Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Fringe topics The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of fringe topics, including: 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, such as Time Cube, 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.

Mass edits sans discussion

I reverted these mass edits which were made without the benefit of any discussion here, to the best of my knowledge. While I think there is some sound ideas in some of the phrasing, I don't think we should enact such large changes to a policy so capriciously. I think these edits would greatly benefit from some preliminary discussion. For instance, I am not a fan of "prominence". I think that is a very subjective and flawed system, especially since Wikipedia relies so heavily on materials which have been published on the Web and often times neglects undigitized materials. (That said, I recoginize that this questionable edit didn't add this "prominence" information, but rather only made it more prominent.) Anyhow, that is just one specific grievence I have, and I suspect - given the other reversions of this mass edit - there are other specific grievences from other editors. I would like to open this to civil discussion to see if we can't arrive at some sort of consensus before anymore such bold edits are made. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to guidelines should indeed be discussed at the talkpage first. I have cautioned a couple of the editors who were involved in edit-warring, and I strongly encourage everyone to follow discussion and dispute resolution in order to implement any further controversial changes. Thanks, --Elonka 17:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112, which changes do you support? NJGW (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that I support the clarification made in several places that this policy is about "fringe" theories (not necessarily theories in general). I also agree the socking during an AfD is more than "strongly discouraged"; it is outright disallowed. I disagree with removing the section about NPOV from the beginning because I feel that this policy is mostly an offshoot of that pillar of Wikipedia and that this policy benefits from describing NPOV's relationship in the introduction. In any case, all edits of this magnitude should be discussed and vetted thoroughly before implementation. This edit-warring and discussion by edit summary is poor behavior. NJGW, I would ask that you please self-revert to the last consensus version and let's discussed the proposed edits one at a time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Theories -> Fringe theories; "strongly discouraged" -> "not allowed"

Are there any objections to the changes Levine2112 supports above (Theories -> Fringe theories; socking in AfD's is "strongly discouraged" -> "not allowed")? NJGW (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think this entire sentence should be removed, for the following reasons:

• Socking is against the rules, period. this has nothing to do with Fringe theories, it's true everywhere.
• this is a content guideline. spilling it over into internal wiki-stuff draws attention away from the real point of this guideline, which should be telling us how to write about fringe topics. policy covers bad behavior; this guideline doesn't need to get into it.

--Ludwigs2 06:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Socking for that reason is against the rules. In this section you have another instance, also, of the silly failure to distinguish between contexts: "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable," well, that's true except when the article is on said fringe idea, and you want to reference the inventor's views. Also, it conflates the inventor and other editors who may want to use the inventor's publications. There should be a special section on promotion of fringe ideas by their inventors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV question

SA (or others) why should the NPOV section be removed? NJGW (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Other objections

I think we need to discuss the wording change of the second paragraph which begins: Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a... I don't take issue with the "theory" => ""fringe theory" change. However, this section "with representation in proportion to their prominence" is now duplicative and I am not sure that "prominence" is something which can be readily assessed by any reliable method given the unavoidable bias Wikipedia gives to sources which are published on the web as opposed to those which only exist offline. I also think there was a problematic change in the last paragraph of "Parity of sources" which changed the meaning of the example discussion of creation science and effectively removed any justification for the inclusion of the proponents' views. As such, I think "Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review, " should be restored until consensus for such changes have been reached. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying here. in fact, I've been reading through the current version of the guideline, and I think there is a serious problem in the way that it fails to distinguish contexts. clearly, we have to approach a topic like 'Creation Science' differently in an article on Evolution than in an article about Creation Science itself. I'd suggest we reword the second paragraph something like as follows:

Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Wikipedia describes significant opinions with representation in proportion to their importance to a given subject; Wikipedia itself should not become the primary or validating source for any theory. For one, it may not be possible to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner without independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality; and reliable, verifiable sources that make a connection between a fringe theory and an article subject are required to include that theory in that article.

there are also a couple of other points I'd like to raise.

• the first line of the second paragraph of the "Identifying fringe theories" is a bit unclear. I'd suggest something like this: Fringe theories may be proffered by small groups of adherents - such as cult beliefs or quasi- or pseudoscientific claims - or may be broad, popular speculations - like UFOs or el Chupacabre - but in either case they should only be considered notable if referenced extensively and earnestly in at least one major publication, or by a notable source independent of the theory's adherents."
• in the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section, he third paragraph (beginning 'Ideas that are of...') is rambling. I think it could be focused like so:

  Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be included in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight; they may even be excluded from articles about scientific topics where the scientific community has ignored or rejected them. On the other hand, ideas should not be excluded or belittled simply because they are widely held to be wrong; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it does not aim to censor or debunk ideas, even those which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

• I think the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section would also benefit from the addition of a paragraph to this end (which is an expansion of a passage I removed from the above):

  Fringe theory editors often point out that the lack of attention the theory has received from academic or scientific sources makes it difficult to properly assess the worth of the theory. On occasion, this point borders on conspiracy theory, where editors will note systematic interference with the investigation or promotion of a particular theory by academic, scientific or governmental figures or groups. none of these arguments are acceptable on Wikipedia unless they can be supported by reference to reliable secondary sources. It does not matter if these arguments are true or false. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere.

• the Parity of sources section, last paragraph (I agree with Levine's comment above, incidentally, and I'll restore that lost line myself). however, I think the whole paragraph could be simplified to read:

  Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reported on or criticized in venues that are not typically considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. It may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain the fringe topic itself, and these sources should not be excluded purely on those grounds. However, this should not be taken to mean that reliable, properly referenced scientific critique can be marginalized or excluded. For example, in an article on Creation Science the views of adherents can be used to explain the theory, despite the fact that such views are never presented in reliable scientific journals, and the critiques of Creation Science that do appear in reliable journals can be included to balance and contextualize the adherent views.

This parity part says that scientific journals may not publish negative reviews of a fringe theory if it's so fringey that there's nobody wasting time on it... so the best (and still acceptable source) may not be in a scientific journal. Do we need a minimum standard here? I'll have a look at the section. NJGW (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it using your suggested text, though I tried to maintain some of the original language and kept the examples (the specifics are very helpful I think). See what you think. NJGW (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• the 'Particular attribution' section is a confused mess (except for the last line, which I rather like). basically, it seems to say that anyone who says anything critical of a fringe topic should be treated as though their opinion is broadly universal. that can't be what's intended, can it? I don't quite know what to do with it though...

sorry for the long post. please do what you will with these suggestions. --Ludwigs2 08:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unhappy with the Nutshell

The second bullet of the Nutshell could give the impression of a conflict with WP:UNDUE, which states:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

I therefore propose dropping the second bullet, i.e.,

Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

from the Nutshell or rewording it to bring it in line with the WP:UNDUE policy quoted above. The reason is that as currently worded, it may be viewed by some as giving carte blanche to include any fringe theory if the insertion is "hedged" so as to satisfy the second bullet of the Nutshell. That would contradict WP:UNDUE, which says that tiny-minority views will generally not be included at all.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point... though I'm not sure if taking it out all together is the right move. Maybe just adding the relevant clause from UNDUE would work. How would you word it? NJGW (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on a reply for the moment, as I watch the discussion below unfold.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:N covers the basic notability for any article, and the nutshell of FRINGE talks about notability in the context of fringe ideas. WEIGHT gets mixed up about (or doesn't cover) fringe ideas in their own articles, versus fringe ideas in articles on mainstream subjects. It still needs correction, though that debate is on hold for the moment. But just keep in mind that WEIGHT, when it says "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" is talking about fringe within mainstream. When FRINGE says "Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents" it's talking about fringe ideas in their own articles. This important distinction is obvious (see the sentence on the Earth article, which makes it clear it's talking about mainstream articles), but clarification has been held up by those who believe that the text of WEIGHT should in fact be applied to articles on fringe ideas: IOW, mainstream criticism/discussion of the fringe ideas should have WEIGHT even within those articles.

So you are right that the nutshell needs to be clearer: "In order to be notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Worth considering, thanks. One should always be cautious about generalizing from a single personal anecdote, however, in a recent instance where I smashed inappropriate attention given to an extreme-fringe claim into a million little pieces, I did not take recourse to WP:FRINGE a single time. Instead, the following three elements came into play, in chronological order:

1. WP:UNDUE
2. The "Fringe theories noticeboard"
3. via (2) above, the assistance of helpful editors.

So based on that one instance, I could see getting rid of WP:FRINGE but not the "Fringe theories noticeboard".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Having now read to the bottom of the page, I am gravitating to the opinion that WP:FRINGE is confusing, redundant, riven with contradictions, too long, and full of opportunities for fringe-theory advocates to spot loopholes that they will exploit. I say junk it.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Creepy

I just read through this guideline and observe that it is too long but doesn't seem to add much to the essential idea of undue weight. Per WP:CREEP, this guideline needs to justify its existence. My general impression of such pages is that editors love to work upon them because it gives an illusion of great power without the tedious business of citing sources to support one's opinions. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.". A page of this sort should therefore cite significant precedents and evidence of consensus for anything that it wants to say, rather than issuing empty fiats. My impression of the current consensus is that we tolerate any amount of fringe topics here, provided that they are notable. The archetypal example of Flat Earth is considered to be a good article, for example. It's all a matter of finding good sources and so we don't seem to need more than our core principles to address this issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a content policy. WP:FRINGE is a notability guideline. While they are obviously complementary, these two pages fill different niches. The kernel of this guideline is descriptive of best practices on Wikipedia: we need independent, reliable sources beyond the primary promoters of fringe theories in order to write an encyclopedia article, so that's where we set the notability bar. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The general guideline WP:N already tells us that independent sources are required to establish notability. I'm still not seeing a need for this extra guideline to restate the same point. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

wp:N is about stand-alone articles, but Fringe explains how to NPOV, N, and V work together to deal with certain hot-button or science/pseudoscience related issues. Many are in favor of strengthening Fringe, or at least enforcing it more thoroughly. Perhaps the thing to do is to merge the relevant sections from wp:Civil POV pushing into this guideline. NJGW (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You will be hard pressed to find wide support for gutting FRINGE. Without FRINGE, every time someone wants to create an article about some idiot thing, like Bigfoot sex videos, we have to slog through days and weeks of talk page arguments about why it's not acceptable. The FRINGE guideline works well to at least centralize and refine the argument against the article. It would serve us further to push this up to policy; too many morons and cretins out there think their idiotic pseudoscience theory is notable, form 'Catcher in the Rye makes you a killer' to 'Batboy is the next step in evolution'. We have to have a bulwark against such a flood. Unless you are willing to become the permanent full time anti-nonsense editor, repeating yourself ad-nauseum, we need this. ThuranX (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bigfoot sex videos don't seem to be notable but perhaps that is a constructed example. Do you have an example of a genuinely notable topic which you consider we need this guideline for? I patrol AFD regualrly but don't recall anything like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable topic? Did you MISS the point of this guideline? This is why I left it for months last time. forget it. IF they can't read, I can't explain. Deliberate obtuseness is the only other explanation. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Colonel Warden's point was that 'Bigfoot sex videos' could be disposed of on plain old-fashioned lack-of-notability; we wouldn't need a fringe guideline to deal with that mess of an article. What he seems to want is an example of a page where the Fringe guideline does something that can't be easily disposed of by other policies and guidelines. something like 'Alien autopsy videos', maybe, which are notable to the extent that reliable sources (I think) report that actual videos claiming to be alien autopsies do exist. how would the Fringe guideline help us on a page like that? --Ludwigs2 09:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:N already takes care of the issue- nothing here adds anything new. The complaints here are not about what actually happens. FRINGE doesn't help, really, with very much: it merely applies policy in slightly more specific ways. It doesn't add anything new, at least not where it is in accord with actual policy which is not always the case. This guideline should probably be downgraded to an essay, not least because it is subject to so much controversy itself. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I cite this gideline all the time in dealing with problems at various articles on pseudo-history topics (sometimes in support of keeping the article or section of an article in question, at other times in support of fixing or deleting them). I would be very much opposed to downgrading it. Also, WP:FTN is one of our most active advice and notification boards... and is based on this guideline.Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No one's really actively advocating that, unless it really gets to the point where it's so unstable it shouldn't be a guideline anymore. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, MastCell, Fringe says it's a content guideline... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell. I noticed that after I commented. I swear this used to be a notability guideline, but I'm too lazy to look back to see if I'm imagining that. MastCell ^Talk 07:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of have the same feeling that it was at one time. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

oh, yeah, it's obvious that's what it was originally, and that it's drifted to be more of an NPOV thing. that's not necessarilly bad, though. --Ludwigs2 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment this was the subject of an RFC this summer... please review the overwhelming support this guideline has: Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 7#RfC: Is there enough argument to downgrade this guideline to the status of an essay?

Distinguishing

...between articles on the fringe subject and those where the fringe subject appears within a mainstream setting is very important. Please tell me here what you think the original sentence means, if my clarification of it needed reverting. You don't "mention" a thing in its own article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You wording certainly is not clearer, and should have been reverted. Mention, in the context as written (before your edit), means discussed, and perhaps could be changed to that, but as I read it, it means that often, we find that something is worth discussing in context to a topic, but isn't notable enough for it's own article. For example, 'James Randi debunked X, Y, and Z in an essay written for FillINTheBlank magazine' is a perfectly reasonable sort of sentence for the published articles section of the Randi biography article, but that doesn't mean that each of X, Y, and Z, each deserve a separate article. What it means is that where Fringe is more than tangential, germane perhaps, but not central, to another article, that alone doesn't represent so-called 'inherited notability', and isn't a substantive argument FOR inherited notability. By removing the words you did, you open the meaning to the level where having an article isn't grounds for having an article, and leads to a circular logic sort of mess. It goes to the point that while fringe topics can be mentioned in reasonable contexts, that we find reasonable context for mention isn't demonstration of independent notability. ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what it means. The notability comes from Randi, not the fringe subjects, in your example. Please look at it again: I think you may be mis-interpreting it. You're reading a lot more into the passage than it says. We would never determine notability from relevance in another article. Thus, the passage isn't addressing that issue. Anyway, even if you did interpret it that way, it still makes it clearer, if I understand you right, and that's a rather complex post.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhh....... I think you are getting it backwards: I put those words in, I didn't remove them. You say "By removing the words you did." I put in the words "articles not specifically devoted to them" and it got reverted. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WHOOOPS, Terrible mistake. No, I'm sorry, your version improves by making clear all I said above. Wording IN, not out. My apologies, Martin, and I think I did a sufficient job of arguing FOR the extra words. LOL. ThuranX (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no problem (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims

Both Martinphi and I have changed the wording of this section, but it seems a little unclear what the section is meant to accomplish. I notice the paragraph has been in this guideline since 2006, so those of you who have been around for a while, what was the section meant to address and how has it been used in the past? Can we tweak it to be more useful, or can it be merged with another section? NJGW (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I took out the reference to "evaluation." WP does not evaluate, and any promotion of such editing behavior has to be taken out. The sources may evaluate, but we report. I used the word discussed [1], but perhaps "report" would be better. Anyway, "evaluate" is really quite bad. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I had already changed the section so it didn't say the Wikipedia editor was evaluating, however your edit changed the meaning of the section to something different from the original. Let's wait for older editors of this policy to comment on that section's original intent before you go changing its meaning. NJGW (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It still says evaluation, and we have to work from policy.

Here is my proposed text, I would like other editors to evaluate it:

Material in an article should be given weight in proportion to how prominently it figures in the sources which are directly related to the subject. Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. However, in articles on subjects where both science and non-science are deeply relevant, such as creationism or creation science, both the scientific and theological aspects of the subject should be discussed.

We should not make it as specific as "conflict." We are trying to make things general here, so it can be applied everywhere needed [2]. We should write it from first policy principles. We need to be especially careful not to support extremism (pro or anti science), and to keep the tone here cool so that editors will remain cool during conflict.

The section was written by ScienceApologist editing under the name "Nondistinguished," this is the first version [3]. It remained unchanged since then, looks like. I don't know what problem he was trying to solve. I think this section has never undergone any real debate and analysis. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that Wikipedia editors don't evaluate things. We evaluate a lot of things: we evaluate whether sources are Reliable or not; we evaluate the language we use in our articles to ensure that what we write matches what the sources say, etc. Witing an article involves a lot of editorial evaluation. I assume what you meant to say is that our articles should not contain an editor's unique evaluation of the topic. That I do agree with, as it is the core concept behind WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

interesting... as I've said elsewhere, the real issue here is a clash of metaphysics. there is no problem to the extent that something like Creationism is treated as a religious worldview, because the scientific metaphysic specifically omits anything that doesn't have a physical aspect, but when a religious (or other) metaphysic starts presenting itself as a physical fact (as in Creation Science), things go awry. I'd suggest a rewrite of Martin's text like the following:

Material in an article should be given weight in proportion to how prominently it figures in the sources which are directly related to the subject. Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which touch on or re-evaluate scientific claims should be handled as literature, as historical documents, or as theological, metaphysical, or philosophical cosmologies, not as scientific theories exclusively. For example, the Book of Genesis should be covered primarily as a part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible and for its theological and moral implications, while scientific opinion should be included only to negate its unfounded extension as a physical truth.

not perfect, but do you see what I'm reaching for? --Ludwigs2 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, what I mean is that the section indicates now that the article evaluates the subject. Wikipedia editors may evaluate things, but Wikipedia articles do not evaluate their subjects. If an evaluation of a subject has taken place in the real world then that evaluation should be described in the article. This is an important distinction to make because too many editors think that Wikipedia is a place to evaluate. The problem with Ludwigs version is that we aren't here to cherry pick sources to "negate." We just report what the source say. Certainly, they are probably going to "negate," but it isn't our job to pick them for that function. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

well, we can use 'balance' instead of 'negate'; I chose negate as a head tilt towards those people who are concerned that someone might actually be convinced that a non-scientific theory trumps a scientific one, but I'm not attached to it. my main concern was to separate out the religious metaphysic as a valid belief in its own right, while still maintaining the scientific understanding of the world as a functional reality. the two things we clearly don't want to do are (a) step on or abuse someone's sincerely held beliefs (no matter how unjustified those beliefs are), and (2) allow those deeply held beliefs to be presented as though they trump well-established scientific principles. if people want to believe that the world was created in seven days as an act of God's will, that's fine, and that belief should be clearly and neutrally presented. but to the extent that they try to oppose that belief to scientific theories, we need to point out that they are contesting a theory that has undergone testing and scientific analysis using a belief that has no scientific roots at all. I mean, if someone came up with a theory that the current economic crisis is caused by God punishing prodigal capitalists, we wouldn't want to say they are wrong (because who knows...?), but we would want to point out that the scientific explanation of it deals with some reasonably well-tested theories of economics. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Ludwigs, that just isn't right. We don't "want" anything. We aren't in the business of "balancing" anything or "negating" anything. We aren't trying to "point out" anything. We're purely and totally in the business of reporting on the sources. How the article comes out, whether science gets screwed or whether pseudoscience gets screwed, is not up to us, and is not something we should consider. Articles don't evaluate. We are an institution of pure reporting. There are exceptions: for example, criticism in BLPs- we can edit those based on our evaluation of whether it "overwhelms" an article. Another exception is that we can change the tone of an article to neutral, even when the sources are all non-neutral (we report on the sources in a neutral tone rather than imitate their tone). But in general we as editors are not here to serve any qualitative function relative to content. So if you are trying to write a section which recommends something besides reporting on the sources which are available, you're doing something wrong. Nor are we trying to compromise: this is NPOV, it's an absolute and we don't do head tilts. We're just trying to get right relative to the two relevant policies, which to my mind are NPOV and NOR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Screwing? Where did that come from? I'm not sure if you've heard, but this guideline is about balancing out the known pseudo and fringe, so that the readers don't get screwed. We evaluate the available sources so that we can decipher the academic consensus, in order to negate the POV activities which threaten to devalue Wikipedia. If you don't agree, maybe you and this guideline have a COI. NJGW (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then it must be deleted or downgraded. We do not go out of our way to present things in a particular light. We present the sources, in proportion to the prominence of each. Period. This is about applying core policies to fringe content. It is not about balancing out anything, either science or fringe views. That is not our concern. If that is the way you are editing, they you are against the core principles of Wikipedia. We do report on academic consensus, but that is not an evaluation of the sources, but reporting on what they indicate. Please do not use personal attacks. It is necessary that we create the guideline without bias as to how the articles are to turn out. We don't determine that, the sources do. Considering what you say above, you seem to think that we are here to make sure a particular POV gets into the articles. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line: Even if it means our POV, the reader, or the truth will get screwed, we don't do anything but report the sources, with weight in proportion to their prominence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, providing the reader with the best depiction of academic consensus is against a policy? Which one? By the way, how does one evaluate (oops) determine the proper way to "present the sources, in proportion to the prominence of each"? NJGW (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said that. Of course we provide the reader with any relevant academic consensus. Your second question: one of the most difficult things in WP, and yes, it requires editorial judgment and consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How is academic consensus not a "particular light" which we should "go out of our way to present"? What in the present guideline precludes this, or is directed towards some other goal? Is there anything in this articles which prevents the accurate portrail of academic consensus, or even prevents the maintaining of weight in favor of academic consensus? I said before "We evaluate the available sources so that we can decipher the academic consensus, in order to negate the POV activities which threaten to devalue Wikipedia," which you seem to have taken issue with, but replied with "yes, it [weighting sources] requires editorial judgment and consensus". It's getting hard to tell who you disagree with. Maybe the best thing would be if you gave us specific examples from the guideline which you feel are detrimental to the guideline's goal (and while you're at it, what do you think the guideline's goals are and should be). NJGW (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion is going off at a tangent. The point at issue is about evaluation, and it's not a difficult point to understand at all. Wikipedia is about describing things not evaluating them. We do not evaluate things in articles other than by describing evaluations that have taken place in the real world - in the sources. We DO, as editors, evaluate what should and should not go into articles, but we DO NOT, as editors, use articles to evaluate a topic. The end result, BTW, will not be entirely dissimilar, but it is nonetheless an important distinction to bear in mind since one way (describing evaluations in sources) is in keeping with Wiki core policy and the other (using an article to evaluate) is the antithesis of it.Deadasamackerel (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not staying "in the lines" of the topic of this thread is OK, as long as we are constructive. Martinphi says he has problems with this guideline, and I'd like to know what exactly those problems are based on his answers to my questions above. Specific concerns should be dealt with or answered. As for the paragraph in question... the current text does not contradict either you, me, or Martin... but we're still waiting on earlier editors of this guideline to weigh in on what the paragraph was written for in the first place. NJGW (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No probs, but it's easier to tackle points one at a time and separately rather than all jumbled up together. I've created a new space below for problems with the guideline and now this space here can be used for the "evaluation" discussion.Deadasamackerel (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the wording, the wording in the text is fine as it stands. The title of the section could be changed though. As for what those who wrote it think, they surely meant pretty much what it says now.Deadasamackerel (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I removed the section because it is empty, and headers should have much more specific titles. By the way, who are you Deadasamackerel? You seem to be very comfortable in Wikipedia for someone who's never edited until today. NJGW (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not so comfortable that I know how specific headers should be.Deadasamackerel (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How is academic consensus not a "particular light" which we should "go out of our way to present"?

We should present it, but not "go out of our way" to do so. If it isn't in the sources, we don't do OR to get it.

What in the present guideline precludes this

Maybe nothing, that's RS, OR, and NPOV.

Is there anything in this articles which prevents the accurate portrail of academic consensus

No

or even prevents the maintaining of weight in favor of academic consensus?

We maintain WEIGHT in proportion to the prominence. In scientific articles, that's science, in fringe, less so. There is no "scientific exception" to WEIGHT.

It's getting hard to tell who you disagree with

The "in order to" part.

Could you just tell me if you have any objection to the text I proposed? I get the feeling you don't.

The confusion, perhaps, is that the end result in the article is often similar, as Deadasamackerel says.

My basic problem is that it says we "evaluate." While that may be how the article turns out, in that the sources will lead the reader to a certain conclusion, our goal should be to report, not evaluate.

So again.... what problem with my proposed version? No one here is trying to say that we don't include information negative towards fringe ideas. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here, NJGW, look at this if you want to know a little more where I'm coming from [4]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin: of course there are things we want to do as Wikipedia editors. all the core policies are filled with things that we want to see in an article (verifiable sources, balance of points of view, etc.). If we didn't want to produce a decent encyclopedia then no one would give a cr@p about any of this stuff and we'd all just write whatever we felt like writing. I think you're over-reading my want: I don't want to evalute some fringe theory - instead, I want to evaluate whether our presentation puts that fringe theory put in its proper historical and analytical place in the universe of knowledge. that being said, I don't really have a problem with your version. I was just trying to tweak it out. if I didn't succeed, my apologies. --Ludwigs2 05:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well that's fine as long as "universe of knowledge" means the sources we've got. I know how some would interpret that.... lol. But you see I interpret policy stuff through the lens of what POV pushing can be done with it. If I know someone will interpret in a way which can allow POV, I'm aggin' it. So yeah, I was over-reading what you wanted, just like a POV pusher :D ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

lol - ok, I guess that does make some sense. pardon me, I'm still an innocent. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

I'm sorry, but two or three people supporting each other on a talk page, ignoring opposing views, just isn't ennough to get consensus for the really massive changes made, including something easily read stating outright that fringe theories should be included in mainstream articles. the version of 16 October is back before the start of the current edit spree, I think that some pretty firm consensus needs to be gained before the guideline is changed to say something completely different to what it said before on most of the issues at hand. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker - sorry, but I undid your reversion because it was just too sweeping. you threw out a lot of positive and innocuous changes in order to remove some some phrase that I can't even find in the text. can you be more clear about which section is bothering you, so that we can fix it in a more focussed fashion? --Ludwigs2 06:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked through - what were the positive and innocuous changes? The blanket removal of "fringe" made no sense. I agree that these changes need consensus. Verbal chat 07:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

well, it seems to me a lot of it was just rewording, and some of the rewording was better than the original. and in fact, the word 'fringe' is used more in the changed version than in the version you reverted to, so I really don't know what you mean by 'blanket removal'. I'm not saying the changes are perfect, mind you, but the sweeping reversions you guys are making doesn't make a whole lot of sense. what I'm really trying to figure out is what, exactly, your objections are. I mean, Shoe is saying that 'it says we should include fringe theories in mainstream articles', you're talking about 'the blanket removal of fringe', and while both of these are valid concerns, neither actually appears to have occurred.

I get the sense that you're just reverting because you don't trust the people making the changes, which is ok (if saddening), but please follow up and give some substantive opinions we can work with, so that we can make a better guideline. stonewalling is disrespectful to other editors, and to wikipedia as a whole. --Ludwigs2 07:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My motives were what I said. There does seem to be a problem with my revert that I'm a bit confused about now. I'll try and work it out soon, but I have to go out now. Thanks (Self reverted) Verbal chat 08:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some reasonable edits, and I freely admit that, but such major changes to the guideline cannot be done without more participation. The most problematic is probably this:

Old

New

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used.

While the use of reliable, properly referenced scientific critiques is preferred in an article on a fringe topic, peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the many fringe subjects. If a notable fringe theory is only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in an alternative venue (such as by amateurs and self-published texts), it may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain and provide criticism of the fringe topic....

In the old one, it simply says -- somewhat badly, that if a fringe theory uses a lesser level of sources still generally permitted under WP:RS, then the criticism cannot be held to a higher level of sourcing. The new one throws out WP:RS entirely, explicitly alloing amateur and self-published sources to be used without restriction on both sides.

Look, I don't want to be difficult about this, but this really, really needs appropriate review. Until that time, I'd encourage suggestions be taken a little slower, and revised paragraphs be presented on this talk page first, so it's clear exactly what's being agreed to. Many of these changes probably should be readded, but we need to slow down a little, and get this right, since it's a fairly major guideline. If the changes were listed by section here, it would be clear what changes were being made, and the non-controversial ones can be quickly voted in. I'll do that tonight if noone else wants to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

please do so, that would be a great help (I'd do it myself, but you'll probably do a better job, and I'm running out of juice on my laptop). I'll add (seeing it put this simply), that I have to agree that the change to this particular paragraph is definitely problematic; you're right, it needs more thought. speaking from my own view, the only thing that the old version lacks by comparison is that it only talks about criticism - it ought to be generalized so that it talks about descriptive statements as well as critical ones. I'm thinking maybe that was the idea behind this particular change(??), but if so I think it missed the mark. ok, this is definite progress... --Ludwigs2 08:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. It shouldn't be too hard, just a little annoying to set up. I'll do it in a new section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation versus reporting evaluation in sources

Let's start with the last point discussed above for which there seems to be widespread agreement. That is, we do not evaluate topics in Wikipedia, but rather we describe evaluations of them that have taken place in the sources. Thus the change from "should be evaluated..." to "sources which evaluate ... should be discussed". Yes, no? Deadasamackerel (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's only three or four people discussing that. There's been no announcement to the Village pump, and only a brief statement to WP:FTN. These changes are major, they need to seek consensus from a wide class of Wikipedians first, not be declared after a couple people get together and agree. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That particular change isn't major and seems to be pretty much encapsulate what Wikipedia is about. I can't see anyone really disputing it. Do you, for example, dispute it? Deadasamackerel (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you gave so little context that I wasn't sure what I'd be agreeing to until I checked the diffs in full. Having done the analysis, I'd call it a neutral change. I don't think it makes things any clearer, but nor does it make things any worse. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory representation in mainstream articles

One of the points SH seems to disagree with is the idea that fringe views can be covered in mainstream article. I think NPOV is very clear on this. All notable viewpoints should be covered, even fringe ones, unless they are a tiny minority view. So, for example, in the article on the JFK assassination there is a section on the fringe conspiracy theories included exactly as NPOV requires. There seems little dispute about this point and so it is unclear why anyone would object to that point being made explicitly in this guideline.Deadasamackerel (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

True. What is the text you are talking about, exactly? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The text where? Above in SH's post, the text in the JFK article, the text in NPOV, or the text in this guideline that SH is objecting to? The last one is the only one I can't help you with exactly, but I presume he has some text in mind since he objects to the other version having "something easily read stating outright that fringe theories should be included in mainstream articles". That objection is what I was talking about when I said that the same point features in NPOV in the "all notable viewpoints" covered part.Deadasamackerel (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I don't know what he means either. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Shoemaker simply misread the passage (or read it through a deeply parochial science-POV lens, I don't know which). I'll try a revision which maybe he might find more acceptable. --Ludwigs2 05:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories can be covered, but we should not require they be covered, and by definition (they are fringe) should not take up much space. As we are explicitly discussing fringe theories, we need to get the weight right - adding fringe theories to mainstream articles might be appropriate, for more major fringe theories with a strong connection to the science. E.g. creationism might get a paragraph in evolution, but homeopathy should not get a paragraph in Avogadro constant, stoichiometry, or dose-response curve. When talking about quantum mechanics we should not discuss the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab's claims to have had humans influence quantum randomness. Cold fusion should not appear in nuclear power, though it might appear in fusion. If these do appear in mainstream articles, they should not be presented as equal in stature, but the major arguments against them need to be summarised. Nor can their articles be written froma n "in-universe" view, insofar as when they make claims about, say, quantum mechanics that conflict with any standard description of quantum mechanics, the reader deserves to know that the description given is, at best, highly idiosyncratic, and that mainstream science says...

You get the idea. We need to weight this right, not treat adding fringe theories to mainstream articles (not usually necessary) as equally important to presenting the mainstream views in fringe articles (necessary for any basic understanding of WP:NPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Something else to consider: while a fringe theory such as Creationism does (and should) get a paragraph in the main Evolution article, it does not (and need not) get much coverage in related articles. For example, Creationism merits only a passing nod in our article on Human Evolution, and it does not merit any coverage at all in Descent of Man. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison

This is just to set out the changes made, it is not meant to demonstrate anything, just to set it up in such a way that it's easier to discuss. It's possible that I got old and new swapped round in one or two cases, but it probably shouldn't matter.

Lead

Old	New
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia; all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence. In this context, this guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects.	This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. It is an extension of neutral point of view, which is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. While all significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, the placement and amount of representation each view receives must be in proportion to that view's prominence.
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.	Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.
[Footnote]	[Footnote]
For information on determining "prominence", see WP:WEIGHT.	For other pertinent guidelines, see WP:NOTABILITY.

Neither of these are particularly good, I slightly favour the new version. If we're going to improve it further, neither sets out what context the prominence should be considered from: Now, obviously, n articles dedicated to them, fringe theories should be described (with the possible exception of things like HeadOn which are only really notable for things tangental to the fringe theory) but the prominence should not be determined by the fringe theory. Amongst practitioners of homeopathy, the skeptical view may be exceedingly rare, but the homeopathy article should nevertheless describe the mainstream views. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the difference is that the older version tied this guideline primarily to WP:Notability, while the new version ties it to WP:NPOV. I prefer the older version for that reason. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll say at the start, I rather prefer the changes I offered way above (in Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Other_objections section); I think it reads smoother. that aside, though, I think this passage might be a good place to clear up any confusions between the concept of 'Notability' (i.e. whether it can have an article about it itself in WP) and 'Noteworthiness' (i.e. whether it's significant enough with respect to a different notable subject to be included in an article about that). That would address Blueboar's concerns, and forestall a lot of later confusion where people use the word 'notable' to refer to both notability and weight interchangeably. does that make sense? --Ludwigs2 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense, but both notability and NPOV are relevant here, so why not discuss both? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's what I meant to say (or was that 'but' above a typo?) --Ludwigs2 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Identifying fringe theories

Old	New
Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources...	Fringe theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular fringe theory are in news sources...

Uncontroversial, obviously beneficial change. That said, there's some obvious stupidity in both versions: "the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." - balancing the article's content probably should not be changed completely based on whether the barely notable website "PromotingMyFringeTheory.com" appears in the sources, or if it happened to be left out. Quality of sources should count for something here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Context and source quality is everything. This needs to be clarified somehow. I do think that "in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written" is a better way to determine "prominence" than trying to determine in what proportion is the fringe theory mentioned in all of the sources out there. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well... obviously, it's better than OR speculation, but it's still very, very gameable through the selection of sources. If someone made the article with just fringe theory sources, the article would violate NPOV under this rule, if an article on a fringe subject was made with just mainstream sources, it might fail to inform the reader what the fringe theory was. Now, realize that I'm just talking about genuine fringe theories here - alternative mainstream theories like MOND vs. string theory vs. quantum mechanics are going to be a very different kettle of fish - butI think that, with fringe theories we could reasonably insist that there be a weighting to the (by definition) more reliable mainstream sources in articles, and say that they should only use the less reliable material where it serves to inform the reader. Obviously, there could be many things it might well be appropriate to inform the reader about that may not be presented in mainstream sources - the theory's definition and description, how it's applied by its proponents, and, while taking care not to give the minority view equal or greater weight to the majority, even how the proponents deal with mainstream criticism.

This one will probably take some discussion to get right. How about we work on this on the talk page, then open a RFC on it before we add it in? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) well, as I said below, in mainstream articles this isn't much of a problem. we can just stick to whatever the reliable mainstream sources say about the matter (if RSs don't have anything to say about a Fringe theory on a given mainstream subject, then that fringe theory probably isn't noteworthy enough to be in that article). in Fringe articles, though, this would come into play more, because going beyond the level of detail of the sources would start to look like original research. but then again, in a fringe theory article that's less of a problem - our goal would be to describe the fringe theory and its criticisms, and prominence doesn't really come into play (it's an article about the fringe view, not about the mainstream view, and so the mainstream view only enters tangentially, to the extent that it serves as a critique of the fringe view). --Ludwigs2 02:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am confused now. Is WP:Fringe supposed to be a subset of WP:N or WP:NPOV? Or both? I think we need to be clear upfront about this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

well, mostly it's NPOV, I think. the primary concerns are that fringe theories be given their proper weight with respect to mainstream theories in mainstream articles, and that articles on fringe topics don't turn into wild promotional things (or conversely, that articles on fringe topics don't turn into smear campaigns...). but there is a frequent confusion with N because the word 'notable' is used loosely (e.g., when someone says "is this theory really notable here?" it's unclear whether the speaker means 'does it meet notablity requirements?' or 'is it significant enough to mention with respect to a different topic?'). I don't think we need to deal with notability in the full sense in this guideline, but I do think we need to disambiguate the two usages. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes.... Levine, that's just the kind of thing that means we need to rewrite it, this time from a more planned outline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories

Old	New
...sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged....	...sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are not allowed....

Obvious, non-controversial improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• New version better. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• agree --Ludwigs2 01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• I think "not allowed" is better aligned with current WP:SOCK policy. There are some legitimate uses of an alt account according to this policy; however, vote stacking an AfD is not one them. Perhaps we should make this clear. Then again, why is this even in this article. Are Fringe supporters more likely to use a sock account such that they need the warning in WP:FRINGE? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • agree to this as well. probably we should just remove this line as redundant with policy, but if not then we should use the 'not allowed' version to be consistent with policy. --Ludwigs2 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, definitely agree. I think it'd be hard for anyone to argue this chane shouldn't be restored, to align with policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims

Old	New
On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.	On the other hand, in articles on subjects which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, such as creationism or creation science, sources which evaluate both the scientific and theological basis should be discussed.

Both versions work out to pretty much the same thing, though neither is particularly clear. We could do better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a large discussion of this above, where we should discuss it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A note about publication

Three words added, bolded below:

One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources which do exist must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.

Not controversial, but neither does it do very much to fix the rather awful prose. "bellwether"? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ding or Dong - I'm good either way. --Ludwigs2 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Parity of sources

This is the problematic one.

Old	New
1a Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review.	1bSources may be included or excluded from articles on fringe topics or their mainstream equivalents based on maintaining a rough parity of sources. Articles should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but can only be sourced by obscure, self-published, or non-peer reviewed texts. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects.
2aIn an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used.	2b While the use of reliable, properly referenced scientific critiques is preferred in an article on a fringe topic, peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the many fringe subjects. If a notable fringe theory is only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in an alternative venue (such as by amateurs and self-published texts), it may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain and provide criticism of the fringe topic. For example, the views of adherents can be used to explain creation science, but the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism from that article. Similarly, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not typical reliable sources, as long as a rough parity is maintained.
3aParity 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 Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects.

I've taken the liberty of numbering these.

This is the biggest problem of the rewrite - 2b throws out the reliable sources guideline completely, which 2a... well, actually, it also does, but it at least qualifies it. But we surely shouldn't be throwing out WP:RS in the first place. Less reliable sources are one thing, unreliable sources a very different kettle of fish.

The sentence (1b and 3a) "Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects." would probably be better read as "to the extent they are excluded in standard texts on the mainstream subject" or something like that, perhaps with a note saying that particularly notable fringe theories such as Cold fusion and creationism might be briefly discussed in mainstream articles, provided that the mainstream responses are also included. Or... something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we re-write it on the principle that once notability is established, we need to be really careful about attribution. If we are, we can use sources which are basically only reliable for what we are trying to source: for example, a fringe proponent is reliable on what fringe proponents believe. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be a major change to the policy, and would need a lot more consensus. Attribution can easily be abused. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

following what you both said, it might help to split this section up into clear 'in fringe articles' and 'in mainstream articles' parts. for instance, in mainstream articles, fringe views should be included if and to the extent that they enter into reliable, mainstream sources. this would apply to both description and criticism (since I think we can assume that reliable sources will take the time to both describe what the fringe theory is and explain why it doesn't fly). articles about fringe topics should be handled a bit differently, though; we can be a little more lenient on both sides, so long as we are careful about attribution. maybe for the latter, add something to the effect that "Fringe theories should be described fully and neutrally, without any effort to lobby for or against their claims, and should always be presented in their proper context with respect to mainstream theories"? --Ludwigs2 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, see new section on rewrite below. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Anyway, that's all the changes. I'm going to have to apologise, as they did look more extensive in the Parity section because of the rearrangement, and a full revert was thus probably excessive in retrospect. That said, I'm not entirely sure how much o f an improvement they are, simply because the really bad prose and confusion in the guideline isn't actually fixed. The problems are at least, somewhat isolated, but I think we can all agree that some parts are at least problematic. SStarting an RFC to lure people in, followed by rewrites of the problematic sectin weould probably be better thn these small changes in fixing the real problems Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we just start from the version I reverted to? It seems to contain fewer problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I disagree that your version has fewer problems.
2. I think it is disingenuous to have labeled your mass reversion as a "minor" edit.
3. I think your edit summary of "this version is better. See talk." is also disingenuous as you have made no attempt at discussing specifically why your version is "better". There is a lot of discussion above about many of the problems contained in that version. And there was a consensus to revert most of your version.
4. I think you shouldn't have made such a mass reversion with Twinkle.
5. I think that your mass reversion is a continuation of the edit war you had last week. [5] [6] [7]

Overall, I think your fourth reversion is not justified, it constitutes edit warring, and should be reverted back. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you may not just revert to a preferred version- and expect others to then defend their changes from there. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, why don't you either 1) tag the guideline some way or 2) revert back to this version [8] till we get consensus changes? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And Shoemaker, thanks for the nice tables and comparison. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the Oct. 16th version (save one "dubious" tag which was added by a concerned editor). This is the version that was in place before all of this recent madness began. Let's start here and take this one step at a time, trying hard to establish consensus before these mass edits are made again. Thanks all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Essay

Shoemaker, changing a guidline in this much turmoil is not provocative: it's basic common sense. How would you like to tag it? I thought changing it to an essay for the time being was the least provocative way to go. Since you reverted it, why don't you suggest a way to warn people who come to it that it is not to be taken too seriously right now? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin... I am not sure why you think this guideline is in "turmoil"... until last month, it remained fairly stable (at least as stable as all our other polices and guidelines do). What we have here is not turmoil, but the normal conflict between those who desire a change in wording, and those who don't. This happens at all of our policy and guideline pages from time to time. A relatively stable policy or guideline suddenly erupts into a flurry of activity, as various editors make suggestions and counter suggestions, and others raise objections. If there is any "turmoil", it stems from editors attempting to implement their favorite wording before a proper consensus has been established.

Changing a guideline requires a lot of time, Those who propose the change need to convince a lot of people that the change is needed and a good thing. You might be convinced that the change is needed... but to achieve consensus you have to convince the rest of us. I know from experience that this is not an easy thing to do. Blueboar (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit was wrong, it certainly got me banned from the page. It simply, was, and is, my opinion that a guideline in the midst of an edit war should be downgraded. I explained it thoroughly I thought. If anyone thought I was doing it as a permanent thing rather than merely while the edit war was sorted out, my apologies. It was my attempt, whatever the actual outcome, to keep things on an even keel in fringe articles generally, and make sure that while the page is in an edit war that what it says isn't taken too seriously. I would not have thought this to be so controversial: it seems obvious. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite of FRINGE

I think it's time for a rewrite. Here is why (and I'm gone tomorrow, so can't discuss it, but I hope you'll think on it while I'm gone).

One of the main problems with this guideline is that it tries to answer three very different questions, but it does not clearly separate those questions or their answers, and at various places it is very hard to tell which question is actually being addressed. The questions that this guideline addresses are as follows:

a)Is a fringe theory notable enough to have its own article?

b) Should a fringe theory be covered in mainstream articles (i.e., ones not specifically devoted to that theory), and if so, what kind of coverage should it receive?

c) How should a fringe theory be covered in an article devoted specifically to that theory?

These are very different questions, and they all require different answers and different types of answer. For example, question (a) will resolve to a yes or no answer. There will always be gray areas here, but ultimately the guideline should expand upon the notability requirement threshold for article status. Question (b), on the other hand, has an initial yes or no answer, but in cases where the answer is yes, it must go on to expand upon, amongst other things, issues around undue WEIGHT. And finally, question (c) is an altogether more complex question which will ultimately cover many aspects of core policy and how those aspects relate to fringe theories.

These are complex issues, and no good can come of trying to cover them all together at the same time. It would be much better to be explicit about the three questions addressed: to divide the article into three sections; and to deal with each question in turn. This may make for a certain amount of repetition, but as a guideline there will never be any need to look at more than one section at a time. That is, for any particular issue or article an editor is seeking guidance on, there will be only one relevant section. For example: if I am trying to decide whether a topic should have its own article then section (a) will be relevant; if I am trying to decide whether a fringe theory should be included in a mainstream article and/or how to cover that theory in that article then section (b) is the section I need; and if I am trying to write an article specifically about a fringe topic then section (c) will provide the appropriate guidance.

It is also worth noting that if it is in the least difficult to extract the text from the guideline as it is now and arrange it into the three relevant sections, then that means there is all the more reason to do just that. That is, if it is difficult to determine which of the three questions is being addressed by any particular section then that section needs to be rewritten anyway. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I like MartinPhi's plan for organization; however I will note that there is at least one other question which WP:FRINGE seems to be answering: How do we deal with editors rampantly promoting fringe theories? Personally, I don't think that this editor behavior question should be dealt with in this guideline; nor do I think we should be singling out so-called fringe POV-pushers from any POV-pushers. I think WP:SOAP already says all that needs to be said. What we have here now is fundementally unjust as it singles out a group of editors based on their scientific orientation and then punitively treats them differently from editors with different orientations. I don't think rampant POV pushing is justified no matter which end of the scientific spectrum you are pushing. We all should be promoting NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely Fringe applies to pseudohistory, strange literary interpretations, and all the rest as well. They just aren't as organised, in the main.

One of the Arbcom rulings seems useful to quote in respect to this: Pseudoscience principle 14 reads "14) 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." - I think that everythingg else can be considered to spring from that and the related historical, etc, motivations, and would be a good goal to keep in mind Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with Levine. Shoemaker is also right. When you look at respected works, such as Britannica, you see that they cover pseudoscience articles in a different way, a way which we should adopt. The Arbitration on the Paranormal is a step in that direction, that is, in the direction Shoemaker points out. However, we aren't the same as other encyclopedias, especially in that we don't do OR, nor reflect our own views. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no separate article on Orgone in the current EB, just a redirect to Wilhelm Reich. Are you suggesting WP should follow suit? Mathsci (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, this all sounds on the mark. maybe we should just go whole hog, create a sandboxed version, and rewrite it head to tail. then we can post a notice at the Pump and get community feedback on a finished product, rather than try to work on it piecemeal? I'm willing to take the time to make a rough draft, if that's acceptable to everyone. --Ludwigs2 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Mathsci) I haven't looked at the EB version, but I suspect that their article on Reich has a fairly large section on Orgone: you can't really discuss Reich without discussing Orgone... your question seems more like a content issue - do we have separate articles on Reich and Orgone, or a single article which covers them both. and frankly, I could see it work either way. --Ludwigs2 04:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love for you to make a rough draft. I'll edit it to not be philosophical so be warned (; I would hope we'd go directly from a statement of policy to the application, something like I did with the Evaluation section. I would hope we'd keep it extremely simple.

Mathsci, I wouldn't care about Orgone, but Wikipedia is not paper. I was talking about the manner in which things are covered, the tone. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ah, you philistine! I'll go get started on it now, and I'll try to cope with your philosophical luddite-ism. --Ludwigs2 04:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The EB has an article on radium, not just a reference to the biography of Marie Curie. That is not the case for Orgone. The EB treats Orgone as scientifically insignificant by having no article dedicated to it.

The WP:FRINGE guidelines are fine. No radical rewrite is necessary or has been called for. Minor clarifications of the kind suggested by Dbachmann are sensible. Mathsci (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) well, I'm going to pause this effort for a moment anyway, because I want to clarify something. I've been going through the page with a fine-toothed comb trying to restructure it per the above, and it's becoming clear to me that I can't do it without some significant rewriting. just for example, the lead would have to be largely rewritten because (as it stands) it doesn't fully conform to the rest of the guideline and makes none of the distinctions we're trying to make here; the nutshell is all about Notability, as is the first paragraph, but the second paragraph starts morphing into Weight through the double meaning of the word 'notable' in its first line. I don't mind doing the rewriting, mind you, but I don't want to take liberties without consensus. how far do you want me to go with this? for the moment, I'll just write what seems to me to be a decent outline of headers without content - maybe that's a better way to approach this project anyway. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The current version is fine. Per Mathsci there may be some minor clarifications but right now this is doing its job. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, JZ, I think your missing the point - the current article is incorrectly written and needs to change to Fringe = normal. Shot info (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

well, I'm glad that you think the current article is fine, but since we've got things started I don't see that you would object to us working up the sandboxed version. here's the outline I suggested above - Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/sandbox = comments or revisions? --Ludwigs2 06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're doing, Ludwigs2, and have made a few edits to your sandbox outline. Regarding those who disagree that this is needed, I haven't yet seen a response to Martinphi's point above that this guideline in effect exists to deal with multiple questions, but doesn't sufficiently distinguish between them. A clear explanation of what does and doesn't belong in an article about a Fringe theory would be helpful, but so far that doesn't seem to exist. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point I lean toward agreeing with MartinΦ as to the concerns the guideline needs to cover, without commenting on specific drafts. Each of the concerns derives from a different policy or guideline, the first to WP:N, the second to WP:UNDUE, and the third to the conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:OR when reliable sources are rare. I have no comment on the specific drafts at this time. (In addition to a number of disputes you may be aware of, I'm monitoring two editors who are making — shall we say questionable — category and template choices. This is an important discussion, but I may not be able to give it the time it deserves.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

please comment as you can. I think it's both wise and necessary to take this in a slow, step-by-step fashion, so we'll be at it awhile, and the more constructive input we get, the better. --Ludwigs2 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Port Chicago disaster conspiracy theory example

The example set forth of a fringe viewpoint which warrants mention in a more general subject article appears to be outdated. At present, there is no mention in the Port Chicago disaster article of the conspiracy theory, which indicates to me that the legitimacy of its inclusion therein is controversial. Can anyone think of a better example? PSWG1920 (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In Taj Mahal, we note some persistent bits of pseudohistory. The most fringey of these myths is that the Taj Mahal was orignally a hindu temple. This fringe theory was created by P.N. Oak and is quite popular among Hindutva adherents. (On a regular basis, the entire article is replaced with an internet essay "Was the Taj Mahal a Hindu Temple?" See [9] here for example.) Might this be a better example?--nemonoman (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a particularly good example, as general editors might have a hard time understanding why that is a fringe viewpoint. I was thinking along the lines of another conspiracy theory, one which truly is a fringe viewpoint (not all "conspiracy theories" are) but which is prominent enough for mention in a broader article. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This version will be implemented

[10]. The only people who object substantially to this version are, in my opinion, known single-purpose accounts who actively promote fringe theories. To that end, unless they can provide a cogent reason why this version is problematic, I refuse to let them monopolize this page with their disruptive tacitcs. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

SA... Don't panic... anyone can talk all they want. It is very difficult to significantly change any policy or guideline page. A broad consensus in favor of the change needs to be demonstrated before that can happen. Thus, while a few may rant and rave all they want about how they see problems with this guideline... the guideline itself will not be changed unless they can demonstrate that the community at large supports their view. I don't think that is likely to happen. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent refactoring of ScienceApologist's post above has not been an improvement. Speaking for myself:

• I "object substantially" not so much to his version's content, since the changes are in fact fairly small, but to the way in which he is determined to force it through, using repeated reversions and personal insults as his weapons.
• I see the description single-purpose accounts to be no more relevant to this discussion than New Yorker or "people who wear socks with sandals" would be. As it happens, however, my last three substantial edits have been to create George Howard Clutsam, Skeffington, and The Ingersoll Lectures on Human Immortality. I'd be fascinated to hear SA's explanation of what "single purpose" these represent. SA's first sentence above is thus shown to be false.
• As for "promoting" fringe theories - what? all of them? My real attitude to "fringe" theories is that they are massively heterogeneous, having in common only their disagreement with some orthodoxy which might or might not reflect a real consensus. They vary, in my view, from those which might well be at least partially right, through to those which I regard as WP:CB, with the latter being in the large majority. I do not believe in "promoting" any of them; in all cases, where they are notable enough to be discussed at all, I believe in reporting facts as facts, and attributed opinions as attributed opinions, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and in treating Wikipedia's readers as having enough intelligence to make up their own minds about matters of opinion.
• I hardly need discuss where the "disruptive tacitcs" have been.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I too fail to understand SA's point about single purpose accounts. His own account seems to have a distinct agenda, as indicated by the manifesto on his user page and even his account name. Is he suggesting that we should discount his utterances because he is here to promote a particular POV? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that we drop this line of discussion immediately. Discuss the edits, not the editors. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone who has done much editing of fringe articles can doubt that single-purpose accounts frequently are a factor in problematic articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Junk it

I am thinking about nominating this guideline for deletion. Before discussing any changes, I believe we should have a poll about whether it should be retained at all. My argument as I stated above under "Unhappy with the Nutshell" is that it is unnecessary and harmful. Specifically, it is confusing, redundant, riven with inconsistencies, too long, and full of opportunities for fringe-theory advocates to spot loopholes that they will exploit. Anything that is good in it can already be found in the "senior" Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. So, let's hear it for the Deletes and Keeps.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep - this giudeline is constently referred to, and thus needed. WP:FTN (which relies upon it to answer questions, and help with problem pages) is one of the most active "help" pages that we have. If the consensus is that the wording of the gideline needs changing (something I am willing to consider, but not yet convinced of), then the guideline can be edited. But we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I said that the Fringe Theories Noticeboard is absolutely indispensable. It must be kept. My proposal is not about it, but about the guideline.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FTN depends on this guideline to make its determinations and give its advice. You can not have one without the other. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It surprises me you would say that. In the recent "Rothschild extreme-fringe claim" matter, you were one of the people providing valuable help. WP:UNDUE was sufficient then and the FRINGE guideline was unnecessary. FTN depends on the existence of well-placed links pointing to it from strategic places, not on the FRINGE guideline.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad I was helpful... but you should check the record again... I refferred to this guideline in my comments on that issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Before my opening post here, I went through the relevant thread on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, where you did not reference WP:FRINGE. However, as you correctly point out, you made reference to WP:FRINGE on Talk:Alois Hitler. I am sorry that I missed this, it was not my intention to misrepresent you. Looking at what you wrote there, however

This has come up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎... I'm sorry, but "the simple statement that the Rothschild theory is notable" does not satisfy the burden of evidence. If a theory is indeed notable, then there will be more than a few reliable sources that will substantiate that notability. See: WP:FRINGE. In this case, there is ample evidence to show that the Rothschild theory has been discredited. The most it deserves is a brief mention... a single sentence to say that it has been discredited. More than that is indeed giving the theory Undue Weight.

I find myself wondering if your reference to WP:FRINGE was not superfluous to your argument and whether the absence of it would not have harmed your argument at all.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep both, they both have an important role to play in the project, in addition to the policies and guidelines mentioned. Verbal chat 13:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodmorningworld, I do not understand what you think would be gained by deleting Fringe theories. Could you explain why you think WP would be better without it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CREEP which explains why more is not better when it comes to policies and guidelines. The context is our policies which explain that Wikipedia is not a place to develop bureaucratic rules or laws. See also Occam's razor and KISS principle. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to be a redundant grindstone/talking shop and so should be deleted per our policies WP:BURO, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAP. But you won't find many takers here as turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Perhaps we should cntralise this discussion or go straight to MfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to take it to MfD, where it will probably be a snowball keep. If it was redundant, why is FTN so busy? Why is it quoted so often? Why are people fighting over the wording so hard? Also, FTN and the fringe guideline do not endorse a battle attitude, but recently the guideline has been fought over - those are different things. We shouldn't delete a page just because there has been an edit war or some people try to use it to soapbox their views. Verbal chat 13:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: this guideline and the Fringe Theories Noticeboard are not Siamese twins. They are completely independent. I shall fight to keep the latter to the last drop of my blood, in the trenches and over telegraph wires.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that (although I guess you may be replying to CW), but I think both are useful. Verbal chat 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I've never used this guideline. With most of the articles I work on, if something is wrong its a gross error and with use of the larger policies we can work things out. However, as I understand it from these threads, there are articles in which finer more subtle issues are in play, and this guideline may be useful to those editors, both proponents and non supporters of fringe theories. In that case I see no reason to delete it especially if agreements can be reached in the editing of the guideline to clarify meaning.(olive (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC))
• Keep - It's very useful as a guideline - mind that it is not, and should not be a policy. If anything is problematic, it's the noticeboard, which some editors act like is some grand tribunal to make a binding determination what "science" is correct - exactly whose "science", paid for by whom, what country, etc. . So, I guess I have exactly the opposite view from Goodmorningworld. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While it needs a little polish, it's important for dealing with one of Wikipedia's most contentious areas. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Useful, especially perhaps for new editors but also as Littleolive oil says where things aren't crystal clear. I also thinking deleting it would be misunderstood and that some people would see it as a policy change. dougweller (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• keep of course. It needs to be looked after though. Keep it clear and concise and free of rambling or red tape. This guideline is intended to instruct editors who can recognize fringe theories when they look at them, its point is not to preach to the proponents of fringe theories themselves: these will not be dissuaded from what they are doing anyway. --dab (��) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Whichever - if it's kept it needs a decent rewrite. --Ludwigs2 20:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, with inevitable small amounts of clarification. Mathsci (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and no rewrite is necessary. I'll personally revert any rewrite that doesn't meet with a huge consensus of a wide range of editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think the minor comments suggested for change should be worked out on this talk page. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and discuss any proposed changes in detail here before implementing them. "On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.[dubious – discuss]" could do with some clarification, a section to discuss that will be appropriate to reach consensus. Otherwise, basically a good and very useful guideline. . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

step 1 - rough draft of new lead

ok, I've taken a stab at a rough draft for the lead in the sandbox. I doubt (reasonably) it will satisfy everyone, and it may not satisfy anyone at all, so let's iron out this before I move on to other sections. --Ludwigs2 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rough draft[11] is an improvement over the current article. --Hit the fan (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The rewrite contains way too much editorializing. Trim it down so it focuses on established policy, so that it reads more like -- hey, the current version of the lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a tendency to editorialize on policy. What it should be is general enough to set the goals, not to lecture others on what is and what isn't Fringe. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes... keep things broad and flexible... The rules are principles not a detailed law code. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the sandbox version should be deleted. From what I am seeing is no good is coming from it, just edit wars and personal attacks. I am also concerned with new accounts knowing so much about things that are happening around here. What are the thoughts about deleting the sandbox and resuming editing this policy to fix the minor problems that seem to be a concern to some? --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring would stop if you and OM, would stop deliberately disrupting the work of the editors trying to develop an improved version. You both really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I mean, your not even going to allow people to try to write a good a guideline. Your just going to block their attempt at every turn. You must be very afraid of what you might see.Deadasamackerel (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Hit the fan is a CU confirmed sockpuppet of banned User:Jagz. MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Deadasamackerel (talk · contribs) is likewise a fairly obvious alternate account being abused, and I've blocked it. Let's get back on track. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall that Elonka (so beloved among fringe theory editors) once mention that it is frequently easier to make necessary changes to the body of an article, and then to go back to re-write the lead. I have found that to be good advice, and think it might prove to be a good approach in this re-write also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that there is a need for a rewite. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand, specifically, what problems are to be resolved. Is there something that really needs to be changed, or is all this just being asked to jump through some hoops for the amusement to editors who dislike the project? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The "sandbox" lead starts badly and gets worse, completely obscuring the essential points which are clearly and concisely set out in the present lead. The case for any change must be made here in detail, that "sandbox" proposal does nothing to show any need for change. . dave souza, talk 20:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been working on the lead. I don't think it's at all a good idea to write the lead first. The lead should be written after the article. I'm going to comment out the current lead just to emphasize that. What I've been doing is copying and condensing the current FRINGE, and seperating out the different issues into their own sections. As it looks now, maybe the original structure proposal is not quite right, because most of the stuff applies whether it's a fringe idea in a mainstream article or an article on a fringe idea. Here is how I've been working:

1. Arrangement: seperation of issues is primary 2. Content: relationship to the policy pages is primary 3. Condensation: I've condensed things without changing their meaning.

In terms of new content, I suggest we need to make the violation of other policy which the current Parity of sources section in the current FRINGE embraces specific, so the reader knows that this is special stuff for FRINGE. As it is now, we already do what we need to do, but we don't say so. I have an idea of how to write it and will do so later today. But that's really necessary: how do we use fringe sources to round out an article while still writing a reliable encyclopedia. Again: we already embrace this, it's nothing new. We only need a better discussion of it. Suggestions before I start writing? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I also need a current consensus version of this section to put in the new FRINGE, unless people would like to just junk it. I won't put it in till we can come to some sort of consensus on it, as my re-writing it myself would not be good form. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is especially important: it's the principles behind Parity of sources, and I'd like any feedback you can give me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)