Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience
Before posting, make sure you understand this short summary of relevant policies and advice and particularly the guideline on treating fringe theories. Also, check the archives for similar discussions. We can help determine whether the topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially. Our purpose is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but to describe them properly. Never present fringe theories as fact. If you mention specific editors, you should notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so. Deploy {{talk fringe|the fringe theory name}} to articles' talkpages under discussion. Please also notify any relevant Wikiprojects to encourage an increased visibility for the discussion.
Search this noticeboard & archives Lowercase sigmabot III will archive sections older than 20 days Additional notes: Discussion of fringe theories will only depend on coverage in reliable sources. Medicine-related claims must comply with more stringent sourcing requirements, but we also generally prefer academic sources. We are not a forum to discuss fringe theories as such. Our goal is to improve articles about them, or create new ones if needed. For concerns about neutrality in articles not about fringe theories, use the neutral point of view noticeboard. Report article content that appears to violate the no original research rule at this noticeboard. Paste {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section when your concern was addressed.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#United_Kingdom

Think I've got this in line with reality - it contained several counterfactual statements, like implying that the Faculty of Homeopaths was a branch of the NHS (!!!) and stating that the government rejected the Evidence check on homeopathy, when in fact it put the decision to the Primary Care Trusts, many of which do not fund homeopathy anymore. It also tried to use figures from 2006 to paint a rosy picture of funding in the UK, when the latest reports show a very, very significant decline.

Examples of appalling material removed:

“ ...the National Health Service (NHS) currently operates two homeopathic hospitals, and the Luton-based Faculty of Homeopathy... ”

No, it does NOT operate the Faculty of Homeopathy.

“ ]]. Homeopathy in Britain quickly became the preferred medical treatment of the upper classes as well as the aristocracy; it retained an elite clientele, including members of the British royal family. At its peak in the 1870s, Britain had numerous homeopathic dispensaries and small hospitals as well as large busy hospitals in Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, London and Bristol. ”

You may not think that's particularly bad - until you realise the article's about present day regulation and prevalence, and no other country - not even Germany, which created it - has Homeopathy's glorious past triumphs described.

The article also lied by ommission:

“ A study commissioned by West Kent Primary Care Trust in 2007 found similar figures for referrals for homeopathic treatment, but that referrals were almost always at the patient's request rather than as a result of a clincal decision. ”

Not mentioned: West Kent PCT closed Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital two years later, which tends to change figures. Also, the article, until today, failed to mention any figures from after 2006. Given the last three years have seen major campaigns against homeopathy, it tends to change things.

Remaining problems

I find the other sections of this article dubious, given how the U.K. section attempted to misrepresent the situation. In particular, it has a tendency to a rather pro-homeopathic tone:

“ According to the European Committee for Homeopathy, homeopathic industrial manufacturers register only those products that are economically feasible, e.g. in the case of the Netherlands 600 out of a total of 3,000. The strict safety requirements even for very high dilutions of biological substances also impede registration for certain homeopathic products such as nosodes. As a result, several homeopathic products have disappeared from the market. ”

That's right: The article presents the loss of nosodes - fake vaccines, which Britain's NHS has had to do an entire campaign warning people not to take - as a bad thing, and much of the article's language is in this "Isn't it horrible when Homeopathy is restrained, but isn't it great when it isn't?" sort of tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.223.49 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2011

Climate change alarmism

It seems the article Climate change alarmism was closed with merge but it seems some editors have decided to remove all mention of this rather than bring it to a deletion review. I reverted the deletion of the merge tags. What is the correct response now? Some diffs: [1] [2]. Talk page section: Talk:Climate_change_alarmism#Inappropriate_merge_tag_removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the relevance of raising this here? I hope you are not canvassing for support, instead of discussing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not implicitly accuse me of canvassing. I am asking what to do in a situation where the closure of the AfD for a article was overruled without going through any of the appropriate channels. Since the article is fringe and has been mentioned here previously it is of issue here. No deletion review discussion has been brought forward in the four days since closure either. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate channel... Since i really really doubt if the concept in any way or form can be construed as fringe. (Hint: It is a sociological/political concept/claim - not a scientific one). So my question is very much relevant (as is the question about canvassing): Why are you bringing it here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If an AfD results in merge, merge away. It's appropriate to raise it here since it has been discussed here before. Thank you for updating us. In sociology and politics it is a neologism that hasn't caught on, therefore merge sounds like a good solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That it has been raised here before, doesn't make a precedence (or make canvassing Ok). As for being a neologism - that is incorrect (and as mentioned in the AfD: A strawman). The subject is alarmism (and alarmism claims) within the topic of climate change, which most certainly is a rather large concept... in fact a topic/claim that you can find mentions of each and every day in your google news updates.

What are google news updates? Are they a reliable source for sociology of science? Should I include them in the search of the scholarly literature on climate change denial that I am doing? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Google news update is a subscription service where you subscribe to news that matches search criteria, and get a mail once in a while with the news items that match. It has nothing what so ever to do with science - but it usually contains quite a lot of very reliable sources (since news usually is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My original take on this, was to let the editors on both articles figure out what to do (as the closing admin suggested[3]). But it seems that this is not an option. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If the AfD result was merge, the article should be merged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Had global warming controversy been a small article, and not an article that already has had to be split into several subarticles, and probable still needs to do so (it is at the very limit)... then that merge would probably have been uncontroversial and gone through without any problems. But it is already bloated, it is already turning into a summary article - so it is a problem to merge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...Yet the result of the discussion was to merge. The fact that merging seems to be a problem is not a reason to avoid the task. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy

Can someone check the recent edits? I question whether homeopathy-promoting organisations are reliable sources for prevalence. 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust it for the 400 GPs statement. It would not be suprising if a group designed to promote anything exaggerates. I changed it to a claim that they make. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Emotional Freedom Technique‎

There is currently a user who has brought up an old discussion regarding a self published source by the founder of EMT (See "Open letter," first discussion on talk). I've engaged in the discussion but it's finals week and I will not have time to continue until at least next week. So if anyone wants to head over there and help determine the reliability of the source it would be helpful. N^oformation ^Talk 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the World's Oldest Story - Mindjuicer (talk · contribs), an agenda account, has been on a mission to promote Emotional Freedom Technique and remove appropriately sourced criticism of it. He's picked up a block for edit-warring along the way but is still at it. Currently the issue is the classic fringe re-definition of "expert" to include only those people with a direct stake in the fringe topic. I've contributed off and on to this article, which I think has overall been a poor use of my time, but other eyes are welcome. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice you didn't answer the question, posed by Noformation (talk · contribs) in good faith. Could it be your sole reason for posting it is to bias anyone responding against me?

For my own part, dealing with Mastcell (talk · contribs) and most of the editors has been a remarkably frustrating experience causing me to give up on Wikipedia twice. All of them have displayed a clear POV against EFT. Not knowing the obscure rule structure of WP, you will see time and time again that many attempts have been made to improve the article which have been instantly reverted, with no explanation and no attempt to help the newbies (why would they? they like the article in its shambolic POV state). Mastcell (talk · contribs) and Bobrayner (talk · contribs) have been the worst culprits, consistently writing hostile things to newbies like his comment here. Furthermore, they frequently misinterpret rules for their own benefit and a new user doesn't know any better. The article history and talk page will validate what I'm saying.

The article is full of unreliable sources (2 & 3 in the intro) - the bias against this one is purely because it's a valid and powerful criticism of a primary source which they've interpreted to match their agenda. Indeed, one of those POV statements (that EFT is a pseudoscience) is based on something Craig said in the source in question.

There is only one other primary source and no secondary or tertiary sources.

I too welcome new eyes, preferably NPOV ones. Mindjuicer (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI Mindjuicer: A sure-sign of a POV-pusher is someone who contends that there is such a thing as a NPOV-editor (and normally that they themselves are it). Everybody has a POV and everybody is going to be biased in some way or another. It is a common misconception that WP:NPOV means "all sides get a fair hearing" when this is manifestly not the case. If the mainstream, third-party, independent sources do not give a particular idea a "fair hearing", Wikipedia will end up, by virtue of its goal to spend the most time focusing on such sources, focusing on these critiques. Editors are not supposed to have Wikipedia's text adopt any POV, but simply by spending the most space discussing the mainstream evaluations of a topic, we are going to be necessarily pushed away from "equality" or "balance" with fringe ideas. What's worse, if there are no sources that independently consider an idea, the idea is supposed to be excluded from Wikipedia entirely, which can just about feel like the worst sort of treatment to someone convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That's where cries of "CENSORSHIP!" begin. If you truly believe that your idea deserves a balanced mention in Wikipedia, you're going to find yourself frustrated. It's better to realize that the text which describes your novel idea is going to necessarily be skewed towards focusing on the mainstream critiques to the exclusion of primary sourced claims. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems somewhat unrelated to noformation's request but rather an attempt at psychic mind-reading?

It seems a straightforward consequence of the fact WP considers some pages to be NPOV that some editors can be NPOV too. Or perhaps I should have asked for pro-EFT eyes - would that have been better?

I have made many edits to many articles over the last 7+ years (no, WP doesn't show them in my history - it has a habit of logging me out more than I deemed it worth logging in). The only ones that have ever been reverted are on fringe sciences and protosciences in my field of expertise, EFT included. All of these articles are in such poor shape that it might lead one to believe WP is broken for such articles. I have a different theory - that there is far more zealotry on the side of 'protecting the poor unenlightened mites from pseudoscience' than there is on the side of the fringe theories and newbies are given hostile signals that drive them away such that a balancing consensus is never formed. WP doesn't stand a chance unless people like myself stand up to them.

As I said, you can see for yourself how newbie edits to make the article more NPOV are instantly reverted on the article. You can see some of the abuse from Mastcell without even changing page.

Anyway, this page isn't for waffling so let's get back to noformation's request OK? Mindjuicer (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a substantial gut. There's no review articles I'm aware of, and it's based on hypothetical wishful thinking (TCM). The page shouldn't promote the theory, I think we at the FTN realize it's pseudoscience and nonsense giving undue weight to an idea that is at best speculative and not published in a whole lot of reliable journals. This theory has zero credibility in mainstream journals and shouldn't get a lot of length. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather incredible that people at the FT/N don't understand the difference between pseudoscience, fringe science and protoscience. Mindjuicer (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Falsifiability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to point out where it factually states that unfalsifiability is sufficient for claiming something is a pseudoscience? Or do you want me to point out where I explained how EFT is falsifiable, that this claim is your WP:OR because it misinterprets a magazine source that shoudn't be in your version anyway and you didn't counter?

This article desperately needs NPOV eyes. WLU and noformation are relying on consensus to push through POV edits on an article already tagged POV. Mindjuicer (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Where are the high-quality, mainstream, high-impact, respected peer-reviewed journals or statements from the APA, APA or AMA saying EFT is a quality approach that is recommended for treatment? That's what you need to demonstrate that the page isn't getting the respect it deserves. Low-impact, non-pubmed-indexed, shoddy and defunct journals publishing poorly-designed studies are not enough to demonstrate EFT "works". Essentially there is not enough mainstream attention to outweigh the Skeptical Inquirer article; as a publication specializing in the skeptical and debunking nonsense, it is an appropriate parity source to make claims like that - particularly in the absence of any real and credible research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Where are the high-quality, mainstream, high-impact, respected peer-reviewed journals or statements from the APA, APA or AMA saying EFT is a quality approach that is recommended for treatment? That's what you need to demonstrate that the page isn't getting the respect it deserves." No, this is just your POV. Thanks for showing everyone how unsuitable you are for editing fring science articles.

Low-impact, non-pubmed-indexed, shoddy and defunct journals publishing poorly-designed studies are not enough to demonstrate EFT "works". The two Pubmed sources say that it does. I'd just like to be clear that you're equating the reliableness of these with a magazine which relies on being as skeptical as possible for survival and has no forum for criticism of itself. Mindjuicer (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Transhumanism?

Transhumanism. Article defines the topic as an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Appears to be based partly on science fiction writings, especially "cyberpunk" and various brain/computer interface ideas, and partly on notions of reviving eugenics. If this is a fringe idea it's a huge rat's nest of one, with long, detailed articles on postgenderism, the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies (for some, all you'd need is a small loop of piano wire) and extropianism, apparently a way to re-brand eugenics by the time tested strategy of calling it something else. There's even an outline of transhumanism.

I checked the archive; this thing has apparently only been mentioned once on this noticeboard, in the context of singularitarianism, something about the creation of a technological singularity, apparently an electronic intelligence that takes over the world, envisioned for once as a good thing. That's an original take on that bit of fiction, at any rate. This seems to be a whole nest of fringe theories, at least in my understanding of the word; and the coverage seems deep enough to invoke WP:UNDUE as well. It seems to me to be deep, deep coverage of an elaborate fantasy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the impression that I have always had. Hans Adler 10:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a kernel of respectable social science there, that is an extension of futurology. Of course it is necessary for social scientists to predict likely future developments, and even to advocate for one kind of future rather than another. Cyberpunk is a well known literary genre that has to be discussed in literary criticism and cultural studies. Eugenics is discredited science, but there are attempts to continue or revive it, not just from this quarter, and they need to be covered without either advocacy or debunking. Beyond that, all is fringe. And I think also, each of the kinds of fringe in the Arbcom definitions is represented, from minority scientific interpretations to away with the fairies. The Outline article is dreadful. I don't think the template is called for. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the most entrenched walled gardens that Wikipedia has (along with the Austrian School of Economics). It's so entrenched that I predict anyone who goes weeding there will end up in arbitration. Oddly enough, the same people who advocate for outlines are the ones advocating for transhumanism. I'm not sure what the connection is. 128.59.171.194 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is anything like editing singularitarianism expect that any changes you make to be viewed as being contentious. :< outline of transhumanism appears to be a category page in disguise. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the whole outline thing is separate from fringe, even if the same people who support transhumanism support outlines. It would have to go to Village Pump, I suppose. Now, how to approach cleaning up this series of article. A good start might be to list the journals that are used as sources in the articles and sort them into a) obviously non-fringe, and b) perhaps fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The journal "Journal of Evolution and Technology" is definitely fringe. The Journal of Human Security I'm less sure on. It seems to be published by a small publishing firm just australia and new zealand; so it may just be a small journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw the phrase "deep, deep coverage of an elaborate fantasy" and I thought for a moment you were describing a different article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I went through the journals used in the series of articles. That is, the series in the navbox. There is also CATEGORY:Transhumanism with lots of sub-categories; there's a portal; there's the outline article. These are the journals cited somewhere in the series, with my own suggestions as to how they can be regarded:

Very good

• Nature Neuroscience
• Physiological and Biochemical Zoology
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
• Cancer Research
• Experimental Gerontology (Elsevier)
• Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (Elsevier)

Good enough

• American Journal of Law and Medicine “the country’s leading health law journal”. Published by Boston University School of Law
• Cultural Critique. University of Minnesota Press
• Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics

Discussion needed

• Journal of American Chemical Society (citation is to a 1918 article)
• Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy. “A legal periodical run by students at the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America in Washington”.
  • Law reviews, which are the major venues of legal scholarship in the English-speaking world, are "scholarly journal[s] focusing on legal issues, normally published by an organization of students at a law school or through a bar association." StN (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This sounds to me like SOP for a law journal. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

SOP? (This one is low priority for checking, anyway.) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure. (Teach me not to use a TLA!) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Journal of Evolution and Technology. Published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Nick Bostrom and Aubrey de Grey are on the editorial board. No institutional affiliations in the editorial board listing.
• The Immortalist (Cryonics Institute)
• Cryonics (Alcor. Listing of articles rather than a journal?)
• Cryobiology (Elsevier)
• Alcor Indiana newsletter (Alcor Indiana)
• Alcor News (Alcor Life Extension Foundation)

There were also numerous references to top-quality magazines and newspapers: The Age, New York Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Wired, Slate, etc. References to the Daily Mail and Fox News. To obscure art journals/magazines/websites. To advocacy organisations. To pdfs with little identification. And last but not least, to blogs. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be easier to start with one article; Transhumanism appears to be the main article. It seems easier to bring up one article at a time to quality. Much of that article appears to go off-topic and also includes criticisms from other fringe groups such as anarcho-primitivists and neo-luddites. The section talking about Martin Rees in the controversies section for example doesn't appear to have any direct connection to transhumanism.

Journal of Evolution and Technology and The Immortalist sound in-universe. The use of fringe journals can sometimes be justified if you wish to show what this fringe believes; I assume it can't be used as a rebuttal to mainstream peer-reviewed criticisms much like it would be for science articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK to start with the Transhumanism article. I will post on the talk page about what I see as some of the problems, and point to the discussion here. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cryobiology [4] looks to be a valid scientific journal. Looking at the articles they publish, I would be more concerned that someone is synthesizing from papers not addressing what they are being cited to support, but I would have to see the specific citations to tell for sure. Agricolae (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

As a philosophy, Transhumanism is notable and has academically established proponents. It also contains a large share of fringe theory and pseudoscience. This was recognized by three early editors (including myself) who, while not always agreeing on what was sound and what was fringe, added the Controversies section to interrogate POV elements and qualify ambiguous ones. This laid the basis for the long process leading to Featured Article status. StN (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming over. Your evaluation is exactly what I said in my first post in this thread. The many hours of labour that editors have put into this article is a tribute to Wikipedia collaborative editing. But Wikipedia moves on, and we need to apply a new round of collaborative editing. The Criticisms section of the article became Controversies, which is better, but it would be better still to integrate the controversial topics throughout the article. The referencing needs attention, as it doesn't meet the current criteria for FA. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Media_coverage_of_climate_change

Merged some content here; the bit about global cooling needs some better citations for global cooling, but it's one of those situations where, without grabbing some stuff from global cooling to explain the mainstream position, we'd lose a whole section of useful documentation of fringe ideas.

I don't feel too bad, though: Media coverage of climate change was poorly-cited before the merge, so the merge, as a whole, probably improved matters. 86.** IP (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

An article on a conspiracy theory... which spends most of its time promoting the theory. This needs torn to pieces. 86.** IP (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. A crock o' shite, as my Irish friends would put it. I'm not sure about tearing it to pieces though. AfD it, as a POV fork, and be done with it - there is no separate 'conspiracy theory' argument when it comes to criticism of the scientific consensus, as far as I'm aware - this should be covered under Global warming controversy, rather than forked in such a way that wild and unfalsifiable drivel can be given more weight than it deserves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Erg, think you could get this one? Having just gone through one, I really don't want to have to deal with that crowd again. 86.** IP (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno - I may be involved with other things (like a life off-Wikipedia: I seem to remember having one ;-) ), and I'm not sure I can face another 'debate' with people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is a paid agent of something-or-another. Though come to think of it, the people who claim I'm trying to suppress 'the truth' about cold fusion because I'm in the pay of the oil-barons will have problems with me supporting the anti-oil-baron line here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you crowd could stick to describing these fringe theories if notable rather than thinking you have a mission to expound the truth to the world? And Global warming controversy is simply the wrong place to put crank stuff, it is a top level article and it is mainly about the arguments about the science and its implication rather than crankery and paid for denial which is referred to but left to other articles. The wild and unfalsifiable drivel is notable and if you have concerns about weight they should be dealt with as such. We don't go trying to shove Jesus Christ under charlatans with his unverifiable and unbelievable miracles because the topic is notable. This is an encyclopaedia, not an organ of a version of correct thought like conservapedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that describing the topic as a 'Global warming conspiracy theory' is that there actually isn't a single core theory here at all - instead it is a random collection of more general conspiracy theories, linked only in referring to climate change in some way or another. At minimum, the article needs renaming - to 'theories', and a fundamental rewrite to make it clear that the topic is 'conspiracy theories' and not 'global warming' - frankly though, I'm not entirely convinced we need articles on every subject that conspiracy-theorists concoct their nonsense over. They inevitably attract partisan editors, and rarely come up to encyclopaedic standards. Still, this probably needs more thought, as we can't just pretend that such theories don't exist. I think what is needed most is secondary sources which actually analyse the theories, and put them into context. Without such sources, all we have is a collection of claims and counter-claims... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

86, that's a malformed AfD you created. There's an AfD template on the page, but you didn't create the talk page. Do you think you can fix that? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Very poor article. We need solutions to the whole series of articles on the debate, or politics around climate change. These topics now have an academic social science literature and appropriate sources should be used. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; Firefox crashed, and I didn't have time to finish. The AfD is now completed. 86.** IP (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man. By the way, you realize it's just a matter of time before someone starts calling you Agent 86, right? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. 86.** IP (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Spurred by this discussion, and by suggestions that mergers are inappropriate because some articles are already too long, I had a look through all the articles in [[Category: Climate change assessment and attribution]]. These are my impressions of the articles, and some suggestions for improvement:

• Climate Capitalism. 2011 book. No reason given for notability.
• Climate change denial. This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. Possibly of the nature of a POV fork, although I hesitate to say that, because an editor regards identification of POV-forking as a slur on the good faith of editors on an article, and invalid unless one can show which article another was “rewritten from”. To formulate it differently: probably not a good idea to have an article on one extreme position in a debate.
• Climatic Research Unit documents. Was created to take detail out of Climatic Research Unit email controversy. This need to be revisited with the benefit of hindsight, and consider merging back. Shorter is likely to be better.
• Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Needs some rewriting to take out the WP:RECENT reliance on news sources.
• Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports. No indication that this is a notable topic.
• Garnaut Climate Change Review. Material in lead that should be in main body.
• Ross Garnaut. Should carry the biography, no need for detail that should be in Garnaut Climate Change Review.
• Global warming controversy. Carries the explanation of where scientific objections differ from the mainstream, which doesn’t sit well with the discussions of the roles of IPCC, Kyoto, etc. Move the sections that explain the scientific topics to Scientific opinion on climate change and start to turn that into an article rather than a misnamed list. This article then becomes the head article for all articles relating to the controversy.
• Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints (2002). Book. 2002 is one edition; there are redlinks to other editions. No indication of notability. Article title not in accordance with guidelines.
• Greenhouse debt. Concept introduced by Friends of the Earth. May be a non-notable neologism. Article veers from denial of its validity to promotion. Closely related conceptually to ecological footprint, therefore merge.
• IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Table of contents and other material not written in an encyclopedic manner.
• IPCC First Assessment Report. Dump of the executive summary.
• IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. This is a long article. Lots of listing of report content. Bullet points overused. Does have section on reception.
• IPCC Second Assessment Report. Short descriptive summary. Nothing on importance or reception.
• IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Quotefarm.
• IPCC supplementary report, 1992. Short article, could be merged with IPCC First Assessment Report.
• IPCC Third Assessment Report. Summary of contents.
• List of authors from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. What is this article for? Mostly red links.
• The London Accord. Sourced from the organisation itself. Not clear if the programme is still active.
• National Assessment on Climate Change. Needs attention. Embedded ELs, lack of clarity about which programme ran when. Precursor of Climate Change Science Program, so merge with that article.
• Representative Concentration Pathways. Stub on predictions in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Merge with the article on that report.
• Scientific opinion on climate change. Despite its title, this is a series of lists, full of bullet points and quotes.
• Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Does explain what these reports are, but an obscure topic that probably needs to be merged.
• Stern Review. Embedded ELs, long quotes and too much to-and-fro of the argument.

All this looks like a job for the Climate Change Taskforce, and I will post there, but wanted to keep this board informed since the whole category relates to a debate in which one side is mainstream and the other fringe in one way or another. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I have no problem with some merging of articles, I think that would be good. But I would like to point out a problem which a number of editors coming to this seem to have by just dealing with the second on the list 'climate change denial'. There is a comment here: Possibly of the nature of a POV fork, although I hesitate to say that, because an editor regards identification of POV-forking as a slur on the good faith of editors on an article, and invalid unless one can show which article another was “rewritten from”. I don't know which editor is being referred to about the slur, but can I emphasise the bit about identifying what it is a POV of. In a recent deletion debate POV fork was bandied about at the debate by some people from this project without figuring out that point. They just put in 'Climate change controversy' as a general catch all without as far as I can see actually even looking at the 'Climate change controversy' article to see where it would go never mind what it was a fork of. Talk about accusing me of being part of a cabal! Anyway just so you are at least informed even if not comprehending and confusing lack of understanding with lack of substance I will try and explain why climate change controversy would be a bad place to put climate change denial.

If you will look at global warming controversy you will find that it is a well based on scholarly sources about global warming and its possible effects and mitigation and contains a lot about alternatives proposed and the scholarly assessment of them. All very good and correct and according to weight by this projects standards I would guess. It is a very reasonable target for climate change skeptic which redirects to it assuming in the first instance that skeptic means what it is supposed to mean rather than what it is increasing becoming to mean. Basically it is correct when weight means the scholarly sources about global warming. In fact it is practically a fork of Global warming except it deals with the objections from scientists and has a bit about the political side. In there it refers to global warming denial under funding for partisans and has a list of some instances with no analysis.

Now why isn't the section there expanded? Well it would be inappropriate to do so. It really isn't about the controversy. It has no scholarly weight in the context of the controversy because there is nothing scientific about paying a lot of people to try and obstruct and befuddle. It has nothing to do with the science behind global warming. And the main part of the article is about the scientific controversy. It is a reasonable target for climate change skeptic. We do not say that skeptics in general are paid for deniers who couldn't care less about the topic in itself. That is a different topic. It is related as something that should be mentioned in that context but it is not part of the same topic.

So what happens when there is an article about climate change denial? Well it has had four nominations for deletion and an attempt to just redirect it to global warming controversy. The talk page has 29 archives with continuing charges that it is a conspiracy theory or that it is insulting to skeptics, and on the other hand editors like the crowd here wanting to stick the scientific consensus about climate change into every second sentence because of their desire to promote the scientific truth. It has nothing to do with scientific truth. It doesn't describe the run of the mill 'skeptic'. And on that note could I also mention that Environmental skepticism has had prod stuck on it recently which has just been declined saying "Redundant to either Climate change denial or The Skeptical Environmentalist; we rather need a bit of a trim down of this over-bloated set of articles." Well it isn't a fork of denial either, it describes the run of the mill skeptic, there isn't much about them even though they are huge in number as they are mainly Jo public. There have also been attempts to direct climate change skeptic to climate change denial rather than global warming controversy because since the scientific evidence is so convincing they must all be deniers so they say.

Now the point about all this is that it is a notable topic like lots of others, and just because it says climate change in the title does not mean it is about the scientific evidence. Saying there is lots of articles and one would like to cut them down does not mean automatically that they are suitable for cutting down. One needs to check that the topics really are compatible and really do fit together as a single topic. Stuff from the article global warming alarmism has been just plonked into media coverage of climate change with no consideration of suitability except that in part of it some newspapers have used the term and reported people using it.

So overall I would ask editors here to stop looking at articles from just the perspective of whether they promote scientific truth or not. That blinds to a lot of other things. Just looking at 'climate change denial', oh that's about a POV in a debate. It isn't even part of the debate.

Oh and I notice a complete misunderstanding of Scientific opinion of climate change too above looking at it as if it was about the science. It is not about the science. It is about scientific opinion. That is not scientific except in so far as surveys are done of it and I suppose a survey could be called scientific. It is an article on the same sort basis as Public opinion on climate change. The top level science article is global warming. And no before you start we don't need to merge scientific opinion of climate change and public opinion of climate change and remove everything about the public perception because of the greater weigh of the scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered post. I will have to read it all carefully. It is taking me a long time to get my head around who thinks what belongs where. And I think that indicates that we have too many articles, because the structure ought to be clear to someone like me who follows the debates and cares about the science and its communication. I am relying on the scientists here to ensure that Global warming and the more detailed daughter articles are based on reliable sources and properly reflect what is agreed and what is up for debate. When it comes to the politics, sociology, even the philosophy of science, I am more qualified to comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree the climate articles could be improved. Here is one big way. I am not pursuing it at present so if anyone else wants to bring it back from the archives, please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As the IP has provided no examples or evidence that the article is "promoting the theory", or that (per WP:FRINGE) the article gives undue weight to the topic, and a week's discussion has produced no such examples or evidence, I suggest that the assertion of fringe fails, and is unwarranted. In particular, the IP's assertion "[t]his needs torn to pieces" is unwarranted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Evidence to the contrary (above) also noted. There can be no question that the multiple forks of articles on climate change have led to a situation where our coverage of the topic is uneven, and many articles lack proper balance. It isn't so much the case that this article needs to be torn to pieces, but that most of them need substantial editing and consolidation. Having the same material discussed under multiple topics does nothing other than add confusion, and make proper editorial oversight difficult - though I'm sure that some people prefer it that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lee Carroll

Fringe article up for AfD with attempts to add presentations to a UN club for UN members and staff = presentations to a club are clearly trivial, yet when you add 'UN-Chartered' it sounds important. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism (shorter)

Might I request some eyes and editors at paraphilic infantilism? Citing two sources by Blanchard et al, an editor warred to include the fringe theory "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."[42][43][44][45][46][47] from August to Dec 6th. The first source chose to use terms other than infantilism. The second included the text "They [Fruend and Blanchard] interpreted ... infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." This contradicts the mainstream position, that infantilism is a form of masochism (DSM 4TR pg 572) or separate, not pedophilia. When criticized at RS/N[48], he did a 180. He is now using the same sources to make nearly the opposite point, and still fighting to do so[49][50][51]. The text dedicated to Blanchard's theory or theories takes up 10% of the article and appears in three sections.

Should Blanchard's theories on autoerotic pedophiles/masochistic gynephiles/whatever be included? If so, which interpretation? Or should it be removed at least until the one who wants to cite Blanchard finds a source that wasn't written by Blanchard or Blanchard's colleagues? BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A fuller discussion can be found in the section above (permanent link). The current page uses Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree to verify the statements that pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different disorders, pointing out that pedophiles desire children as sexual partners while paraphilic infantilists desire adult sexual partners who treat them as children (more accurately, they are aroused by the idea of being a child, much like a transvestic fetishist is attracted to the idea of dressing like the opposite gender). The current page does not say PI is an autoerotic form of pedophilia, it says "Another theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centred on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." The actual source uses the term "autoerotic pedophilia" but the intent is clearly to distinguish the two and I recently edited the page to keep the intent while removing the loaded word "pedophile" (an application of WP:TECHNICAL since most people will see "pedophile" and assume child abuse; also note me expressing my discomfort with the term in August).

The theory of erotic target location errors is not a fringe theory. It was proposed in The British Journal of Psychiatry and repeated most recently in a 2008 book published by the Oxford University Press - making it at worst an alternative theoretical formulation (the kind pointed out as "not a fringe theory" in WP:FRINGE/PS) but in my mind simply a theory on a topic with minimal mainstream research (a fact pointed out in the page as well, here). The American Psychiatric Association that publishes the DSM does not have a "mainstream" view on paraphilic infantilism and the DSM does not classify paraphilic infantilism as a type of masochism; under the masochism section the DSM mentions "being treated as an infant" as a behaviour masochists will engage in for the humiliation. This has been discussed twice now on the reliable sources noticeboard [52] and [53] (and at ANI once). Paraphilic infantilism itself has a discussion where the DSM's mention of infantilism is questioned, Paraphilic infantilism#Masochism.

I have never claimed paraphilic infantilists were pedophiles, I've repeatedly pointed out the two are different and integrated several sources, including the reliable ones mentioned above, to verify the distinction. I see tremendous value in keeping these sources, published in highly respectable venues (Oxford University Press and The British Journal of Psychiatry) because they so clearly make the distinction between the illegal raping of children and perfectly legal role-playing of childlike behaviours. If we're discussing the opinions of AerobicFox, the actual discussion on his talk page might be useful. There has indeed been edit warring, for instance [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. Considering Bittergrey and I both agree paraphilic infantilism isn't pedophilia, I'm not sure why he wants to remove these sources and the accompanying text, and why he keeps tagging the idea that the two are different as a fringe theory or undue weight [60]. I think the fact that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles is a very important fact to be found in the page and it's not undue weight to note it. I believe the tags should be removed and the page should continue to distinguish between paraphilic infantilists and pedophiles. I'd really like it if I were not continually accused of being biased and unreasonable when all I have done is cite reliable sources to substantiate my points and justify my edits. It would also be nice if I were not continuously misrepresented as edit warring to conflate pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the appropiate venue to complain about another users edits (other venues exist), it is best to focus on the fringe issue; on the theory I'm not sure if the theory is fringe or not. I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality to try and attract some more attention to here. I looked at the discussions in RSN and Wikipedia_talk:MEDRS and here. From RSN, DSM mentioned by BitterGrey does not mention appear to mention the term paraphilic infantilism. It has something similar under masochism but it is possibly a different fetish. It seems possible that WLU's changes are just an alternative theory. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks IRWolfie. Paraphilic infantilism is usually just called 'infantilism.' The APA's definition (among the paraphilias, in the masochism section) is short, but even one of the authors WLU is citing cited the DSM as a reliable source on (paraphilic) infantilism[61]. Regarding the edit history, WLU is accusing[62] and implying[63] that I was the source of the pre-Dec 6th "misrepresentation". It was necessary to provide diffs in self-defense.

As for the alternate theory, would that be before or after the 180? (That is, infantilism as a type of pedophilia, or infantilism unrelated to pedophilia?)BitterGrey (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Complete, utter, inapplicability of James Cantor's opinions and irrelevance of an edit made three and a third years ago, [64], [65]

Single mention of infantilism by DSM [66] in addition to three discussions above [67], [68], [69]

Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Banchard & Barbaree are both reliable sources used in paraphilic infantilism to verify that infantilism and pedophilia are two different paraphilias. As I've said before [70], [71], I'm not sure why Bittergrey edit warred [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77] to remove these sources and thus the clarification they bring to this point.

And like I said before, I'm not sure why we're here if we agree that pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different and I'm using high-quality sources to distinguish between them. Is the whole point of this section an effort to make me look bad? And how do I look bad merely because I keep insisting on retaining high quality sources to verify a point that we both agree on? All I want at this point is to remove the now unnecessary tags on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish WLU would stop trying to make this something personal. Had WLU been open to conversation, we might have been able to resolve this. ("I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."). Now he's complaining about being made to look bad. He never retracted his accusation that I added that citation to the DSM[78] that was added by Cantor[79]. He is also claiming that his pre-Dec-6th position was actually my "misrepresentation" of the sources. ( This would involve me mind-controlling him into edit warring against me somehow :) ) The more false accusations he makes, the more I will need to defend myself, making him look bad in the process.

On Dec 6th, the meaning of the contested text was reversed, from infantilism is a type of pedophilia, to infantilism is NOT a type of pedophilia. The sources cited haven't changed. My position - which has not changed - is that the autoerotic pedophilia/masochistic gynephiles theory written about by Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al is not sufficiently covered by clear, independent RSs. BitterGrey (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cantor added the DSM three years ago. The link I added in that diff is this one, where you are replacing the DSM on August 14th, two days after an extensive discussion that indicated the DSM was not an appropriate citation for that point. My comment about ignoring your claims of bias came after lengthy and pointless discussions spanning three archives at talk:paraphilic infantilism alone where Bittergrey consistently didn't listen to outside input - First archive, second and third. Not to mention I still addressed and took seriously your substantive points as in this section despite having you lecture me about assuming good faith. Not to mention an entire section of the RSN where you didn't listen to outside input that you were wrong, and another one here and a third one yet ongoing here. As for misrepresentation of sources - you've been claiming for months now that the DSM is relevant to the parpahilc infantilism page. Again, nobody agrees with you, and there are three different lengthy discussions in which several editors point out that it is not relevant to paraphilic infantilism beyond the short mention already there. Yet still, you claim things like the DSM represents the APA's consensus position on paraphilic infantilism [80]. You accuse me of conflating parpahlic infantilism and pedophilia despite a discussion in August that demonstrates I know the two are different and wanted to avoid the term. You accuse me of changing my mind December 6th when on August 30th I suggested a wording nearly identical to what I used on December 7th. I shouldn't have to repeat the fact that your representation of James Cantor's opinion on the DSM is both irrelevant and inaccurate. I shouldn't have to keep repeating that I know paraphilic infantilism isn't pedophilia. I've been consistently responding to your points, but you're ignoring mine in favour of the same links and the same false claims that I have repeatedly shown to be false. So don't talk to me about misrepresentation. I listen to outside input, I apologize when I've made a mistake, I accept feedback. Can you please stop lecturing me about bias and just let it drop before we end up at arbitration? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A link to the whole of archive 3. WLU's diff skips, among other things, his edit war with a bot[81], which I'm sure is my fault too somehow :). Wouldn't it be great if we could just discuss Blanchard's autoerotic pedphilia/masochistic gynephilia theory without all of this misdirection? BitterGrey (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note... there is a parallel discussion on this topic at WP:RSN#Paraphilic_infantilism. I don't think this is a case of forum shopping (there are legitimate questions that relate to both noticeboards)... but I would suggest that we centralize these discussions, so we can discuss the various issues in one place without giving conflicting advice. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey, if you genuinely want a discussion of the issues, stop bringing up my name and my alleged motivation. Lay out the best arguments you have that the ETLE is a fringe theory and leave out any and all diffs. Stop bringing editor behaviour into a discussion of a policy point. Until that happens, I will keep having to defend myself and the thread will keep getting pulled away from the central questions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems I really should have spent more time building a groundwork for discussion. Claims about ETLE's applicability to transexuals don't necessarily apply to ETLE's applicability to infantilism. Transsexualism and infantilism are different. BitterGrey (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The overall theory is the same - the sexual impulse is directed at self rather than other. Erotic target becomes one dimension among many - male/female preferred partner; adult/child preferred partner; attribute applied to other/attribute applied to self. Transexualism is different, Freund & Blanchard are proposing that both share one common attribute, the erotic target is oriented inward rather than outward. The erotic target is of the self having a specific attribute rather than the sexual partner. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Central questions

1) Can the following sources be rejected on the basis of lacking independence?

• Cantor, James; Blanchard, Ray; Barbaree, Howard (2009). "Sexual Disorders". In Paul H. Blaney and Theodore Millon (ed.). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 530–7. ISBN 9780195374216.

2) Is the theory of erotic target location errors a fringe theory?

Uses of both sources:

“ In 1993 sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund published and discussed a series of case studies involving infantilists^CB&B and noted a distinction between them and pedophiles. While pedophiles were attracted to children (and objects related to childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, infantilists imagined themselves as children and adopted the objects of childhood or infancy to increase the power difference between themselves and their preferred sexual partners of adult women, with whom they acted out masochistic fantasies.^F&B ”

“ Another theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centred on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child.^CB&B ”

“ In the limited number of extant medical case reports some clinicians have attempted to explain the behaviors associated with infantilism...as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynaephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.^{Unrelated F&B CB&B} ”

PDF copies of both sources can be provided. Google books has a preview for Cantor et al. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Question 1 - independence

WP:IS is an essay, thus represents at best suggestion from an experienced editor. However, even within that framework both sources are independent - they are published in either a textbookk or a peer reviewed journal, both of which have editorial independence and oversight. That both are reliable should be uncontroversial. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Independence—both whether the quality exists and whether it is desirable—has to be assessed in terms of the statement that the source is supposed to support. To give a simple example, if you want to support a claim that "George Washington once wrote, 'Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country,'" then the letter to Benedict Arnold in which Washington actually wrote this is a non-independent but 100% reliable source for the direct quotation. Would you repeat or summarize the material that these sources are supposed to support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, above. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Question 2 - fringe theory

The theory of erotic target location error was first published by Freund & Blanchard in 1993 in The British Journal of Psychiatry. That paper has been cited 33 times (google books gives about 10 more but the scholar search should pick those up). There is minimal research on paraphilic infantilism (pointed out on the page here). I believe it constitutes at "worst" an alternative theoretical formulation as discussed in WP:FRINGE/PS. It is not pseudoscientific, it is published in a respectable, mainstream journal, and it is not contradicted by any other sources that I've seen. "Extreme claims" has been cited as a reason to remove, but the claim made is not extreme. The erotic target location error theory is that an external sexual desire is turned inward - specific to paraphilic infantilism, the idea is that the individual is attracted to the self being a child. Freund & Blanchard make the point explicitly that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles (they use the term "autoerotic pedophilia" but the full context indicates that this is meant very technically and paraphilic infantilists specifically distinguished from actual pedophiles in that they are not sexually attracted to children). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(I saw Blueboar's note about this at RSN.)

Whether this is a fringe theory depends on what you mean by "fringe". Going by the dictionary definition, every single theory ever propounded could be declared "fringe", because nobody much cares and the very few experts largely disagree with each other. But I think it more accurate under Wikipedia's policies to declare all of the properly published (e.g., in books put out by reputable publishers or in peer-reviewed academic journals) sources to be equally credible alternative theories. As such, we should describe the fact that Expert #1 said this, Expert #2 said that, etc., without presenting any of them as being the Truth™. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All three quotes are attributed as X person said Y. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, since you are not the one who placed the tags, you and longtime friend WAID really shouldn't be trying to define what they were put there for. It makes it seem as if you are trying to drown out discussion and force you own views. A further example of this is how, immediately after another editor included a link to this whole discussion[82], you added a link to just your and WIAD's input.[83] BitterGrey (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to restart this discussion below, with the multiple theories/neologisms/diagnoses and positions listed. Without this groundwork, they could too easily get confounded. WLU, please let me know if you'd like your past positions renumbered. It doesn't matter which we call #1 or #2, we just need to be able to differentiate them for discussion.

Appologies in advance to the noticeboard regulars who were patient with my first attempt at discussion, aborted for being too long, and my second attempt, which didn't have the groundwork for a long, involved discussion.BitterGrey (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions, is there anything wrong with the arguments presented by myself and WAID? Are there any factual errors? Are any policies misapplied? Have we misrepresented anything? Have we actively portrayed another editor's position as other than what it was? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The above confounds "mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia" together. When two of three of those sources were written, the authors chose to call what they were writing about something other than infantilism. Even though they were all coworkers, none of the three groups authors chose to use the same terminology as the others. While we might conclude (after discussion) that they are the same thing, we shouldn't presume so by neglecting the authors' chosen terminology.

Additionally, the sections of article text has changed to the near opposite of what it was before Dec 6th. This provides still more confusion. For example, AerobicFox's application of extreme claims doesn't make sense here: Readers might think he was referring to the post Dec 6th version (WLU#2), when he was referring to the pre Dec 6th version (WLU#1). WLU#1 had extreme claims, WLU#2 claimed nearly the opposite, but both used the same sources. Now that we have the groundwork below, we can discuss this.BitterGrey (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia"

Trying again, this time starting by laying a proper groundwork. This involves listing the various theories/diagnoses/neologisms involved, and the various positions taken over time. Perhaps this way we can keep them from getting tangled and confused.

First off, there are at least FOUR theories/diagnoses/neologisms afoot.

• "paraphilic infantilism" - Listed as a type of masochism in the DSM (pgs 572-3 in 4th TR[84], also [85][86][87]). It has been listed (although not at length) since DSM IIIR, in 1987. The DSM might not be perfect, but it is the consensus view of a national organization (the APA). Other sources consider infantilism a separate paraphilia diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS" (Not Otherwise Specified)(eg [88]). The mainstream view is clearly somewhere in between. Exactly where in between is unimportant, since neither masochism nor paraphilia NOS is pedophilia.
• "mosochistic gynephiles" - Freund and Blanchard (F&B)[89] described three groups in their paper, but didn't refer to any of them as infantilists. The first line in the paper describes them it as "A series of male paedophiles who dressed or fantasised as children..." F&B doesn't describe any in this series as infantilists. Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree (CB&B) [90] don't detail which in this series they claimed F&B interpreted as infantilists. The prevailing WP:SYNTH seems to be that it was the "masochistic gynephiles". This does seem to be the closest to paraphilic infantilism, as defined in the DSM. However, this would be SYNTH. The authors in 1993 could have used the term 'infantilism' but chose not to.
• "autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia" - Dickey, 2006[91], also one of Blanchard's coworkers, provides his own spin, or at least his own neologisms. Dickey does not cite F&B. However, like F&B, Dickey chose not to call autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia infantilism.
• "autoerotic pedophilia" - F&B either clarified or reinterpreted by CB&B (pg 531). "They [F&B] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." For those who are unclear on this point, "persons whose erotic target is children" are pedophiles. CB&B do not cite Dickey.

Calling all of these "infantilism" cripples discussion. F&B chose to use other terms, as did Dickey, and CB&B's interpretation is not in line with the mainstream definition of infantilism.

Blanchard's other theory, that transsexuals are heterosexuals who's heterosexuality has become inverted, isn't related to this discussion, since this isn't an article about either transsexuals or heterosexuals. To avoid obscurity, we'll call this ETLE for transsexuals.

Second, there are THREE positions/versions that have been taken by the TWO editors involved in the edit war.

• WLU#1 (from August to Dec 6th) "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section)[92][93][94][95][96][97] The F&B-related text in the pedophilia section was commented out until Dec 6th[98].
• WLU#2 (After Dec 6th) "infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." (that is, NOT a form of pedophilia). [99][100][101]
• BitterGrey: Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are dependent sources, advocating an ambiguous fringe theory. The sources and theory should not be in the article, much less present in multiple locations. (Similar set of difs, since he was the one WLU was edit warring with.)

Now for that we have the terminology out of the way, we can start a real discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The pre Dec 6th and post Dec 6th positions are contradictory: Either one or both is a misrepresentation of the the sources. Ideally, we'd be able to refer to independent sources for a different perspective, but we can't in this case: Neither the "mosochistic gynephiles" theory, the "autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia" theory, nor the "autoerotic pedophilia" theory have been discussed outside of Blanchard and a few of Blanchard's colleagues.

Since WLU was the one edit warring to include text, WP:BURDEN demands that he source it. He did not. In discussions, he cites a Google search. Of course, if any of these were both independent and relevant to the article, why wouldn't WLU have cited them?

Personally, I believe all three fringe theories should not be in the article. Internally, they lack any testability. They make no predictions that can be used to show the theories true or false. They are an arbitrary categorization schemes. Externally, they are categorization schemes that no independent source uses, and not even the author's coworkers use consistently. (I also think these dangerous and false conjectures to be junk science, but that is beside the point.)

By the way, feel free to email me if you would like access to the sources. I'd need to look into fair use (since I don't have connections to Blanchard and colleagues) but we should be able to work something out. BitterGrey (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This section is completely redundant, and as usual brings up a whole bunch of irrelevant tangents that were resolved months ago without Bittergrey ever acknowledging it. First, the DSM is almost entirely irrelevant to paraphilic infantilism, a point made back in August. After extensive discussion the DSM was found to be clearly not an appropriate citation for much on the page and it certainly did not represent the APA's position on paraphilic infantilism. This conclusion has been repeated twice more. Nobody agrees with the point that the DSM is relevant to paraphilic infantilism beyond the short mention already there. In August I started a discussion on the talk page where I demonstrated I know pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different. "Autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". My first point in August was that the two are different and wanted to avoid the term. You accuse me of changing my mind December 6th when on August 30th I suggested a wording nearly identical to what I used on December 7th. There is no overall mainstream view regarding paraphilic infantilism because there is minimal research on the topic, Freund & Blanchard's paper is an alternative theoretical formulation on a topic with minimal research. Cantor quite explicitly states that Freund & Blanchard 1993 found infantilists to be expressing the autoerotic form of pedophilia. Translated into lay terms, they are attracted to the idea of themselves being children - not actual children. Freund & Blanchard make this very useful distinction, and as I've said repeatedly, since Bittergrey and I agree infantilists are not pedophiles, I have no idea why there are four separate discussions about removing sources that make a point we both agree on. And if you're talking about edit warring, you might as well say "I was edit warring" instead of referring to yourself in the third person. I wasn't edit warring to replace the idea that paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles because I never believed that. I was reverting your changes in which you removed sources and statements on spurious grounds. That was one block of text among many, I wasn't reverting on the basis of that alone.

Bittergrey's final points are spurious as well - wikipedia doesn't determine if a source is pseudoscience or good science on the basis of editorial judgment, it does so on the basis of publication venue, reliability and degree of criticisms and scrutiny. The publication venues of Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree are excellent, The British Journal of Psychiatry and the Oxford University Press respectively. Freund & Blanchard's theory of erotic target location error has been cited many times in respected journals. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree explicitly makes the point that the theory of ETLE proposed in Freund & Blanchard 1993 applies to infantilists (page 531, second column, middle of the page).

And again, the claim is I am including these sources for personal reasons, and a subtle dig that somehow I'm acting for James Cantor and his colleagues. There's no evidence of this, and the only reason I can see it being brought up is to question my motivation and hopefully sway an audience through claims of bias. Untrue, I simply think these sources are unambiguously reliable and apply directly and concretely to the page.

It's also unbelievable that a fourth section discussing essentially the same issues now exists. Even more unbelievable is that the DSM is still being cited as relevant. No less than five editors (myself, FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd, WhatamIdoing and AerobicFox all agree the DSM is not relevant. It would be nice to see some sort of acknowledgement that the DSM is not relevant and does not represent the APA's position on paraphilic infantilism. It's absurd that it is still raised as if it were relevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, James Cantor himself used the DSM as an RS for the definition of infantilism[102]. The later diff above[103] is his comment that the category of 'paraphilia NOS' is a better match than the category of masochism. Both of these are within the mainstream view. The relevant point of that view is that infantilism is not a form of pedophilia. The current issue relates to the promotion of multiple fringe theories, "mosochistic gynephiles","autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia", and "autoerotic pedophilia." All of these describe pedophiles, and the assertion that infantilism is actually some form of these is the fringe theory/theories being discussed.

Also please note that "the claim is I [WLU] am including these sources for personal reasons" was not made above. If WLU would like to state that he was including the text for personal reasons, this statement would be fine. However, he shouldn't put words in my mouth. I'd encourage WLU to actually read my comments, as I have encouraged him to actually read what others, such as AerobicFox, actually wrote: "...I still find the mainstream consensus to be against any type of relationship between the two [pedophilia and infantilism]." This would be a consensus against a common theme in the fringe theory/theories being discussed.

AerobicFox's prior comment about "Extreme claims" applied to WLU#1. WLU#1 had extreme claims, WLU#2 had different claims, but used the same sources. This might be yet another point of confusion for any editors joining the discussion. Thus the need for a restart with detailed groundwork.

As for the chronology, WLU, If you've like the above list to be appended to show that you changed your position twice instead of just once, I wouldn't be opposed to that. Since you edit warred for the text to be included in the body of the article, AGF requires us to assume that you supported that text, as opposed to edit warring for some other reason. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are still citing James Cantor as if he supported the inclusion of the DSM as a defining text for infantilism. He doesn't. The relevant quote from the dif you include would be "The DSM does not at all support those statements. The claims apply to "typical" masochism, not to infantilism." Citing a link from three years ago in which he uses the DSM as a citation, and never replaces it, misrepresents his opinions as an editor and author. There is no mainstream view of paraphilic infantilism, and it certainly isn't embodied by the DSM. Cantor's use of the DSM as a citation three years ago is completely irrelevant and I simply don't know why you keep bringing it up. "Autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". Pedophiles desire children as sexual partners, paraphilic infantilists want to act like children. That's the point. Realizing the use of "autoerotic pedophilia" is a loaded one, I suggested in August and different wording, and implemented that change December 6th. Why do you keep insisting I think paraphilic infantilism is pedophilia? Why do you claim that "autoerotic pedophilia" as defined by Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree is the same thing as pedophilia, when they clearly ascribe a completely different meaning on page 531 of the textbook chapter they wrote? Specifically, "The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." In other words, the sexual attraction in autoerotic pedophilia is the idea of a transformed self - not to children. This is the position I have always held, and edited towards both in my inclusion of the term "autoerotic pedophilia" and the better, less technical use of "attraction to the self being a child" made here. And for that matter, even if I did in the past think or claim paraphilic infantilists were pedophiles, which I don't and never have, now I am stating clearly and unambiguously that Freund and Blanchard should be used to verify clearl and distinctly that the two paraphilias are different and should not be confused. So what's the point of bringing up and misrepresenting my past position? Is it to make me look bad? That's the only reason I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Those "persons whose erotic target is children" (CB&B, pg 531) are pedophiles. These sources are, at best, uselessly ambiguous. And no, I did not comment about what WLU believed. I quoted the text he was edit warring to keep, and provided multiple diffs. As for Cantor, the more relevant quote would be "In my experience, [infantilism] is diagnosed as 'paraphilia NOS (infantilism)'"[104]. Again, this is in line with the mainstream position that infantilism is not a type of pedophilia. Unfortunately, the article isn't citing this comment, but the autoerotic pedophilia section of the CB&B chapter, which contradicts the mainstream position. BitterGrey (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

These large discussions are probably best kept on the talk page, when you have a clear idea of what both positions are it might be then easier to request a third opinion RfC etc when there is a succint description of the problem. Bring the individiual sources to RSN etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the full sentence is "They interpret infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism is an autoerotic form of pedophilia." In other words, if it were turned outwards it would be pedophilia, but it's not - it's turned inwards to the idea of a transformed self. In other words, they are not pedophiles, they are people who are attracted to the idea of themselves being children. It's like saying someone with apotemnophilia (the desire to have an amputation) has acrotomophilia (the desire for a sexual partner with an amputation). The two are clearly different, and selective quotation doesn't make them the same.

IRWolfie, to date not the single other person willing to engage on the talk page has declined until at least January. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

IRWolfie, Unless other editors get involved with the page, discussion there will be pointless. WLU claims that he is ignoring me [105] and is unwilling or unable to accept me as an editor[106]. There was a time when I was involved with multiple articles - WLU ended that. He even tried to hijack my last third opinion request[107]. As for FiachraByrne, WLU has tapped her three times now, hoping for one other editor that agrees with him[108][109][110]. However, her last relevant edit was to revert WLU[111]. Notably, her version is without the mosochistic gynephiles/autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia/autoerotic pedophilia fringe now being debated. Let's see if we might be able to keep this discussion focused on sources (as opposed to recent weasel wording). 14:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting what I said. My actual statement was that I was "ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias". As I said two days ago, I respond to your substance when it exists. And I didn't say I didn't accept you as an editor, I said that if you continued on your path of picking fights and holding grudges, you'd end up blocked or banned one day - not by me, I am not an admin. As for that third opinion request, the instructions specifically state to make requests neutral, which yours was not. Your claim that FiachraByrne's last act was to revert me was correct - except for the crucial fact that it was on her draft article page, not mainspace, talk page or anywhere else relevant. As she said in her edit summary, she simply wanted her previous version.

If you want to keep the discussion focussed, stop making it about my actions and make it a discussion solely about the sources. Your edits spend most of your time misrepresenting and selectively quoting either my own edits or the sources (such as claiming Freund & Blanchard are saying paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles, or that the DSM defines infantilism) rather than giving an honest, best treatment of the sources, relevant policies and guidelines. All of these sections would be shorter if you stuck to the sources. If you genuinely have an issue with me as an editor or my edits, the appropriate venue is a WP:RFC/U. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the fringe theories guideline, "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The essay on independent sources gives detail: "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." The masochistic gynephiles/autoerotic pedophilia theory/theories is not accepted (or even considered worthy of criticism) outside of Blanchard and his colleagues, and so is fringe. It contradicts the mainstream position that infantilism is not a form of pedophilia([112][113][114][115][116]...). The two or three sources on the fringe theory/theories are all from Blanchard or his colleagues, and so are not independent. Only one of them even mentions infantilism:("...infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia..." Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree pg 531)[117]) Per WP:BURDEN, the one editor seeking to keep references to this theory/theories has the burden of finding independent, third-party sources. He has not, and has chosen to edit war instead.

May I have your thoughts and your help? BitterGrey (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My edit warring, which both of us have done, is irrelevant to the sources. Please cease to discuss it.

Freund & Blanchard is not a fringe theory, it is at best an alternative theoretical formulation. It was published in a peer reviewed journal and discussed and referenced by several others. The publication venue was independent, Freund & Blanchard do not control the British Journal of Psychiatry where their theory was first published making your claim of lack of independence incorrect. You have provided no sources indicating the theory of erotic target location errors is not accepted. Freund & Blanchard state quite clearly that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles and this point is made in the article. The DSM does not define or provide a mainstream view of paraphilic infantilism, as pointed out in August. Since the statements verified by Freund & Blanchard are not unsourced, WP:BURDEN does not apply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One of us held to a consistent position. The other fought for one position, and then toggled to another, nearly opposite position when the first proved unpopular. Then, he continued fighting. In the WLU#1 version, F&B was cited to support the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(see the last altered section)[118][119][120][121][122][123] Now WLU claims that F&B state "infantilists are not pedophiles." WLU#2. The truth is that F&B don't mention 'infantilism' at all. They wrote about, among others, "masochistic gynephiles." As for being "discussed and referenced by several others", why hasn't WLU cited them? BitterGrey (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

E. Raymond Capt - new article

New article (one one of several created today by a new account, all relating to British Israelism about a now dead racist fringe (pyramidology etc) Christian Identity writer. Editor is restoring a claim that can't be verified as it relates to "Accademia Testina Per Le Scienze" which doesn't seem to exist except in Capt's book, and is trying to out me. Probably a sock. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page that your removal is fine per WP:PROVEIT and made some minor citegnomes to the page itself. Notability seems an issue to me at this point, and more sources are needed. To date, all you could say is he was his father's son and a member of the Scottish Society of Antiquaries. If outing is a concern, WP:OVERSIGHT would seem the only way to go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be the Accademia Teatina, or the Theatine Academy. The Theatines are a religious order, formally known as the Clerks Regular, but they had their heyday long ago. The academy may exist; there's an awful, broken or unfinished Italian language website for a Theatine Academy of Science, apparently a personal site.[124] I could find no mention of Mr. Capt on tiscali.it, which I think is an Italian ISP/web host. The only information about the institution is a self published source, and I have no idea why a Roman Catholic religious institution would confer any honor on a British Israelist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if many, if not all of Capt's books are from Artisan Publishers [125] - and they only seem to publish similar texts. No evidence that either the books or the publishers are in any way significant. Fails notability requirements at the first hurdle... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Many of the articles this user has created look unsourced and about non-notable people. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Last night, whle I was failing to get to sleep, the editor went wild with accusations against me which he kept reinstating on his talk page. He's blocked, talk page access removed, determined to be a sock and a number of articles deleted for that reason. None of these actions were by me. Anjd although I had forgotten my review, a review of mine about Capt on Amazon got 3 votes as being helpful. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

New template:

{{Fringe theories}} which looks like this:

Wording and format can probably be improved, it's just something I keep wanting to use, then finding it's not there. 86.** IP (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not all fringe theories are pseudoscientific: it either needs to be more general, or make clear that it is only applicable to pseudoscience. I'm not sure it will actually achieve a great deal anyway. We have plenty of policies to deal with fringe material, in my opinion - the problem is finding enough people prepared to do the donkey-work in enforcing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Review of 86's contribs shows a very large bandwidth seeking article deletion, and at least in climate change articles, essentially zero article improvement efforts. This tag smacks of a Plan-B.... "if I can not get it deleted, then maybe I can at least get it tagged with do not bother to read this hooey. The better plan is Plan C (as in Plan C-onsensus).... if a neutral 3rd party would say it qualifies for coverage, then do the donkey work of covering it with a neutral point of view and good sources. Whenever we do that, the hooey is readily apparent for all to see. The solution to bad information is not denial about its existence, but to provide better information. Of course, this requires intellectual discipline, and is not nearly as fun as arguing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a separate tag for fringe might be beneficial. For example, "undue" would call for the adjustment of text in proportion to the weight of RSs, pro versus con. In contrast, "fringe" would call for the removal of text without independent sources, only pro but no con. If a theory is sufficiently minor, dismissable, laughable, untestable, confusing, etc., no one else might ever write about it. As a result, there wouldn't be RS's for a balanced handling. An "undue" tag might be cleared by gathering RS's from proponents, but a "fringe" tag by gathering RS's from critics. Of course, that fringe tag would need to be worded differently than above. BitterGrey (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's long, I would suggest lopping off everything between "view" and "Please". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Concise, and to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this discussion to the proposed template's talk page? Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree about moving to the specific template's talk page. Instead, I think this should be moved to some section of the village pump. The original comment does two things (A) identifies a perceived problem and (B) suggests a very specific solution. I think the perceived problem deserves a wide open discussion with the broader community, and out of that other possible ways to address the problem might emerge. Maybe this specific template in some revised form is the best we can think of, but maybe not. So I would prefer to see a broader conversation about the perceived problem before we turn a new tag loose NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I am opposed to all article tags except deletion and hoax tags. I believe that they disfigure articles, and are mainly used as a way to achieve by extortion what an editor can't achieve in any other way. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Eh, I don't accept that theory. I tag material in cases where I can see that there is a problem which I cannot (for reasons of time, expertise, whatever) remedy at the time. A more naive reader whose critical facilities are not as sharp as, well, mine frequently needs a warning to mistrust the material he's seeing. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tags are not supposed to be used to "warn the reader". Many of them (e.g., {{POV}} directly say this in their instructions. The purpose of a tag is to attract the attention of someone who can fix it. (The reason they're made visible to readers is because sometimes a never-before-edited reader is the "someone" who can fix it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what it says at WP:TAGGING

• Well, as you concede, one function is indistinguishable from the other; and frankly I think the warning of the unwary is the more important. YMMV, of course. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but with slight changes. I think it would be useful in principle, in the same way as the other similar tags we have (and let's be honest, in practice they sometimes do serve as a warning in addition to attracting expert attention). However, not all pseudoscience articles are fringe, and vice versa. (Anybody want a Venn diagram?). I think it would be helpful to separate the two concepts so fringe and pseudoscience each get their own warning tag, rather than mashing the two together. bobrayner (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a Venn diagram in wikimedia for posting to the FRINGE and PSEUDOSCIENCE articles/help/talk sections on those topics would be very useful.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support but lose all after the word 'view'. The word "fringe" is enough to cover pseudoscience, pseudohistory, minority views, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Half-hearted support - one more tag that'll almost certainly be misused but it's at least more specific than the others that will be misused. Just make sure the documentation page specifies you need to note something on the talk page immediately after placing it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support short form per Lucky Louie. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Well this has already been misused which is why I'm here. There is no injunction in Wipedia against fringe theories. Fringe theories is not a problem. Fringe theories are described under the POV policy specially because there are often neutral point of view weight problems. It may be reasonable to have a 'POV fringe' tag but using this as well as POV shows a misunderstanding and iumplies that fringe in itself is something wrong and should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose After reading the comments here from WhatamIdoing and Dmcq, I oppose. 1) the "warning" should not be necessary, the body of the text should make it clear that it is a fringe view and that it contradicts mainstream view. 2) The tag will be misused by the fringe fighting "tag" teams (pun) who will stick to any article they don't like. When an article is well written according to wp policy then there is no need for any tag, it doens't matter if the article is about a fringe topic or not. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  That latter argument applies equally well to other tags. Why do we need {{Unreferenced}} when somebody can just add references? The answer is: Identifying a problem is often much easier than (and the first step towards) completely solving the problem. There are currently a quarter of a million articles with the unreferenced tag; there would be fewer with a fringe or pseudoscience tag but let's not pretend that simply rewriting all the problematic content straight away is such a good solution that we don't even need a tag in the meantime... bobrayner (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  A tag denotes that an article should be improved. If the article is "perfect" then no tags are necessary. This is also true for a "perfect" article about a fringe topic. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be on all articles on fringe topics, that really would be abusive. It's meant to be a clean-up tag. I am interested in whether it could be set up so as to trigger an automatic alert here. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems most editors think the best way to clean up a fringe article is the AfD and we already have a tag for that --POVbrigand (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD is the most sensible option in many cases raised here, perhaps the majority. I don't think that's surprising. Some people try and use the encyclopedia to push fringe points of view. Not as many as try to use it to sell goods, post their CV, or worship music or sports idols. It is arguably a worse problem than those, because the result is Wikipedia promoting silly views as truth, which reduces its credibility as a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have no right to speak for topics other than the cold fusion single purpose that I am currently working on. I believe you when you say that AfD is often a good solution. On the other hand, wikipedia is open for any fringe topic that is notable and verifiable. I think that "Push fringe points of view" is a very arbitrary expression. I have been called fringe POV pusher (and worse) numerous times for adding notable, verifiable, reliably sourced statements to a fringe article. Once you loose AGF and start calling names you start an argument without end. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose fringe theories are already covered under NPOV, so a POV tag is all that is necessary. I've been at the other end of the creators misunderstandings about what NPOV means when dealing with a topic that is clearly minority->fringe, in these cases we can't explain the majority POV at every other sentence (as the proposer surmises that we should), but instead deal with the concept, by describing clearly that the article is dealing with viewpoints that are outside the mainstream and what the mainstream is. Once that is out of the way, we can explain how believers think that the earth is flat and why they believe that it is so. This is how the 2nd paragraph of WP:UNDUE describes that we should do it.... Unfortunately i believe that the tag will be misused in such situations (as it already has). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I can even imagine that this tag could have a contrary effect. Article quality might suffer, because editors will argue that that article already has its disclaimer in form of the tag, so we can write what we want. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By that rational every template is useless. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support with the changes proposed by WLU. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose long version by 86.** IP, which confuses fringe theories with pseudoscience. Support short version by LuckyLouie, which does not have that problem. Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Short form was originally proposed by WLU, but thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I just looked at the edit to the template page. Mathsci (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support short form, oppose long form, for reasons set forth above. The long form confuses fringe theories and pseudoscience, when in fact there are many fringe theories that can't be fairly categorized as pseudoscience, which by my understanding requires claiming to be science while operating outside the scientific method. While a tag like this may be useful, I do think it should be used sparingly, and while keeping WP:NECESSARY in mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Article needs attention Biological_transmutation

This article needs attention with sentences like: "Proponents have presented much evidence for biological transmutations, but mainstream science has decided to ignore it." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the Biological_transmutation#Mainstream_perspective section is written from the fringe perspective. That section needs attention. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. Who finds this stuff... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible problem in WP:PSCI

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Treatment of fringe theories about a concern I have with its phrasing which also touches on that fringe theories template above. Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Masreliez

Masreliez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The case of the fringe physicist putting in promotional links throughout the 'pedia. This is one of the latest places it has continued. Keep it in your watchlists?

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem for some background.