Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

A logical problem with WP:FRINGE

I see a logical issue with WP:FRINGE: it seems to categorize all conspiracy theories as fringe, whereas the actual definition of a conspiracy theory as given at the linked article's lede is:

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis that suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused and/or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful. The term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies.

Now, the problem here is that conspiracies do actually happen in the world, and explanations based on conspiracy are often true. Not always, but sometimes, they are true -- just like scientific hypotheses. So for a guideline to define all conspiracy theories as "fringe" and therefore not allowable in Wikipedia is a fundamental logical flaw in the guideline. One example of an actual historical conspiracy is that of Monsanto Chemical Company in the 1960s and 1970s to continue to sell PCBs while they knew of serious and dire dangers from the chemicals and they knew that the chemicals were finding their way into the environment and that people were being exposed. They conspired to cover it up, to keep it quiet, in order to continue to sell the product for as long as possible. This is evidenced extremely clearly in their own internal documents as made public in later legal proceedings as documented at the Chemical Industry Archives website with dozens of linked PDFs of actual Monsanto documents stating the conspiracy. This is a real conspiracy that happened as far as anyone who looks at the evidence would conclude. However, the WP:FRINGE guideline might be used to rule out inclusion of this actual conspiracy in articles related to PCBs contamination. This would be harmful to the article, a denial of some reality to the reader, and not good for the world. It would also be illogical. It is illogical to assume that just because some conspiracy-based explanations are wing-nut, that all explanations based on conspiracy are fringe.

Perhaps i am misreading the guideline. The passage i'm referring to is:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine.

The inclusion of the term "conspiracy theories" in that last sentence seems to me to indicate that if something is a conspiracy-based explanation, then it must be fringe. The way the "and" then gives a second noun "esoteric claims about medicine" seems to equate those two as being equally fringe.

Some conspiracy theories are fringe. Some conspiracies are documented historical fact. Some are possible explanations for phenomena in the world. Just as with anything else, i think that sourcing and good dialogue are the keys to determining what's relatively solid and what is chaff. I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist but i do know that conspiring is a mode of human action in the world and it is a kind of explanation that fits some things. Please tell me i'm misreading the guideline. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And your example of a non-fringe conspiracy theory would be ... ? (Of course any such would have WP:RS in support of its plausibility, so we'd have no problem treating it neutrally). Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

First, if a conspiracy is documented historical fact, then it is no longer a "theory". But, SageRed does have a point... The theory that Richard III of England conspired to have his nephews (Edward V and Richard, Duke of York) killed is an example of a non-fringe conspiracy theory... while impossible to prove (and thus "only a theory"), it is widely accepted (and is, in fact, the prevailing view among historians). It has been heavily discuss and debated by reliable sources. So, yeah... there are some conspiracy theories that are not considered fringe.

That said, the caution about conspiracy theories is worth keeping, because while a few conspiracy theories are not considered fringe, an overwhelming number of conspiracy theories are fringe.

The key to understanding WP:Fringe is to understand WP:Undue weight. If a conspiracy theory (even one that is fringe) is discussed by reliable sources (even disparagingly), then we can give it due weight by mentioning it in our articles (although it should be phrased as being an opinion, not stated as fact)... if no reliable mainstream sources bother to discuss it, then mentioning it our articles (even as an opinion) would give it undue weight. It is too fringe to mention. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

General comment: In my opinion, the key to understanding certain supplemental guidelines like WP:FRINGE is through first recognizing that there are effectively two types of policies and guidelineS, and this was well-stated by another editor in another discussion:

1. straightforward, accessible, common-sense codification of principles

2. when an area has real-world ethical consequences, we do in fact tend to insert specific anti-gaming, anti-misinterpretation wording that's quite detailed and tends to form definitions, scope clarifications, and line-item rules

That comment also indicated WP:BLP as largely of the second sort, and stated the opinion that the two types of PAG are not mutually exclusive and can be successfully integrated with due care.

There's a lot of murky territory in there, and personally, I'm still thinking about what those terms really do describe. Certainly, it suggests special measures for special cases, which raises the usual concerns that come with using exceptional circumstances as a reason for action: who decides what's special and then, what to do about it? (Yes, consensus...) --Tsavage (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy (or theories about conspiracies writ large). For better or worse, the current sourced use of the term "conspiracy theory" always guarantees that the idea is WP:FRINGE. It is not the best use of English language, but we at Wikipedia are descriptive and not proscriptive. jps (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the definition of "conspiracy theory" again; it has a derogatory meaning that, essentially, means that describing something as a conspiracy theory is saying that it is WP:FRINGE. If high-quality sources say that there may have been a conspiracy, and it's not completely WP:FRINGE, I don't think we would describe it as a "conspiracy theory"; eg. we describe the Business Plot as "an alleged political conspiracy", not a "conspiracy theory", while the lead describes the mainstream view as "While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of 'wild scheme' was contemplated and discussed." The key point, though, is that you need high-quality sources for more shocking claims; note the four cites to historians for the sentence I just gave on the Business Plot's article, say, including very well-respected historians. And it's important to be very careful when talking about what exactly the sources say, how they disagree about it, and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, the definition of conspiracy theory often has built into it that the theory will evolve to contain anything that contradicts it, which makes it a closed system, not falsifiable. In many cases, that's going to pretty much sum up a fringe idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that this quality is built into the definition of the term. I suppose you mean that some specific conspiracy theories have that quality and i would fully agree, but it is not an inherent quality of every conspiracy theory. That sort of "slippery" conspiracy theory would be the hallmark of a poorly defined and probably fringy conspiracy theory. So i hear you saying that some conspiracy theories are not falsifiable and i'd agree, but that doesn't contradict the original issue i raise, does it? Specifically defined ideas about people conspiring can be non-fringy. SageRad (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that some concepts cannot be defined precisely is well known—defining "red" is often mentioned in that context. The core issue is in the WP:FRINGE nutshell: "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". The term "conspiracy theory" has a slightly altered meaning in colloquial usage when referring to fringe stuff, and it is not necessary for the proponents to clearly allege a conspiracy. For example, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories concerns various claims that initially don't claim any conspiracy, but when pressed with refuting evidence, advocates will often fallback on a claim that evidence contradicting their theory has been manufactured (that is, they claim people have conspired to produce fake evidence). That's another form of SarahSV's point—an advocate of a fringe idea will not drop the idea no matter how much contrary evidence is presented because such evidence will be dismissed, misinterpreted, dodged, or alleged to be fake. At any rate, there is no need to precisely define what is meant in this guideline, although the language might be improved if a real problem were demonstrated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all the thoughts above. Someone above asked for examples of a conspiracy theory that would be non-fringe or legitimate. I had given the historical example about Monsanto executives conspiring to hide the real dangers of PCBs as the continued to sell them for profit, as well documented by their internal documents that were made public in legal proceedings in the year 2000. Another editor suggested the theory that Richard III of England conspired to have his nephews killed. These are both examples from the past, one case where a conspiracy has been proven after the fact, and another where the conspiracy remains a theory (or technically a hypothesis i suppose) that probably will not ever be proven correct or wrong. I thought of four possible examples in the present day that might be considered "legitimate conspiracy theories":

• The hypothesis that the murder of Anna Politkovskaya was done either at the behest of the Russian state or as a favor in some way to the Russian state, especially as it was done on Putin's birthday. This may seem a stretch but it's actually noted by a quite a few reliable sources as a potential connection to the cause and mode of her death. It's even mentioned in the article in The Economist on the event.
• The hypothesis that the media outlet Russia Today is to a degree a propaganda outlet for the Russian state (a "mouthpiece of the Kremlin" as it suggests in the Wikipedia article). This hypothesis is developed to various degrees in many sources that we'd consider reliable, i think.
• The ideas of G. William Domhoff as expounded in Who Rules America? and on his website of the same name are essentially a theory about conspiracy by a power elite that he suggests wields power undemocratically via behind-the-scenes actions, but is taught in universities and is extremely well-documented and seems legitimate.
• The ideas of Noam Chomsky in regard to media, especially as expounded in Manufacturing Consent, that suggest that the mass media are "effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function". These ideas of Chomsky's are also taught in university and are reflected in reliable sources.

It seems to me that all four of these theories or hypotheses suppose conspiracies, and yet all four seem to hold a good amount of legitimacy in that they are given a fair amount credence in reliable sources and/or are otherwise well researched.

If the guideline defines "conspiracy theories" as inherently fringe then it would occlude the mention of all four of the examples i listed above. I suggest that the guideline might be more useful if it were to say "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" because actual conspiracies do exist and some conspiracy theories seem rather apt and well-supported. Some things do seem to reasonable people as if there is a conspiracy and yet are not able to be definitively proven or disproven because the very nature of a conspiracy is to hide the evidence for it. Therefore, it often comes down to the reckoning of experts in the field as to whether a particular conspiracy theory is likely to be the case or likely to be bunk. SageRad (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia disputes clearly thrive in reference to edge cases, but in these cases I think we can clearly rest our laurels on sourcing. In particular, I don't know of any reliable sources which describe the four claims you list above as conspiracy theories in their own right. These ideas certainly are incorporated into a variety of conspiracy theories that are broader than each issue individually, but a conspiracy theory, as strictly defined on Wikipedia, is a closed, self-reinforcing set of beliefs that the prevailing understanding of a particular account of events is wholly incorrect. The explanations for how the prevailing understanding could be so incorrect are wide-ranging and far-fetched. How do we determine this? Why, through reliable sources of course. Unless you have reliable sources which explicitly identify a set of ideas as a "conspiracy theory", they aren't conspiracy theories.

Just to reiterate, there are examples of real conspiracies which are not "conspiracy theories" as defined by Wikipedia and by reliable sources generally. The tobacco companies really did collude to prevent the devastating public health conclusions about the dangers of cigarette smoking from becoming accepted. The Gulf of Tonkin incident really was trumped up. Etc.

jps (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you please give me some reference or documentation on the idea that "conspiracy theory" is a strictly defined term of the art within Wikipedia policy discussions that is different from the common understanding or that which is in the Wikipedia article conspiracy theory? As i read the WP:FRINGE guideline, it links to conspiracy theory which implies defining it as the article does. I do think that there are a lot of people who would call many aspects of Domhoff's or Chomsky's conspiracy theories exactly that -- that there is a conspiring group of people who rule America to an extent without the public's general knowledge, or that the mass media propagate illusions or otherwise render a propaganda function without the general public's awareness of that, or the idea that Anna Politkovskaya was killed by or for the Russian state, or that Russia Today serves in large part a propaganda function. I really think all these are legitimate conspiracy theories with good reliable sourcing. I don't see any indication other than your comment above that "conspiracy theory" as used in the guideline is a strictly defined term of the art that would be understood in its limited sense when the guideline is applied, which then enables the guideline to be used to overreach. SageRad (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It reads to me like maybe you didn't understand our article on conspiracy theory which clearly delineates a difference. Combining a number of these specific claims into overall narratives about, say, the way "manufacturing consent" may manifest itself could plausibly establish a conspiracy theory (provided we have reliable sources which document such an approach as actually being a conspiracy theory), but specific hypotheses about media commentary being problematically skewed are really not removed from mainstream scholarship in the way that, say, claims about chemtrails are. jps (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it reads to me like you don't understand the definition of "conspiracy theory" in that article, i have to say. I really don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the hypothesis that the Russian state killed Anna Politkovskaya is not a conspiracy theory? Are you saying the other examples i gave are not conspiracy theories? Instead of telling me you don't think i understand the definition, would you please simply tell me how you think my examples differ from the very clear definition in the first sentence of that article? In other words, please assume that i'm in intelligent person who can read and understand, and go from there, please. SageRad (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the Russian state was involved in a contract killing of Anna Politkovskaya is not a conspiracy theory as our page defines it. Neither are the other examples... though they all could plausibly be parts of conspiracy theories. jps (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: the examples you gave above aren't conspiracy theories; they are conspiracies or alleged conspiracies. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, aren't falsifiable, I would say as a matter of definition. See, for example, Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, University of California Press, 2003, p. 7:

[C]onspiracy theories are at their heart nonfalsifiable. No matter how much evidence their adherents accumulate, belief in a conspiracy theory ultimately becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

and p. 37:

[C]ontemporary conspiracy theories manifest a dynamics of expansion – the movement from event conspiracies to systemic conspiracies to superconspiracies ... As this progression occurs, two characteristics appear. First, the more a conspiracy theory seeks to explain, the larger its domain of evil; the conspiracy includes more and more malevolent agents. Second, the more inclusive the conspiracy theory, the less susceptible it is to disproof, for skeptics and their evidence are increasingly identified with the powers of evil.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a cherrypicked definition to me. I'm going by the first sentence of the conspiracy theory article:

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis that suggests that two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused and/or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.

SageRad (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a good definition, SageRad, because it could cover any conspiracy allegation. There's an essential element of irrationality within the idea of a conspiracy theory. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, it's odd that you say it's not a good definition. That is a definition right from the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry. I think you're taking one type of conspiracy theory as the complete set of conspiracy theory. Let's see, Merriam-Webster's definition: "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups" -- same as the one i'm using. The only essential elements to the definition includes rational hypotheses, so i would just have to say that i think you are working with an incorrect and narrow definition. Can you show me some real documentation to support your definition's requirements about them being irrational? Some of them are, to be sure, but not all. SageRad (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Not sure what you mean by "real documentation." Focusing on subject-matter experts, rather than WP or Merriam-Webster, Michael Barkun is a good place to start. He offers an interesting description in Chasing Pantoms (2011), p. 10:

Conspiracy theories offer a worldview built around imagined secrets. They do so because the conspiracist makes three cardinal assumptions: that nothing happens by accident; that everything is connected; and that nothing is as it seems. The result is a world stripped of accident, negligence, randomness, and incompetence, in which everything is meaningful if only it can be decoded.

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, i mean a definition that would be more similar to the commonly understood meaning, which is what most people would be using in their minds when reading and applying this guideline. SageRad (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the commonly understood meaning is, except that when people refer to something as a "conspiracy theory," they're not saying anything positive about it. As I said, the best place to look for a definition is in the writing of academic subject-matter experts. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If nothing else, this discussion inspired a fix to the lede of the conspiracy theory article for the better. jps (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Weak statistical evidence?

For discussion of specific topics, please go to WP:FTN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could somebody explain to me why parapsychology is cited as an example of a field that relies on anecdotal/weak statistical evidence? Most of the research characterizing the field is experimental (not anecdotal) - the meta-analyses of which generally produce strong statistical evidence. Please also take note of the fact the current President of the American Statistical Association regards the field of parapsychology to be a legitimate science . I recommend that the parenthetical reference to parapsychology at WP:FRINGE/PS be removed. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Look on the parapsychology article itself. There is enough references that explain parapsychology is a pseudoscience and its proponents hide behind statistics and have no empirical evidence for their magical claims. Parapsychology (study of paranormal) is as fringe as it gets. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Please cite for me a single mainstream source that says that parapsychologists have "no empirical evidence for their magical claims". I really want to read that. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC) That is not how the burden of evidence works. User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC) References

Independent reliable sources required

See also: Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories § Origin of "Independent reliable sources required" dispute

Many scientific journals offer space for authors of novel theories, which is perfectly normal for scientific discourse. However as the lede of this guideline states that in judging the merits of any novel theory, "claims must be based upon independent reliable source". If a theory is completely dismissed by a scientific community and is discussed only by its proponents, then it does not belong to wikipedia. Therefore in the context of this guideline, the qualifier "independent" as crucial as the word "reliable". Therefore I suggest to add it in all places where the merits of a fringe theory are discussed, to avoid misunderstanding. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1. In my opinion this is too careless and may lead to violation of wp:notcensored.

2. This is nonsense, every claim on wikipedia should come from some source because of Wikipedia:No original research. By requiring for claim about fringe to not come from its source (to be independent) you exclude it from wikipedia which is against wp:notcensored, wp:due and it is also against wikipedia being the sum of knowledge, including fringe. see also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. You also definitively exclude all primary sources for fringe, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD .

3. It is better to let sth slip that does not belong occasionally (as long as it is wp:due weight) and promote inclusion of knowledge, because wp is sum of encyclopedic knowledge, than render it overly restrictive.--Asterixf2 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

re: " By requiring for claim about fringe to not come from its source" - No I am not excluding it. I am excluding the case when such claims come only from its source. I wrote this in several places already. The key word is "only". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you mean if your edit doesn't say what you mean. Please also see WP:ALLPRIMARY. Guidelines should not be so imprecise as to allow excessively prohibitive interpretations. There are plenty of guidelines, that in my opinion address all your ideas. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposed - While independent sources are required to establish the Notability and Due Weight of a theory. Primary (non-independent) sources can be used for purely descriptive (and attributed) statements as to the opinions of the principal proponents of the theory (in fact, for such statements, a primary source is the most reliable source possible... You can not get a more reliable source for what someone has said than the source where they actually say it). The key is to present what they say as opinion, and not as fact. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like you misunderstood me: I am speaking exactly about the WP:UNDUE. Let me highlight: add it in all places where the merits of a fringe theory are discussed - AFAIU, you cannot add something to wikipedia basing exclusively on the statements about importance of a theory coming only from the author of this theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • re: "add it in all places where the merits of a fringe theory are discussed". I suggest doing small careful incremental changes in guidelines, instead of driving community into 'formal' consensus to an excessively general prohibitive statement. This is not a philosophy of Wikipedia. It is generally inclusive, but exceptions are detailed and careful. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• what Staszek said - folks objecting are not paying mind to the actual sentence about "judging the merits of any novel theory" - this is all about providing context which is a key function of an encyclopedia article. This is inline with NPOV and VERIFY and OR and what they say about the use of secondary sources vs independent sources - with FRINGEy stuff it is all the more important that we emphasize independence for contextualization. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

sorry... I missed that key phrase. Yes... When discussing the "merits" of a theory (fringe, or otherwise) you do need independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the confusion about context, how about adding back the INDY language, but also clarifying the sentence: "Claims Statements that a theory is true must be based upon independent reliable sources."? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about current edit. If there will be a different, more appropriate change, that will be more clear in what is necessary for fringe then it will be probably ok. But current edit is imo inappropriate. Careless edits will do more harm than good.

Tryptofish encyclopedia should avoid saying that some theory is true. When fringe theories are mentioned that is not because they are true. They are mentioned because they simply exist. This discussion has derailed too far imo and should be closed.

In my opinion, all issues with fringe theories can be resolved properly with current guidelines and with consensus.

Blueboar things you mentioned are already extensively covered in guidelines, see Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources. The goal of guidelines isn't to talk everywhere about everything.

If User:Staszek Lem needs to explain to us what he means then this edit is not good. In particular, it does not say what User:Staszek Lem means. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I find it extremely important not to censor new developments in science (for example theories younger than 10yrs). They are all fringe and always controversial, because people are accustomed to old ways of thinking. Change is always opposed and always there are more fierce critics than proponents and it is excessive to make it even more difficult. Wikipedia should be wp:notcensored. Users would like to get information about the sum of knowledge. Also, I would like to point out that what User:Staszek Lem said induces bias "If a theory is completely dismissed by a scientific community and is discussed only by its proponents, then it does not belong to wikipedia.". It cannot be completely dismissed and at the same time discussed by its proponents. This is another fallacious reasoning. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop misusing WP:NOTCENSORED (try reading the linked text). Readers will have to find another website if they want to read about every crackpot idea because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine what you said. That is not what I am opposing. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is pertinent here. We need independent sources to give a proper context. Wikipedia is not a venue for the exposition of fringe theories outside such context. Alexbrn (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please also see interpretation Wikipedia:Discriminate_vs_indiscriminate_information "So, collections of information brought together with a reasonable amount of thought, care, and distinctions would certainly not violate policy. Enthusiastic editors are encouraged to put thought and care into collecting information for meaningful articles." I do not disagree that some care must be taken with fringe theories. What I oppose are particular formulations of changes to guidelines proposed so far. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

- Also, here is a very important clarification User:Uncle_G/On_the_discrimination_of_what_is_indiscriminate and it says: "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is the most widely abused part of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. It is often abused as an argument for deletion, by editors who cannot find a real reason for deletion based upon what our policies actually say.".

- Furthermore, it says "It is those specific things listed that policy prohibits, not a blanket of indiscriminate information. The root of the problem is the section heading itself, which actually post-dates the policy points themselves."

- Last but not least, it says "Indeed, as Wikipedia:Editing policy#Perfection is not required explains, articles can be little more than an indiscriminate collection of facts when they are first started. Indiscriminateness is not only not forbidden by our policies. It is expected as part of the normal article development process." --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not true to say that all new scientific discoveries are fringe. In fact, most are incremental and not in the least controversial. The "discovery" of faster than light neutrinos was controversial - also, as it turns out, wrong. We didn't "censor" that, we handled it with the usual scientific level of caveats. Cold fusion is another example: we have reliable independent secondary sources describing its status as a pariah field, and that is how we write the article, despite the occasional influx of LENR cranks trying to include primary sources for New! ASTOUNDING! claims of validity. We do, however "censor" papers that conclusively prove that homeopathy works, ESP is real or the earth si flat. Actually no, we don't "censor" them, we simply don't include the primary sourced claims without the benefit of reliable independent sources discussing their validity. And that is precisely in line with policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. We are not qualified to weigh primary sources in the balance, so we don't include them unless they are uncontroversial and unchallenged. Uncle G's essay is not about this issue anyway, it's about the inclusion of what we used to call "cruft" back in the day. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

An opinion of some random user page is not policy. Also, WP:CGTW#8 applies. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not random, Uncle G is one of Wikipedia's finest, but the essay is not about this topic and abusing an essay in this way is an amusing irony when the essay is about abusing the definition of indiscriminate. The point is that Wikipedia is not the place to expound new theories from primary sources. When something is genuinely novel we are bound by canonical policy to wait for reliable independent sources to comment - which they typically do extremely quickly (cf. faster than light neutrinos) unless the claim is obvious bollocks. And if they don't comment? The idea probably *is* bollocks and we should not include it. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I still don't agree that "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." should be allowed to stay. It is too vague, unnecessary and fallacious. My previously stated arguments, especially those at the beginning of discussion remain valid. In particular, claim cannot be based on independent reliable source, because all sources for claims are primary sources. See wp:ALLPRIMARY, WP:NONSENSE, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest deleting this sentence. It is sufficient that next paragraph says "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.". --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." is concerned, I suggest to replace it with: "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, it must be discussed by independent secondary source." This sounds like a good balance. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Insofar as I can tell, Asterixf2 is basically arguing that Wikipedia should promulgate fringe theories. To put it mildly, the consensus of the Wikipedia editing community is contrary to that, and Asterixf2 should either accept that this is the case, or seek support for such an unconventional opinion from other editors, perhaps through an RfC (which is extremely unlikely to support Asterixf2's opinion). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I am not arguing for that. I am arguing for proper balanced guidelines. @Tryptofish:Furthermore, you also have suggested clarification of guidelines (above, earlier). Also, it is easier to argue about more general points, but it is not constructive. You first generalize my position and then argue how it is obviously wrong. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • On second thought, yes I agree that wikipedia should promulgate fringe theories and even pseudoscience if they constitute encyclopedic knowledge. To have a different approach would be against wp:notcensored and against wikipedia being the sum of encyclopedic knowledge. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and wp:npov also promulgate != advocate. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, sth that is fringe for a musician might be, for example, one of a crucial points for a physicist working in narrow domain. And content of an article about something from narrow domain should be judged from the perspective of such a person (person that is going to actually look for this article). Consequently, sth that is fringe in the context of one article perhaps should not be treated as such in some other article depending on its topic and breadth. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If such a "narrow domain" is not fringe, then it is out-of-scope for the WP:FRINGE guideline and off-topic here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That phrase "after considering what is the profile of potential readers'" almost coffee spill ruined my keyboard. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide real argument and also pls see WP:TALKNO, Avoid indirect criticism, Wikipedia:Passive Aggressive and wp:DONTBITE. For example, person entering article "Fringe theories about X" (assuming it was created because they were notable) would like to find various fringe theories about X. Another example, person entering "Supercomplex and advanced thing X" probably is not a retard and can judge for herself reported knowledge especially if it is decorated with . Thank you. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Origin of "Independent reliable sources required" dispute

This discussion started when user Staszek Lem made this edit by adding word 'independent' (INITIAL CHANGE) - this was BOLD that was reverted (FIRST REVERT) and user Staszek Lem started a discussion.

All other reverts/edits RESTORING this INITIAL CHANGE that was reverted in FIRST REVERT constitute unnecessary WP:EDITWAR as the discussion is ongoing. Please provide valid arguments in discussion instead of reverting.

Futhermore, as WP:BRD says "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)"

Please also see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.--Asterixf2 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD is an essay. It seems fairly clear the consensus is that this text in the lede is good. It is after all only a summary (such as ledes should provide) of what is spelled out in WP:FRIND: if some fringe concept ain't covered by independent sources, we shall not have it in our articles. Alexbrn (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the prior state of the article, you're the sole editor reverting a change that has now been added by multiple different editors and supported by more in the discussion. I don't think the editors supporting the change are the source of the edit warring problem. Sunrise (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Please see: WP:WIKINOTVOTE and most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion

My point is, originally this word wasn't there, so everybody could politely wait some reasonable time for discussion to end and perhaps contributing some good points to the discussion instead of reverting immediately and obfuscating edit history. Moreover, it doesn't matter how many editors do what, but the arguments.

As I see it, the primary reason for this edit was this dispute: Talk:Entropic_force#Good Point On Fringe Discussion in Entropic Force (comment by TR) which was not very constructive because another user did not carefully analyze the article and made hasty and disruptive edits. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of these points, thanks. The standard response in this context is "being right is not an excuse to edit war." It's from the first paragraph of WP:EDITWAR and is even in one of the edit warring warning templates. Sunrise (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise:In my opinion this is a significant misrepresentation of the first paragraph. It says that "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is an invalid argument. In this discussion I was not reverting because I was claiming that my edits were right, but because there was an ongoing discussion. This is a completely different situation. However, I must admit that I have initially confused two different places in article with 'independent' word.--Asterixf2 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that adding another comment here is futile, but for the record: "right" in this context includes being right as a matter of policy or procedure. Sunrise (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected

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

---

I have protected this article due to the edit war. If anybody is really determined that a change must be made then they can start an RfC and abide by the result. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The text was moved to another page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

See also talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think if this user tries it on once more, they need to be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tries once more what exactly? I have made totally different change not involving fragments about 'independent' words. Because sb suggested that fringe page was not appropriate for this change I moved this edit to NPOV and tried to discuss it there. This is a different issue. Please reopen the discussion there. Also I find your comment there highly inappropriate. --Asterixf2 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You urgently need to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Example

An example on this page currently says, "including McCartney, who is alive and well as of 2014". Could some admin update it to say "as of 2016"? (Actually, Guy, I think it might be reasonable for you to remove protection early, as the disputants seem less active at the moment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)