aspects get treated in the one page. What the WP:PROFRINGE editors argue are that bios are some kind of "life only" sacrosanct spaces where the subject's works cannot be submitted to proper NPOV scrutiny. They're wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC)As i said here my compromise, or, at least, my attempt at a compromise was to delete information i viewed as mostly useless. I stand by that. The object is to write a clear, verifiable and neutral encyclopedia, if calling someone's views as wrong or dishonest does that, then thats what we should do. If not, then we shouldnt. The "calling out" (or not) is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Same is true of David Irving or anyone else. Bonewah (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont know who you think are the 'WP:PROFRINGE editors' that you keep mentioning, but I think that biographies should be biographical. They should be about the person, just as articles on planets should be about planets and articles about butterflies should be about butterflies. Blueboar has it about right, you can say something if fringe, in my opinion, or say something that implies that, but only in service of accurately and neutrally covering the subject. Bonewah (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. Biographies are not narrowly "about the person", but about the person and what they've done. In fact, they're often much more about what the person's done than their "life". Have you ever read a biography? Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not writing a full length biography… but an encyclopedia article which is biographical in nature. The key to that is summarization. And summarization often means we omit details. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever consulted biographies from, say, Encyclopædia Britannica? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely concur with Alexbrn here. Very often, the only reason a biography exists is because of what the person has done. There's no natural separation between "life" and actions. XOR'easter (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Of course fringe advocates would like Wikipedia to present a false balance. I'm sorry to have to say it as it is. But that's also against WP:NPOV's WP:GEVAL policy, not only WP:FRINGE. As for common arguments that since science must reflect knowledge its positions may eventually change, it's true in relation to its method, yet in many cases that's unlikely, precisely because of the strength of the evidence and the working practical theories. For instance, we can expect better unifying physics theories in the future, but it's unlikely that suddenly quantum mysticism will be validated and that Newton mechanics or special relativity will become useless. We can expect more advanced knowledge about how organisms evolve, but little contradicting the fact that they do, or suddenly validating discredited pseudoscientific racialist theories. Extraordinary evidence is needed to validate extraordinary claims. In the case of Wikipedia, this means enough independent reliable sources prominently supporting a position and acknowledging the best/most accepted explanations for data. FRINGE isn't there for nothing, but because Wikipedia is a common target for propaganda, especially to push material that would be rejected by reputable, relevant, scientific journals. —PaleoNeonate – 06:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm slow on the uptake but I've only just realized this is all yet another shadow play about the R&I stuff. It's funny how the pro-racist WP:PROFRINGErs think they're attacking FRINGE (a mild guideline) when the real teeth are in NPOV (core policy) that they're upset about. Wikipedia is not going to air racist bollocks, quackery, pseudohistory or conspiracy theories without applying the brand of reality from reliable sources. And "biographies" are not a safe space for suspending this inviolable principle. Sorry. Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    You're probably right about this being aimed mainly at R&I. Evidently started by someone involved. The poster who pinged DGG had a topic ban from the area in the past but successfully appealed it. I have no idea what DGG's views are about R&I but it's certainly in the science area, which DGG has said is his main concern. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    For those who didn't see my comment on FTN: The IP user who started this thread is not just involved but topic banned from R&I, and would have been indef blocked for meatpuppetry if not for concerns about collateral damage. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive if you're curious. Though the IP user bends over backward not to mention it, DGG's recent amendment request from ArbCom ([5]), which was about R&I, is clearly an important piece of background here. Generalrelative (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    As User:NightHeron and User:Generalrelative have pointed out, it seems likely that the OP here is related to User:Gardenofaleph, who has earlier circumvented race-related topic bans. As in previous RfCs that have attempted to overturn WP:consensus, R&I now has the standard set of WP:DSs, even if rarely applied. It's not clear that there's been a paradigm shift as DGG seems to suggest. What is true, is that users have moved on: for example the two cultural anthropologists Slrubenstein died in 2012 and maunus has become active elsewhere; both were at one stage administrators. Other editors have subsequently appeared to continue that tradition, in different but related academic areas; they have been more involved in the humanities than the sciences. Mathsci (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Doug Weller: DGG's view about R&I is

    It's too early to settle that question. Research in human biology will decide.

    I do not offer any comments lest it be construed as a PA and redacted. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    • I cant speak for anyone else but, assuming R&I means race and intelligence, then, no it absolutely is not about that. I brought up Nicholas Wade, and, indeed, argued on his page for the same reason the ACLU defended the Illinois Nazis, because principles only matter if you stand up for them when its hard. No one needs to defend elm trees from POV pushing, its not going to happen and if it does, it would be easy to bat down. What is going to happen, and does happen all the time is POV pushing around shitty people like Nicholas Wade or David Irving or Donald Trump and if we dont stand up and say "no, we are still going to write articles about these subjects in a neutral fashion no matter what awful things the subject has said" then the whole concept of a neutral encyclopedia goes down the drain. Ironically, i avoided the other Nicholas Wade lightning rod, origins of Covid-19, precisely because i wanted to avoid the whole "this is another shadow play about the lab leak stuff" argument, stupidly not realizing that the only thing more contentious, the only thing more capable of making people lose their minds and abandon their principles is race and intelligence. So sorry about that, next time ill choose something less divisive like abortion. But I stand by what i said. FRINGE is not your POV pushing super weapon, its not an excuse to ignore NPOV or plaster wikipedia everywhere with stuff about how super sure everyone is that Ivermectin doesnt cure covid or whatever and it doesnt apply any time you would like to shout someone down. Alexbrn was right about one thing, the real teeth are in NPOV, and as far as im concerned, we aught to copy this line and put it at the top of FRINGE "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and be done with it. I have no delusion that this will stop the ever-present POV pushing because nothing will, but at least we, as a community, will have said that Neutrality is more important to us than fighting fringe views, no matter how awful or destructive we think they are. Bonewah (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      You're cherry-picking NPOV. The bits which are particularly pertinent to fringe content are WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. The WP:FRINGE guidance is pretty much a long-winded expansion of the principles in these core sections. Alexbrn (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      • So do you think the portion of NPOV i quoted does not apply to fringe related topics? Bonewah (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

        In part. The extended considerations for fringe content are in WP:GEVAL, which is why it starts: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". [my emphasis] Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Bonewah: I agree with Alexbrn. The issue being discussed is not whether we mention Wade's viewpoint at all. It's whether giving Wade final say on disputed topics violates WP:GEVAL: include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world (emphasis added). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wade is incidental. The issue, to me, anyway, is what policies are relevant to fringe cases. In my opinion WP:PSCI,WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE all apply, but so does WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. When i read "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity" my understanding is do both the first part and the second part of the sentence. You guys seem to operate as if the 'while' means 'ignore the first part'. Just like when i read WP:GEVAL i think 'do this and WP:NPOV' rather than 'do this instead of WP:NPOV. Bonewah (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  You need to read it all (seriously, you need to actually read NPOV). GEVAL (which is part of NPOV) continues thusly:

  We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [my emphasis]

  In other words, fringe material is only included when contextualized properly: fringe-as-fringe. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I seriously have read NPOV and i agree with the sentence you quoted. But again, all of it, not just the parts that i choose. Like "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers" for instance. Or "omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it"(emphasis mine). That does not mean exclude everywhere, and it does not mean run all over wikipedia inserting sentences like "THIS GUY IS TOTALLY WRONG AND FRINGE AND NO ONE BELIVES THIS EXCEPT EVIL PEOPLE!". Im not saying you cant contextualize fringe as fringe, im saying that urge mustnt override everything else. Bonewah (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  "THIS GUY IS TOTALLY WRONG AND FRINGE AND NO ONE BELIVES THIS EXCEPT EVIL PEOPLE!" I'd agree Wikipedia should not say that. You have achieved victory. Shall we close this thread now? Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you make my point better than i can, so we can be done if you like, but there are more participants than just you and I, so, no dont arbitrarily close the thread just because you are done with it. Bonewah (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bonewah: The point of this discussion was that the WP:FRINGE guideline ought to be updated to clarify that it can't supersede other policies such as WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV. I still think it would be best if that could be done. Otherwise, whatever agreement we reach here will just be forgotten when this discussion gets buried in the page archives.

At some point, someone ought to propose a specific modification to the guideline, but I'm not clear on whether we're ready for that yet. Nobody seems to really disagree with the statement that WP:FRINGE can't supersede these other policies, but because of how this discussion has gotten sidetracked by discussing specific topics (as opposed to general matters of policy), I can't tell whether it's approaching a consensus. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it conflicts with (or supersedes) those policies. Adding a note that suggests that a conflict exits when it doesn't would be misleading. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that a conflict actually exists, only that some editors have misused WP:FRINGE as a justification to violate other Wikipedia policies. I think we all are aware this happens, and there have been several recent discussions about it, including the request to Arbcom in October as well as the Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case. The point would be to clarify that the guideline does not support being used in this particular way.

As an analogy, WP:BRD contains a section titled What BRD is not, discouraging the various ways that the BRD cycle can be misused. There's also an essay about the limitations of BLP policy, discouraging potential misuses of that policy. This is the type of clarification that I think is needed for WP:FRINGE. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin:I absolutly agree that fringe should be updated as you described. I dont think i should be the one to propose an edit when/if the time comes as a)Im not a very good writer and b)i seem to be viewed by some as one or more of PROFRINGE, holocaust denier, race and intelligence supporter. So for my part i think it best to step away for a while and let others have their say. Please do ping me when we get to the proposal phase or as needed. Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: We do have WP:FRINGEBLP, which does seem to cover the major areas of conflict: individuals can be notable for their fringe beliefs, don't give prominence to fringe views of people known for something else, and BLP does not prohibit criticism of fringe beliefs as long as there are enough RS to present neutrally. My concern is not with the idea of further clarification, it's that the proposal in the first comment appears to reduce neutrality in a WP:PROFRINGE way, rather than improving compliance with WP:NPOV. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: That's a clever rhetorical tactic there, claiming: some editors have misused WP:FRINGE as a justification to violate other Wikipedia policies. I think we all are aware this happens, and there have been several recent discussions about it, including the request to Arbcom in October. Checking that ArbCom request again [6], I do not see any supposed instances of this sort of violation you listed there that weren't thoroughly debunked. I don't doubt that such violations have occurred somewhere, at some point, but citing this embarrassing episode as evidence to support your characterization of what "we are all aware" of shows that your assessment of the issue is untrustworthy. Unless you can come up with a convincing argument that there is a legitimate problem here to be addressed, the impression will remain that this proposal is just another obsessive attempt to find a pretext for reinserting PROFRINGE content into the R&I topic area. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

During the discussion in October two arbitrators, CaptainEek and Barkeep49, both agreed that sources are being used in a concerning way, with WP:FRINGE as the justification. [7] [8] [9] Neither of them gave any indication that they were persuaded by your own arguments to the contrary (and just in case others aren't aware, your own use of sources was one of the issues the arbitrators were commenting on there). When you find members of Arbcom commenting that your behavior is a problem, specifically in their capacity as arbitrators rather than as ordinary editors, you should question whether your perception of the situation is accurate.

In his comments there, CaptainEek suggested that a new arbitration case might be needed, but we should make every effort to resolve this set of issues via community processes first. It would be wise for you to give that a chance to happen, because it's much preferable to an arbitration case. I'd also like us to please avoid sidetracking this discussion with another argument about a specific topic area, because that's happened several times already in this discussion, and it's the main thing that's preventing us from coming to a consensus about the matters of general policy that we all (seemingly) agree about. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that arb case, but the diffs presented do not support the idea WP:FRINGE was a bogus justification (and even if it was, that's a problem with editors not policy - editors misrepresent the WP:PAGs all the time). What this entire thread shows in my view is that there has been insufficient sanctioning of the R&I obsessives who are blighting this Project. Alexbrn (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps Ferahgo would like to reflect on what another one of last year’s Arbs said specifically to her with regard to the R&I topic area: Ferahgo, my earnest suggestion is to drop the stick, because every bit I read from your copious messages just make me think it was a mistake to ever unban you. [10] I’ll leave aside any argument over what CaptainEek and Barkeep49 are referring to in their comments, except to note that neither of them at any point singled me or my edits out for criticism, and indeed neither gave any indication that they had even read my comments. Generalrelative (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abduction

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A few underlying issues to fix to reduce the number of issues

Both Wikipedia articles and the talk pages here wrestle with the complexities and misuses of the term. This page basically covers "fringe theories" which is a specific subset of "fringe" yet the redirect from the much more heavily used term WP:fringe plus wording in the page itself conflates the two. And so in Wikipedia WP:Fringe often means many things besides fringe theories. A wiki-useful taxonomy of "fringe" might be:

1. Fringe Theories Minority-view statements about potential objective facts

1.1 Ones that acknowledge that they are a mere theory, have not been shown to be likely-false, and where proponents want them to be vetted by scientific and objective processes. E.G. the first guy to hypothesize plate tectonics.

1.2 Ones that have been shown by scientific or other sound methods to be false. E.G holocaust denial, flat earth

2. Fringe subjective views Anything from action advocacy "we should segregate the USA" to matters of interpretation, e.g. the word "good" in "Hitler was a good person" to widely held views which are out of favor in the current venue

3. Beliefs, legends etc. which are treated as such and not subjected to any scrutiny E.G. "The spirits of our ancestors live in that mountain" or most of religion, or what Santa Claus does and where he lives.

One really can't deal with them without first acknowledging the fundamentally different situations. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A conversation and a conclusion needed about majority and minority views on wikipedia and how that shall be accommodated to avoid editor alienation

Version 2: one response prompted me to clarify a point on rights.

Many new editors including myself have realized that when we bring up certain views or points they are immediately struck down, and I have after reading Arbitration Statement by Cla68 on American Politics 2, @Cla68, I have been convinced that there needs to be room for minority views as well for WP not to lose new competent editors who want to add value to WP.

Recent good, helpful and insightful conversations with several editors @Newslinger, @Doug Weller, @Dronebogus, @BusterD, @Mvbaron, and some naive responses from my side early on, and after also reading Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources I have concluded that wikipedia is only a site for majority views or majority supported views. Especially the Wikipedia:Notability only opens for majority views, or by nature historically research, either governmental funded or journalistic funded, on minority views that has been given enough attention by established institutions would be considered for wikipedia. Maybe I am ignorant here and maybe more criteria apply, please bear with me for my lack of WP understanding. I may propose that WP should not only have room for majority views but also minority views. I will bring up some examples where this has been enshrined in United States law and in United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in the US and has to respect to some degree US law and US has also ratified some the human rights [11] of UDHR.

Why is this important, in this topic, because the world is pluralistic, that is one reason EU for instance have adopt conscience laws that grants a mid-wife to exempt from abortions [12] out of conscience, and another reason that in the US military personnel can opt out from certain mandatory medical practices that goes against “Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs” [13], so that the authority often in majority cannot enforce everything they want for various reasons.

Similarly, that people with minority views are respected during some form and some practices in their fields to be able to cooperate with the majority. Recruitment of competent personnel is needed in medical and military fields to sustain fruitfulness and people with very opposing views needs to cooperate for the field to be fruitful which would otherwise suffer.

V2: These points just serve as examples of minority views that has been set by law to make a workplace, here military and medicine examples, open and available for more than the majority. The points shall not be interpreted as the minority has a clear right to propose mandatory content on WP. The aim of the points is to convey that accommodating both views "better" reflect that the world is pluralistic, and that many times the minority view often is less funded and often has less skilled representation since the majority by nature attracts more capital and resources.

Maybe, considering above point and as a proposal then, there should be sections on every article where minority opinions/references should be accommodated to reflect that there are two or more opposing viewpoints on the same article. Those sections should be clearly tagged that they are minority or fringe viewpoints but they still exist. Galileo had at one point in time a minority/fringe view point that the world was round and he paid a heavy price for that. Maybe there are minority viewpoints in WP that are meaningful and attract a large/engaged audience, maybe not the majority, but a large/engaged audience and they should also be accommodated in a meaningful fashion to avoid decreasing editor recruitment. I also believe that not all newcomers can make the points I have just made and if there are other editors that may recognize or identify with these points it would be appreciated if you would let yourself be known.

This text does not claim full saturation or understanding of the problem identified but is an effort to maybe make WP more attractive to a greater editing and reader audience with differing viewpoints.

Now I just added this topic on this talk page where this has been heavily and lengthily discussed already. If this should be put somewhere else please advice me. Edotor (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

For the most part, WP:FRINGE already covers the things you're looking for. An encyclopedia should indeed favor the majority view when describing topics. There's not an outright ban on such minority views, though. As WP:EVALFRINGE says:

Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context—e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality—e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view."—but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose.

Typically, disputes of this nature tend to revolve around whether such minority views are notable enough (WP:NFRINGE) to be mentioned in a particular article (WP:ONEWAY). That emphasis is important. You're best off making the case for any non-mainstream view inclusion in that context, and ensure that you're abiding by the content guidelines not to give undue prominence or credulousness to these views while covering them.

As one final note, WP:FRINGE/ALT is a good example of how we handle your Galileo example. We are not the arbiters of who is right or wrong, only of current consensus. We don't look into a WP:CRYSTAL ball to predict what will be ultimately validated. Hope that all helps. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for such quick reply. The suggestion, by above statements, may then imply that a separate WP needs to be created that can accommodate both majority and minority views? Please confirm. Edotor (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm saying Wikipedia does accommodate minority views, by clearly indicating their relationship to the mainstream. If you are finding resistance to your edits, consider whether you are fairly representing the content you aim to add, or if you're attempting to WP:POVPUSH. The latter is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank u Bakkster Man, very helpful and insightful to the WP viewpoint Edotor (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

a separate WP needs to be created that can accommodate both majority and minority views. Anyone can create an online encyclopaedia, promoting whatever views they like. They can even, subject to following the necessary licensing requirements, copy Wikipedia article content to it. It would not however be Wikipedia, which has long-established policies, established after much debate, about how and when 'minority views' are included in content. And if you wish to argue for a change in such core policies, you will have to come up with more than vague arguments waffling on about 'human rights', which under no circumstances I am aware of include the right to impose specific content on websites you don't own or control. That isn't a 'right', it is an infringement of other peoples rights to determine for themselves what they chose to say for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Bad science

Could we add a sentence in Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Spectrum of fringe theories that says something to the effect that being mistaken isn't the definition of pseudoscience? I worry that editors read this and conclude that bad science (e.g., choosing a bad experimental design, making the all-too-human mistake of over-interpreting your results, being unaware of some critical fact) is pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read this discussion yet? Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Only the latest of many, unfortunately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick look at[14] but it doesn't seem to do what it promises in the title. Bad science needn't necessarily be pseudoscience: it may be just wrong, low-quality or even fraudulent (is that pseudoscience?). Would be good to have a source to hang something off. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I can heartily recommend this one, pg. 1: On the imagined scale that has excellent science at one end and then slides through good science, mediocre science (the vast majority of what is done), poor science, to bad science on the other end, it is not the case that pseudoscience lies somewhere on this continuum. It is off the grid altogether. 😁  Tewdar  17:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage, fraud is not usually called pseudoscience:

"One of the clearest examples of this [the need for a thorough and nuanced understanding of the definition of pseudoscience] is fraud in science. This is a practice that has a high degree of scientific pretence and yet does not comply with science, thus satisfying both criteria. Nevertheless, fraud in otherwise legitimate branches of science is seldom if ever called “pseudoscience”." [15]

Certain kinds of scientific fraud kinda sorta are pseudoscience, but why would you call them merely stupid, when you could, with at least as much justice, denounce them as intentionally criminal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed: fraud is usually a different kind of thing. Bon courage (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

All true. Though in actual practice, the line between fraud, bad science and pseudoscience may be difficult to parse. See e.g. the case of Cyril Burt. Generalrelative (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I like this. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement. Thanks for doing that, @Bon courage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Daisy-chained sourcing

I am wondering if it may be worthwhile to document a general principle akin to WP:PARITY here about rejoinders. Sometimes I see arguments made that if we include the WP:MAINSTREAM explanation of a WP:FRINGE theory then there is something like a right of reply that the fringe theory advocates have. I am rather of the opinion that if a rejoinder has not been well-cited, it probably does not belong in Wikipedia. This is related to WP:MANDY but it also goes towards a secondary WP:NFRINGE point about replies and replies to replies and replies to replies to replies, etc.

Here's the problem as I see it: Fringe idea is published and gets enough traction to cause a mainstream expert to comment on the topic -- maybe even offer a decent debunking. This, unsurprisingly, riles up the supporters of the idea and they shoot off a reply that often nitpicks about certain details while missing the substantive point of the rejoinder. [[WP:PROFRINGE}] editor insists that we include the reply as a "last word" even as it is unlikely there will be a counter-counter-counterpoint because, well, mainstream experts are typically uninterested in prolonging spats of this nature.

A single sentence about how fringe-inspired rejoinders of debunkings might be worthy of inclusion only if they've been noticed by independent sources would be great. I know it seems like it's already sorta in the guideline, but it's surprising how often this seems to come up.

jps (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• hard to give an opinion on this without some examples. How (and how much) we cover what fringe proponents say will be different between an article that is specifically about a fringe concept (example: our article on Flat Earth), vs an article about a related mainstream topic (example: Earth)? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A good example would be the Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. There are far more creationist "rejoinders" to Bill Nye's points that one can find that have gone essentially unanswered because, of course, no expert in evolution is going to take such arguments seriously. jps (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

"Lerner has disputed Wright's critique.", mentioning because i have a very similar thought when this popped up on the ref desk recently. fiveby(zero) 17:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That example had also occurred to me. It's a longstanding one. jps (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed sentence to add to WP:FRIND:

"Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources."

I am trying to stay positive here, describing what generally can be used to source content about fringe theories as opposed to prohibitions. I feel, however, that this sentence makes it clear that if independent sources have not taken notice of a particular source, it's probably not one Wikipedia should use.

jps (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done boldly. Please revert if you object and explain here. Thanks everyone. jps (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Questionable science section

[16] "Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect". What is meant by saying that a hypothesis "may contain information"? I would guess that it means the article may contain that information, but simply tacking on "Articles about" at the beginning would make for an awkward sentence. I don't think it's overly bold to try to fix a clear problem with the phrasing. DefThree (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, was that you removed the content-laden clause which have a substantial following. Removing that doesn't just change the readability of the statement but also the substantive advice it's offering. I'm also not convinced that there's anything especially difficult to understand about the sentence as currently written. Yes, it's a bit awkward, but I don't think anyone who understands English will have real trouble discerning its meaning. That said, if you want to offer alternative wordings here on the talk page that improve clarity without interfering with the substance of the guideline, I'd welcome that. Generalrelative (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually thought that phrase was problematic, since on the surface, even ideas which are definitely considered pseudoscience would appear to have a substantial following. I suppose it means a substantial following among experts, but again, adding those words would have just made the sentence more awkward. DefThree (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not all science are made equal

I think that there should be a different treatments for different disciplines. While Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Physiology, Astronomy, etc, are rightful sciences, in the sense that they allow to carry out experiments or observations in a controlled way or with a limited number of parameters, disciplines such as Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology and Economics don't have an equal standing. They are rather "practical philosophies", that have adopted some aspects of the scientific method but which aren't actual sciences because the systems they study are too complex and cannot be studied in isolation. When judged with the standards of actual Sciences, research papers in those disciplines hardly pass the exam. I think that a good test to spot a practical philosophy disguising as science is to check whether there are different "Schools". 2001:B07:ADD:C4B2:444B:5AB9:46AF:46C0 (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia base decisions about content on what you think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Developing Style and Prose Guidelines for Articles about Claims not about Events

I think fundamentally, all the issues about Fringe Theory articles come down to the tension between the desire to write about the material facts about a given event, and the desire to describe the beliefs that certain people have about those events. I think that to this end, we should try to hammer out a few style and prose guidlines on the subject. Here are my initial inputs and I would like to hear what others have to say.

Collapse lengthy proposal

Guiding Principles 1.) The article is first and foremost about the beliefs not the events, if the events themselves are noteworthy they should be the name of the article. 2.) The accepted convention should be described in statements of fact, and immediately after the introduction of the idea. 3.) The debunked status of a fringe theory is a matter of opinion, which describes whether or not people believes something. A reliable source which provides counter evidence does not constitute proof that something is debunked. Only the lack of people believing in something can make it debunked. The existence of a persistent group of "believers" means its no debunked. Example, heliocentrism is debunked, flat earth isn't. (Yes I realize that heliocentrism is sometimes a sub-belief of some flat earth cosmologies) 4.) Avoid excessively hypothetical tone. If you can not write about something as a sequence of statements, then don't write about it. Its either a bad thing to write about or too hard for you to write about. 5.) The purpose of the article is not to point and laugh at people who believe silly things. The purpose of the article is to accurately describe what those things are AND WHY THEY BELIEVE THEM. 6.) Descriptions of why people believe something is not, and should not be treated like an argument in its favor. Example: "Some people believe in God because they have personally experienced miracles" should not be followed by a screed about a bunch of hoax miracles. Thats not even a good argument, and its DEFINITELY bad Wikipedia 7.) Do not go out of your way to make it seem any more quackish than it already is. 8.) Conspiracy theorist has become a dirty word, and we should avoid repeating it using more neutral language like "proponents of the theory" etc. This does not mean its not okay to discuss articles or counter claims which refer to these people as conspiracy theorists To that end, I have come up with a hypothetical example. This article is about "Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism" which is a conspiracy about adding cow brains to cheese products to make the consumers more susceptible to mind control. Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism Bovine Cerebro-Dairyism is the belief that commercially available dairy products, particularly cheese, are completely or partially synthesized from the brain matter of cows, rather than their milk. Motivations for doing so vary, though largely relate to altering the protein composition, hormone balance, or psychic susceptibility of the consumer as a means to make the general population more receptive to centralized control. Bovine Cerebro-Dairyism began to circulate in online message board communities in the early 1980's. Estimated figures for views and interactions suggest that approximately 3,000 people regularly participated in online conversations about the topic by 1992 across forums such as chan4, YourSpace, and Yeehaw. In 2004, notable proponents Jackstein Mars and Hannah Banana began appearing on day time television programs, discussing concerns about the general health implications of dairy products on intelligence and life span. By 2005, both figures were publicly associated with Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism, with Mr Mars mentioning his advocacy in a televised interview with NNC on June 14, 2005. In the aftermath of Mr Mars's public appearance, interest and conversation about Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism increased considerably, and discussion became prominent on more mainstream platforms where users other than those at the inception of the internet were more common. The theory, along with a large volume of media circulated heavily. Examples of the circulated media include edited photographs where dairy products and marketing materials were replaced with cow brains, such as Suadeta Mac and Cheese made of yellow brains. As these images began to circulate outside their previously insular communities, they attracted the attention of internet users who appropriated the media for usage in memes and other humorous purposes, which typically featured increasingly graphic, absurd, and surreal depictions of the original theme. Several of these memes were in turned circulated through genuine Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism communities online, thought to be genuine. In 2007, XYZ Television did a brief expose on Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism, as part of a larger series on online dis- and misinformation campaigns. The docu-series received above average critical reviews, though faced criticism from outspoke members of the Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism community for their use of memes which had originated outside the community. These criticism came despite the indistinguishable circulation of these same memes within the criticizing communities. Related Publications In 2006, in response to public sensation, the FDA commissioned and investigation into the safety, sanitation, and processing standards in dairy facilities across the United States. The study concluded that with isolated exceptions of above average euthanasia rates at dairy farms as opposed to meat farms, there was no indication of a general failure to preserve the safety and quality of dairy products in the United States. The publication by the FDA is frequently cited by proponents of Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism as evidence of a general conspiracy to suppress information and conceal the truth about American dairy products. In the study, a sampling of the protein composition of 37 different cheese manufacturers are made, doing mass-spectrograms. This data was revealed to have been borrowed from a study three years prior, which documented the nutritional value of 263 different dairy products. In 59 of these mention is made of a compound listed as BCO, with no further explanation. BCO does not appear on the spectragram data for any of the products in the FDA report, including those from facilities which do list in the prior study. The FDA released a statement several month after the initial releasing, addressing the discrepancy. BCO is an abbreviation for the discontinued anti-clumping agent benzocollaic oliate. BCO was discontinued in 2001 due to its interference with certain preservatives. Due to some of the data being collected prior to 2001, even though the basis study was published in 2003, and the FDA report in 2006, the FDA removed the data points form their report in order to prevent confusion about the presence of the discontinued food additive. Proponents of Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism cite this discrepancy as evidence the FDA is doctoring results and that BCO never existed as all other additive names are spelled out in the report data section. Instead the abbreviation is alleged to be an industry standard meaning "Brains of Cowlike Origin". Food safety experts, and other scientists working outside the FDA and not associated with the Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism community have largely panned the FDA study, referring to it as lazy, unorganized, and in the case of Dr Friedrich Farnes "unconvincing". These public criticism have been cited as evidence that Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism has mainstream scientific support, despite public statements from Dr Farnes stating that this is a misappropriation of his words. In the aftermath of Dr Farnes's public humiliation, general reticence to discuss the study in a critical manner has been cited as a conspiracy to silence the allegedly significant cohort of scientists who support Bovine Cerebro-Dariyism.

Conclusion

Let me know if you this is a good template for tone and structure for discussing conspiracy theories

>Azeranth (talk) Azeranth (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that this is driven by the discussions on Talk:Clinton Body Count, where you haven't convinced other editors to agree with your edits. I stopped giving this post any serious attention at The existence of a persistent group of "believers" means its not debunked. (I fixed the typo in the quote rather than insert a "sic".) Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like attributing motive and an ad hominem. It at least reads that way.

Also, do you not think there is utility in the semantic distinction between "wrong but still believed by some people" and "wrong and believed by basically nobody". Flat earth is a great example of a fringe theory that's "wrong but still believed by some people" and notable because of the number of people who believe it. Heliocentrism is a great example of a fringe theory thats "wrong and believed by basically nobody" and is notable for its historical significance and its relation to many ancient civilizations.

Shouldn't we be prudent in distinguishing between those two things? Maybe debunked isn't the right word (this is the part were actual feedback would be nice) but at least thats how I've always used the word. Do you have better word or phrase to describe this distinction? Azeranth (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll go with the current set of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah: looks like the OP has been trying to promote conspiracy theories at Clinton Body Count and, having failed, now wants the WP:PAGs to be somehow altered so that Wikipedia is more indulgent to conspiracism. The "Guiding Principles" outlined directly contradict NPOV, in particular they would require us to elucidate, about conspiracy theorists, "WHY THEY BELIEVE". No, any such elucidation must be through the lens of mainstream, decent sources per WP:GEVAL. Bon courage (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, for the purposes of the intellectual exercise, if zero regard is given to a person who asks "Why do they believe that?" does the article implicitly answer that question "because they're looney nutjobs who are out of touch with reality?". Is it the place of Wikipedia to make such an explicitly derogatory implication? Does Wikipedia's commitment to truth and the exercise of as much obligate it to do its best to provide all information available about a question like 'Why do they believe?' to the extent that such answers are available?

To borrow the flat earth example, should statements like "One of the things flat earthers point out is how the curve of the earth is not visible to the naked eye at ground level" be excluded from the flat earth article? Does the fact that the earth is definitely curved perclude any detailing of what the fallacious or incomplete claims of the flat earth society are?

Does the exercise of trying to define or articulate the "beliefs" of such an inherently disorganized, nonsensical, and absurd group nakedly defy reason and itself seem insane? (Yes) Should that prevent us from trying? Azeranth (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

People believe in conspiracy theories for all kinds of reasons, but sometimes it's poor reasoning skills or low intelligence, and such beliefs are strongly associated with mental health problems - delusional paranoia e.g. You seem to think there must be something compelling in this Clinton story and that Wikipedia needs to sleuth it out and present it in its best light. No, that would almost be like baking conspiracist thinking into the editorial process. Bon courage (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Schazjmd, you beat me to it. This humdinger defies all logic:

"A reliable source which provides counter evidence does not constitute proof that something is debunked. Only the lack of people believing in something can make it debunked. The existence of a persistent group of "believers" means its no debunked. Example, heliocentrism is debunked, flat earth isn't."

This seems to be an attempt to create a logical wormhole for nonsense to claim legitimacy. That's not going to work. Our PAG are good enough. (I'm really getting tired of this timesink.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Only the lack of people believing in something can make it debunked. This is only true in the Metaverse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Wrong", "Untrue", "False", and "Contradicted" and "Deunked" are not the same words. Something can be sufficiently contradicted by generally accepted facts and thus we treat it as a false. See Wikipedia:DUE but a statement like something has been "debunked" is inherently opinionated. Debunking is about perception. An incorrect theory is only debunked after its abandoned. Azeranth (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then what word or words would you use to describe the difference between a fringe theory that is still actively believed by some, and one which has largely been abandoned? Obviously they both contradict prevailing mainstream evidence and opinion, thats what makes them fringe theories, so how should they be distinguished?

My point was that flat earth and heliocentrism aren't the same beast and should be talked about differently because of this distinction. Also feel free to disagree with this opinion too, but I would like real feedback. Azeranth (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If people believe conspiracy-bunk, we can say so. If nobody believes said conspiracy-bunk any more, we can say that instead. Beyond that, there is no need to 'distinguish' between people believing hogwash now and believing hogwash in the past. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that probably not accurate. The existence of a notable group of faithfuls (and notable is a fungible term here) implies that there is something that said group believes. Essentially, if you asked one of them "Explain this to me" they would try to convince you, as opposed to how someone might describe what heliocentrism was.

I think its useful because on some level a complete article about an active fringe belief should "warn" or "inoculate" against fringe beliefs. Those probably aren't great words, and its hard to do without synthesizing, but I think there is world where you can describe the structure and content of a fallacious argument without violating policy.

If a person encounters flat earth in the wild, and comes to Wikipedia to learn more, Wikipedia should prepare that person for all the tripe they will end up hearing, and accompany that with all the information needed to understand the significance of said hogwash, and its relationship to actual facts.

Thats one of the reasons I think its important to present misappropriated facts, as facts. The example with "the horizon is flat with the naked eye" is a great example. Yes, that is a fact. However, it doesn't mean the earth is flat. If the article is wishy washy or just absent on something like "flat earthers point out the apparent flatness of the horizon at sea level" would be an incomplete description of the situation.

To be clear, such an article should also go onto explain WHY the horizon appears flat at ground level, but still, it shouldn't pussy foot around with the fact that it does. Azeranth (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd call it a delusion, and yet that is largely unrelated to whether the idea has been disproven, debunked, falsified, or whatever. Some people will always believe nonsense, sometimes merely because they have a contrarian, anti-authoritarian, anti-expert attitude. As Isaac Asimov said in 1980:

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

Others maintain their popularity and positions of authority by automatically/reflexively asserting the opposite of facts. Someone who dares to dispute facts, especially by doing it loudly and repeatedly, is using the Big lie propaganda technique. Their sheer audacity wins them the awe and adoration of weak-minded people. Trump does this all the time, most notably his false claims of a stolen election. The tactic automatically guarantees he clears the stage and gets all the attention, and there is one thing he always hates, and that is to not be the center of attention. It's an authoritarian tactic to gain control over the minds of gullible followers, and it works.

A few days after Trump's January 20, 2017, inauguration, some experts expressed serious concerns about how Trump and his staff showed "arrogance" and "lack of respect...for the American people" by making "easily contradicted" false statements that rose to a "new level" above the "general stereotype that politicians lie". They considered the "degree of fabrication" as "simply breathtaking", egregious, and creating an "extraordinarily dangerous situation" for the country.

They elaborated on why they thought Trump and his team were so deceptive: he was using classic gaslighting in a "systematic, sophisticated attempt" as a "political weapon"; he was undermining trust and creating doubt and hatred of the media and all it reports; owning his supporters and implanting "his own version of reality" in their minds; creating confusion so people are vulnerable, don't know what to do, and thus "gain more power over them"; inflating a "sense of his own popularity"; and making people "give up trying to discern the truth".

"If Donald Trump can undercut America’s trust in all media, he then starts to own them and can start to literally implant his own version of reality."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I know how conspiracy theories propagate and how they work and how they prey on people psychologically.

I think what I'm driving at here is that if Wikipedia is going to proport to be a truthful authority not just on the events which are agreed to be true, but also on the conspiracy theories themselves, then articles about those theories should to some extent contain a complete and coherent description of the arguments that exist in the wild to the best of the editor's ability.

On some level, an article about something like the Clintons murdering people or flat earth should prepare or inoculate the reader against the fallacious arguments they will encounter.

To a certain extent, its kind of like getting out in front of the fact. If you don't openly admit and acknowledge the limited accuracy of the parts of a nutjob's claims, then it makes propaganda techniques like Big Lie more effective.

To borrow your example of the stolen election. There's an overselection problem when you respond to a claim like "Election fraud cost Trump the 2020 election" with "here's all the evidence that voter fraud doesn't exist". That's an issue, because voter fraud does happen. And there are also things that happen that aren't necessarily voter fraud, but are subject to innuendo. If all you do is scream "THE ELECTION WASN'T STOLEN" everytime someone mentions anything related to voter fraud or even poor quality of elections in general, its alienating and unproductive and undermines also your own claim.

Conspiracy theories breed in that interstitial tissue, which is why a good article about the 2020 election theft claims would include details about discrepancies which did take place. When you're explicit and clear about something like that, it sucks the wind out of the sails of people who take advantage of the unspecified nature of how much fraud occurred. When you can clearly answer a question like "how much fraud occurred" and "what was the victory margin" it becomes impossible to imply that the numbers are the other way around. Azeranth (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are rarely 'complete and coherent'. Attempting to present them as such is liable to result in synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which is why a conversation about how to accomplish this difficult and thorny task WITHOUT engaging in synthesis might be fruitful. Azeranth (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if the answer is "yes that would be nice but unfortunately its not feasible" then I guess I could live with that, but I still would like to try. Azeranth (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The answer is most likely 'the theory isn't coherent, so presenting it as such is objectively wrong'. In such circumstances, feasibility isn't the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Any attempt to dissuade readers of an encyclopedia with details of why people think a conspiracy is true is more likely to convince them the conspiracy is true. I would assume most folk who believe in conspiracy theories are looking for conspiracies to believe in. Now, the Clinton Body Count is a particularly bad article for details as it is dozens of unrelated deaths that conspiracy mongers have woven into one conspiracy. So, you either have details of 50 unlinked deaths, which is a horrible idea; or you focus on what would seem to be the most suspicious, which is a worse idea. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's wishful thinking but I would hope that the article would be constructed in such a way that someone who tried to use it to convince people of the conspiracy would fail spectacularly, and by being completely when you Google the specific thing some lunatic claims, a complete and coherent article comes up. I think editorial opinion pieces which go on and on about how stupid and dumb idiot morons anyone who pays attention to it is, is part of the problem. No one will listen to the truth if it comes out of a hysterical, arrogant, condescending mouth. It's what I said earlier about election fraud.

Specifically in regard to the Clintons the issue broke down pretty quickly with people misappropriation the existing policies to essentially make the point you did, that it's an insane and futile thing to attempt so any attempt must be ill-conceived at best and malicious most likely. The article I wanted to write was a detailed account of the most notable (least obviously insignificant) deaths. On some level I feel like structuring it like a detailed account is needed. In either case the issue is an unhappy medium where no one wants to change the article, but the way the article is currently it just should exist. It's barely more than a copy paste of 3 dozen opinion pieces. There so little factual content about the events that huge contradictions in sourcing arise. It's a nightmare, and I'm quite unhappy about the way the conversation was conducted let alone uts outcome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth (talk • contribs)

I have to tell you that if you want to win a debate, you cannot do so by claiming experienced editors (including two admins) with not understanding policies that you don't understand and misstating their objectives. The objectives are writing an article according to policies and guidelines -- not changing policies and guidelines to adapt to how you would like to write the article. I've spent enough time on this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it my not be persuasive but neither is dropping the boof 11 times and moving the target everytime its demonstrated that a given claim about a policy violation is incorrect and never getting a single quote or explanation of why a specific piece of language was a problem. Azeranth (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Azeranth, you "hope that the article would be constructed in such a way..."

Right there we find a conflict between your imagined perfect article and Wikipedia's requirements for article construction.

Editors can read all sources available and construct a complete and perfect article, but for fringe topics it will definitely violate our policies and guidelines.

We are limited to what RS tell us about the fringe POV and thinking, and then what the mainstream POV and thinking are.

We present the subject from the mainstream POV. We do not present the selling points and arguments from the fringe POV. Instead, we present only as much knowledge of that as is revealed by RS.

If you examine several articles on fringe topics, for example pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, you will find widely differing styles, formats, and coverage. That should reflect how RS have covered each topic.

My point? Drop any ideas of the perfect article. Lay out everything RS say about the topic on a table (figuratively) and make the best presentation you can. Keep in mind that advocacy of fringe POV is forbidden. We are not Conservapedia or Fringeapedia. We are a mainstream encyclopedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly right. There is a lot of insanity out there, and Wikipedia is ultimately a repository of knowledge, not antiknowledge. Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Very well said. There are many reasons why people believe nonsense: ignorance, lack of critical thinking skills, lack of skepticism of outlandish claims, immunity to cognitive dissonance, wishful thinking, magical thinking, hoodwinked/suckered/brainwashed, anti-intellectualism, moving the goalposts to maintain a favorite belief, etc. To me, the worst is simply their arrogant refusal to respect the value of expertise. Polymaths are rare nowadays, and even the smartest of us must have the humility to bend our opinions to the pronouncements of experts. That is the safest course to follow.

RS tend to focus on "here are the facts" that contradict your weird ideas, and if you choose not to believe them, that's just too bad for you. RS and Wikipedia tend to document the facts and not explore the weird and crinkled thinking people twist themselves into in their efforts to believe nonsense and refuse to believe facts. The very explanation of such thinking can easily get some people to start thinking that way. It's really a bad idea. When the FBI agents in training study counterfeiting, they start by immersing themselves in the details of real paper money. After that, anything that deviates from that gold standard is a counterfeit. It's that simple. Only study the truth and you are protected to a large degree. Don't use unreliable sources. Don't read them. Turn off Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but your average Fox News article is no more opinionated than the Snope and Herald articles from the CBC page, and they were also both filled with inaccuracies about Mary Mohane's death, or at the very least inconsistencies. I go into the problem in general on my talk page, but just because either of those sources cover the facts of the murder precisely (which they don't in this case) that doesn't make them an accurate or authoritative source on what the believers believe.

That was kind of the whole point, is that the sources the CBC article pulled from had a very strong opinion and very much mocked and insulted theory and those who gave it any merit, and that was bleeding though in the Wikipedia article, which seemed editorial and opinionated as a result. Snopes saying people are dumb doesn't make it a fact just because Snopes usually tells the truth and even if it is a fact that those people are dumb, Snope isn't a suitable source to prove it.

One of the reasons I wanted to make a distinction between debunked and undebunked theories, is that I wanted to capture the gradations of it. "Are some of these deaths weird and irregular" yes. "Are there elements of these deaths that make them subject to innuendo" yes. "Did the Clintons order their execution" no. The article should reflect that, it should detail what about the deaths are irregular and what the innuendo they are subject to is. Documenting these first two thing is what I mean by explaining "Why do people believe?" I suppose its more like "Up to what point is what they're saying coherent and intelligible?"

I think, that if you're objective is (and you shouldn't have a secondary objective but still) to dissuade people from believing in wild conspiracy theories for no reason, you have to get the factual irregularities and innuendo out in the open. You need to be upfront about the truth, that way it can't be appropriated into half-truths. Its like kicking the legs out from under the bullshit peddlers. They rely on having one or two pieces of innuendo to throw out there that is based in reality, that way people will give more credence to the third that isn't based on reality. If you encounter the first two pieces of innuendo from a neutral source prior to that, or during that process, its going to be hard for teh peddler to convince you that there is an imperfectly executed conspiracy to conceal the third piece of information Azeranth (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You keep stating your preferred approach, but it's at odds with Wikipedias. Maybe TruthWiki (or similar) would be more suitable for doing what you want? Bon courage (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No no, sorry, again I had the time and effort to write at length on my talk, please read. My point is that there are clear negatives to both approaches. You have to choose between regurgitating editorializations and opinions and essentially writing something that isn't NPOV, doing original research to determine the opinion of the conspiracy theorists, or using synthesis to reverse engineer the argument from the incomplete description found in reliable sources.

I think there is within those competing downsides, a balance that minimizes violation of the relevant policies, NPOV OR and SYN. However, at the end of the say you really can't, because what you're writing about is itself an opinion. Perhaps these topics don't really even belong as wikipedia articles and this issue demonstrates that fact. Azeranth (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Someone should close this time sink. WP:1AM WP:IDHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yup. The OP clearly isn't getting support for what would amount to a fundamental change in Wikipedia practice. Not going to happen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Though at least in Azeranth's final sentence above, it looks like they've begun to stumble toward a comprehension of the WP:FRIND guideline (which I recently quoted for them in full on the Clinton Body Count talk page, and which at the time seemed to go in one ear and out the other). To paraphrase Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot find reliable, independent, mainstream sources, thereof one must be silent." Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion at RSN

There is a discussion at RSN that relates to this page; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can sources that state that religious miracles actually occurred be reliable sources? BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Perpetual motion" ≠ "perpetual-motion machine"

Currently, Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS declares: the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible. This appears to conflate the motion with the machines that are purported to exploit it. As a result, it seems to declare "fringe" such concepts as inertia (aka Newton's First Law of Motion), the eternal inflation of the universe, and time crystals. This is as ridiculous a claim as the fabled rockets can't fly in space because there's nothing to push against. – .Raven  .talk 04:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Perpetual motion#Title of the article as well as several discussions in the archives there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Betaneptune,Theenergyengineer, and AaronEJ are correct there. Yours and Chetvorno's appear to be the only voices in opposition. So not only are the two different topics being conflated in that article itself, but WP:FRINGE/PS explicitly declares the motion impossible, when only the machines are. This is a terrible misunderstanding of physics, encouraged by that conflation. – .Raven  .talk 06:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Fringe going mainstream

Interesting source from vice about fringe going mainstream, with the initial subject about JP Sears but goes on to cover others such as Alex Jones, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Fringe has become and then ceased to be "mainstream" for a long time, if you define "mainstream" by high popularity. India, Russia, Poland, Hungary, and China, to name just a few, have wingnut governments at the moment; Brazil and the US had ones until recently; Creationism has enjoyed majority status among the American public for decades; climate change denial and alternative medicine are very popular; examples are numerous.

But popularity in the general public is not how fringe is defined. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Buford Ray Conley

Looks a bit fringey to me. Publications in Medical Hypotheses, involvement with cold fusion. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence

It seems to me that Wikipedia science and medicine editors are quite stringent in their interpretation of wp:MEDRS and wp:FRINGE, usually the effect that if a single RS characterizes something as pseudoscientific this is noted in the lede, often in the first sentence or paragraph.

On the whole this is better than the alternative of failing to note questionable practices, but I wonder if it might sometimes mislead lay-readers. Many "alternative" medicine treatments are based on things that are obviously discredited (like "chi" in acupuncture), whereas other things are in the experimental stage, but sources claim are plausible hypotheses inferred from available scientific data (see abductive reasoning).

I am not suggesting that Wikipedia promote mere hypotheses. But I am wondering what policies are in place to distinguish evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence, because these tend to get conflated by laypeople. A good example of this would be the start of the Covid pandemic, when many public health officials stated there was "no good evidence" that mask-wearing was effective (even though it was a reasonable inference based on what we know of viral transmission), and many wrongly concluded from this that masks were not effective. AtavisticPillow (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is an absence of evidence, there is nothing verifiable that can be written about. If the neutral point of view as reflected in the total body of RSes changes, then Wikipedia can and should change with it. Righting great wrongs by going beyond reflecting existing sources is simply outside the mandate of Wikipedia, and encyclopedias in general. It is not our responsibility to tell the truth, that would be impossible. Remsense留 00:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't thinking so much about righting wrongs or telling what I believe to be true, more about translation problems between expert discourses and something read for the general public like Wikipedia. In medical literature, for instance, it is not uncommon for a secondary source to claim that some treatment lacks evidence for efficacy, but then go on to note that the theory behind why it might be effective is plausible and therefore the treatment should be subject to control-tested trials. When this is summarized on Wikipedia as "no good evidence for X" it seems that this is easily misinterpreted by the general public as "X is ineffective," even though the source was not saying that.

Perhaps the policy guidelines state one has to simply bite the bullet here. But there are better and worse ways to convey scientific and medical information, so I was wondering if there was a relevant guideline here. AtavisticPillow (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If MEDRS sources say that the theory is plausible, there is nothing wrong with saying that in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Trampling Galileo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What steps do we take to ensure that we do not prevent a modern Galileo from being as badly treated as Galileo was in his time?

If the only theories of quark motion are fringe theories should we not still present the best one as a starting point. Bill field pulse (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What steps do we take Well, to begin with, we do not threaten anyone with torture. Second, we do not forbid anyone to publish their theories under threat of death, and third, we do not put anyone under house arrest. Those are pretty efficient in preventing that sort of thing, don't you think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Is threat of being banned from Wikipedia torture. Galileo would just laugh at this. But his you tube style is out of date and books are dying. I understand that as long as Galileo keeps his round earth nonsense in the talk section while he is trying to get an article changed he will avoid torture. Otherwise if he is only trying to discus it he must stay on user pages.

He will no longer try to insert "round earth" into articles without citing the Medici, the Vatican, or Rome

I have faith in Galileo he will persevere he will get good at You Tube and if enough viewers give thumbs up maybe he can get a subsection into the shape of the flat earth article. Bill field pulse (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is gobbledigook that has nothing to do with improving the project page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Bill field pulse (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

question

By any chance, does this rule apply to the status of a name? Someone said, "To have North Korea as the title of a document is to treat 'North Korea' as if it were on par with the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an official country name, which violates the Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories" Mamiamauwy (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONAME is probably completely fine for this, the fact is that we don't refer to countries by their full names pretty routinely. There's probably an MOS on North Korea topics about the DPRK that applies in this specific case. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Pfeiffer's sensitive crystallization technique

How is Ehrenfried Pfeiffer's work on "sensitive crystallization" viewed in mainstream oncology? This looks rather pretty dubious to me despite the journal's appearances. Also doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61255-3_13. Shyamal (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's part of Steiner's anthroposophy, of course it is piffle. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Source 3 is to The Unz Review

Surely not necessary, we need to link to Trefil’s article directly. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC

Wikipedia:Fringe theories has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (Note: from continuation of ongoing discussion at Village Pump (policy).) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines for Fringe Articles

The bulk of policies and guidelines related to fringe theories address their impact on, and use in, mainstream articles. It is extremely difficult to find specific guidance for articles on areas of knowledge which are, themselves, fringe topics. I think everyone would agree that Bigfoot shouldn't be given the same (or any) weight in an article on primates, and sources about cryptids are not good sourcing for that article. But when the entire article is about Bigfoot, things get messy quickly. Just as cryptozoology books are a poor source for biology, biology textbooks that provide useful info about Bigfoot are thin on the ground -- literally by definition, mainstream science has rejected the entire concept. The conversation can then degenerate very quickly with the argument, "It's not real so it doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia." A huge swath of any encyclopaedia is dedicated to things like religion, mythology and philosophy -- things that are fundamentally ascientific. I am pretty sure I'm not the first to have these questions, so can someone point me to a discussion related to that subject? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As i understand your request it is concerning WP:FRIND and the context would be list of cryptids? You may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_20#Independent_sources_section. It seems this began with a proposal to treat non-independent fringe sources as primary sources for purposes of reliability. Way back in 2014 and lasting 3 months. The outcome looks inconclusive from the discussion but at some later time the text: Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources was added. No damn clue what that would mean for list of cryptids, pretty sure that a reliable source could be found which has "noticed" cryptid bestiaries and given them at least some "context". I very much doubt an argument along those lines to include such as sources would fare very well on the talk page.

Note that the proposer began with: we absolutely need independent secondary sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY and DUEWEIGHT and that seems to be in general the position of most commenters in the threads. fiveby(zero) 20:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)