Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Arbitration ruling on "pseudoscience" The Arbitration Committee issued several rulings in 2006 on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience": Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Booth Escaped

(discussion moved to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Booth_Escaped

A change in wording

If I may explain:

[1].

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

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

But there's a problem with this construction.

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

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

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

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

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

Astrology

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

Parity section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact remains that it IS being widely quoted. And frequently at that. See here: [[2]] The section has been quoted at least half a dozen times on the talk page of that article in the last two months alone. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other fringe theories besides pseudoscience

Several points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lets do a diagram

							Systematized as scientific definition
				uses scientific method
			tries to explain it self in scientific terms
		departs from mainstream or orthodox theories
discredited
creative or wishful data interpretation
	may avoid scientific explanation
	focused on raising a following
Superseded scientific theories	Fraud Scientific fraud	Superstitions Cargo Cult Science	Pseudoscience Experimenter's bias	Pathological science Dead science Cognitive bias	Fringe science	Protoscience Cutting edge State of the art	Science

Please edit it to your likings and post it below. Thanks. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Let's not. Because it is (a) original research, and (b) wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this chart before...but where? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@andy What is wrong? You don't like some of the terms used? Remove them? We need better guidelines that are more detailed. It is better to prevent unwanted content than to have to delete it. 84.107.147.16 (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)