Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

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

Booth Escaped

(discussion moved to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Booth_Escaped

lets do a diagram

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Superseded scientific theories	Fraud Scientific fraud	Superstitions Cargo Cult Science	Pseudoscience Experimenter's bias	Pathological science Dead science Cognitive bias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

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

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

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

• I think the original idea is at Fringe_science#Definition? Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I like the idea of the diagram, but the implementation is kinda ugly. BTW, policy pages don't follow WP:NOR, our policy pages are essentially OR by the community to find out want rules make a project like Wikipedia work. LK (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Independent Sources - Clarify

The article should clarify what exactly it means by an independent source in no uncertain terms. Currently the wording may let some argue, for example, that a patent office filing published by a patent office is independent. I.e it should be clear why the patent office may be independent but the patent filing isn't. How independent is independent: does a source have to be completely unconnected, or would an independent observer involved in a demonstration, of say dowsing, be considered independent. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?

There is currently a debate at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action? on whether the advice at the top should include as well some statement like "If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory". Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-publishing companies

The misuse of self-published books is often a problem in articles about or related to fringe theories. After several discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard involving self-published sources, we've started creating a list of self-publishing companies. The hope is that with such a list, it will be easier to identify when a book is self-published or if it's produced by a respected publishing house. Therefore, we've created two lists:

• List of self-publishing companies in article space for notable self-publishing houses
• WP:List of self-publishing companies in Wikipedia space for notable and non-notable self-publishing houses

We're off to a great start, but there's a lot of work to do. On one of the talk pages, there's a long list of 56 self-publishing companies that need to be intergrated into these articles. Please feel free to give us a hand. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now done. Please add WP:List of self-publishing companies to your watchlist and if you encounter any self-publishing companies not on the list, please add them. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and superminority theories such as Flat Earth

I've participated in discussions where it is believed that (roughly) "only superminority concepts such as Flat Earth theory qualify as WP:FRINGE". I've rejected this notion noting that there are a wide variety of ideas which are fringe, even without reaching the point of near-universal derision as Flat Earth theory. Any other editors care to comment on whether theories must be at the absurdity level of Flat Earth to be considered WP:FRINGE? 18:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)