Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 23

Booth Escaped

(discussion moved to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Booth_Escaped

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NJGW (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 November 2008‎ (UTC)

RfC on the scope of WP:FRINGE

NO ACTION
* No consensus.

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.

Which articles should be within the scope of the guideline WP:FRINGE? How narrowly or broadly should this guideline apply?

Should it be construed to apply:

LK (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Responses

  • Broadly: The purpose of the guideline is to make it harder for fringe proponents and supporters to use WP as a platform to promote their theories, which logically includes self-promotion and promotion of fringe proponents. Fringe proponents and supporters have often taken advantage of this loophole in the guideline to justify coatrack articles on themselves, and to proliferate the number of articles on themselves. Changing the wording of the guideline from "fringe theories" to "fringe-related topics" would close the loophole and help curb such promotional activity. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly for the reasons just given but also because if these aren't included we end up with articles that with reliable sources describe their subjects as fringe but that wouldn't be included within this guideline, which IMHO would make us look silly. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. If the guideline is broad so as to eliminate articles about fringe topics we end up with articles about fringe topics that the broad guideline fails to eliminate because they're reliably sourced? Bn (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If the guidelines aren't broad enough to include organizations, media and periodicals and of course people, we will end up with articles on fringe subjects that aren't within the fringe guidelines. Is that clearer? Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • broadly "Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. " The broad application is appropriate as FRINGEy issues appear broadly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly... as relates to theories... narrowly as it relates to related topic such as people... One of the things that this guideline used to do well was outline when and how it was appropriate to discuss Fringe theories. Slow instruction creep seems to have diminished if not actually removed that aspect of the guidance. If we are to broaden the scope of the guideline to cover any and all fringe related topics, I think we need to once again make this aspect of the guideline more prominent. A lot of editors already misuse this guideline ... this guideline does not and should not ban fringe topics. Instead of focusing on the exclusion of fringe topics... it should focus on explaining the appropriate ways to include fringe topics. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly, per Blueboar. We need to make it clear that we do have articles on fringe views, but we present those views as fringe, we do not transgress UNDUE; we write for NPOV not SPOV (sympathetic POV). KillerChihuahua?!? 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, good points Blueboar. Does this policy not just expand a guideline on the policy of WEIGHT? Essentially, Fringe details the "extreme minority" viewpoint described by Jimbo as I see it. In the case of this RfC, is there an example where Narrow applies and Broad doesn't? For example, if homeopathy (Narrow) was insufficient enough to be presented in a mainstream article on Pharmacology, why would the British Homeopathic Association (Broad) be any different? If the article itself is about homeopathy, then British Homeopathic Association should be allowed in that article. I'm trying to see the distinction. I also worry about how this policy is often applied to non-scientific articles as an attempt to circumvent NPOV, for example, in politics where it's the norm to describe opponent positions as extreme, leading users to debate about if a viewpoint is broadly supported by scholarship. Morphh (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The RfC is about whether FRINGE should apply to the article British Homeopathic Association itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly. An article on an organization, publication, or person that is associated with a fringe topic stands or falls on grounds of notability. Treatment of the fringe topic within such an article must be balanced with full representation of its relationship to the corresponding mainstream views, per NPOV. Mention of such an organization, publication, or person in another article can only occur as part of discussion of the associated fringe topic, the proper subordination of which is covered by a narrow construal of the guideline.
The thrust of this is to put more reliance on policies and reduce the ‘instruction creep’ that Blueboar notes. Bn (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
And if we have no sources which give a relationship to the corresponding mainstream views? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
If there are no sources affirming the relationship, then how do you know that the given topic corresponds to the mainstream view that you believe it corresponds to? Wouldn't it require original research by the editor to make such a connection?
Note that my position here is to apply FRINGE to the fringe theory wherever it occurs, hence, broadly in that sense, but if the theory is mentioned in, say, an article about a proponent of that theory then the guideline applies to the discussion of the fringe theory; it does not apply to the proponent. There are no fringe people. The fact that a publisher publishes books about a fringe theory does not contaminate them with ‘fringiness’ any more than publishing science books makes Wiley scientific. Like Random house or Pearson/Penguin, they may publish on fringe topics as well as a great many other subjects. Hence, narrowly in that sense. Discussion has been equivocating between at least these two senses. Bn (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"If there are no sources affirming the relationship, then how do you know that the given topic corresponds to the mainstream view that you believe it corresponds to? Wouldn't it require original research by the editor to make such a connection?" - if there are no good sources, the topic is "not notable" and we are not going to have an article about it. No article - no original research. Problem solved - by the part of this guideline concerning notability. But only assuming that the option "Broadly" is chosen. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
We're talking about a subset of sources, namely, those that affirm a relationship to a view that is presently mainstream. Alchemy is generally regarded as pseudoscience. SFAIK there are no sources affirming that alchemy has some kind of current relation to chemistry or metallurgy, e.g. as a subfield or as an application technique, but there are reliable sources about alchemy as a philosophical system of historic and cultural importance, as a symbol system studied and made use of in Jungian psychology, etc., and there is no question that it is notable. Bn (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Questions for the proposer: Does the present format of the Guideline WP:Fringe (or Wikipedia:Fringe Theories as it is currently known) apply to every fringe theory, view or claim in any WP article? Or does it apply only to Wikipedia articles about a fringe theory (with the exception of the Notability section extended earlier this year)? Is the first proposal to narrow the scope of the guideline to articles about fringe theories (and products) only? And is the alternative proposition, to expand the scope so that the guidelines apply to all topics that are primarily fringe-related even if the article includes no fringe claims as these are addressed in other linked articles? Kooky2 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Inclined towards broad interpretation One of the issues here involves widely adhered-to pseudosciences such as astrology which have their own substantial communities. How much does prominence within the the astrological community, for instance, warrant an article on an astrologer? One broad interpretation would expect MSM or similar notice outside the community, so that for instance Sydney Omarr gets an article without relying on sources within the astrological community, but almost all other modern astrologers do not merit articles because they have no notability outside the community. I'm inclined to take this approach because the alternative is to figure out how to assess fringe literature for notability when we are largely not accepting it for other purposes. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are many cases where notability is entirely relative to a given field. Few have heard of Stanley S. Newman (not Stan Newman the puzzle creator) or Henry Hoenigswald outside of the field of linguistics. The recourse then is to trust the literature of the field and the judgment of editors who have expertise in the field. In the example used above, there is no question of the notability of astrology as a field, and there is a substantial technical and even scholarly literature. Bn (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The question then becomes, "what is the literature of the field?" The judgement of "those in the field" is not free from review from the outside: I'm not a geologist, but I can tell what's genuine geological scholarship and what is young earth fringe material. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a task for RS, not for FRINGE. The young earth literature probably mentions and references the literature of geology but if the standard works of geology mention young earth views at all they will identify it as fringe. Bn (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly: It should be confined to subjects, primarily scientific, where the theory in question can be compared to an objective standard. Logically, it should be narrower in scope than V and RS. It is too often misused as one more pass at circumventing NPOV guidelines on non-scientific articles when V and RS requirements have already been satisfied. Ignocrates (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly if I understand correctly... Everyone agrees that we treat theories with due weight, which means that fringe theories are barely mentioned if at all. But you're asking if someone who promotes a fringe theory might have a comprehensive article about their views and their significance? That would be the ultimate backdoor, and violate the spirit of the policy. I'm not confident I know how to deal with someone who says something so boneheadedly stupid as to have dozens of scientists, academics, and other experts write tons of articles about how completely outside of reality they are. But I think that would be a case of a person who is technically "notable", but where we wouldn't really have anything constructive to write about them. Call the policy WP:BLPIDIOTS. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Suppose someone puts up a bio article about their hero, the proponent of a weird theory. Assuming it passes WP:NOTE, then under WP:UNDUE, they will have to tolerate it being contextualized wrt mainstream theories in a way that they might not regard as flattering. In the extreme case, where the views are so sui generis as to make such contextualization difficult, simple reportage has for most readers the effect of self-ridicule. The article on David Icke may illustrate this point. Bn (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: "Their hero?" I am sorry, but hero worship is to be performed on fan websites, not encyclopedias. As for David Icke, is he the follow who thinks he comes from outer space? Well, BMU. Just BMU, ASAP. History2007 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You are in violent agreement with me. “Hero” refers to the attitude of the (imagined) follower who writes an admiring bio of the promoter of said weird theory. Just as you reject hero worship, NPOV rejects the hero-worshiping qualities of such a bio. I think David Icke's utterances are difficult to put in relationship with any mainstream views because they are so far out there, but just reporting them neutrally amounts to ridiculing them. Bn (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly-ish. To quote WP:FRINGE, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents". Regardless of whether we are discussing fringe theories, the proponents of such theories, or organisations which in turn promote such theories and their proponents, the criteria is the same: that they are only 'notable' in as much as they are deemed worthy of note by those not promoting the theories, and they only merit as much WP:WEIGHT in articles as the non-promoting mainstream gives them. David Icke's 'shape-shifting lizards' fringe theory is notable in Wikipedia terms because it, along with Icke's other wackiness, has been the subject of considerable media attention. If some otherwise unknown fringe theorist comes up with a counterproposal that rather than lizards, the powers-that-be are in fact sentient mobile fungal colonies, it will be entirely non-notable, if no more implausible, unless and until it gets noticed by the non-fringe mainstream. It really matters little whether one is discussing the sentient-fungus theory, the sentient-fungus theorist, The Sentient-Fungus Quarterly Review or the Society for the Promotion of Sentient-Fungus Theories - it is all fringe, and unworthy of note unless noted by outsiders... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly. There are editors who are trying to apply FRINGE to an ever-growing list of articles. I saw IRWolfie- argue recently that psychoanalysis is "fringe," though it's taught in medical schools and practised by senior psychiatrists. Allowing this broader interpretation would mean people might try to label as "fringe" people such as Theodore Shapiro, professor emeritus in psychiatry and pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medical College; and John Bowlby, formerly director of the Tavistock Clinic. Yes, that would be ridiculous and would never stand, but that doesn't mean someone might not try it (though I'm not suggesting IRWolfie- would), resulting in hours or days of having to argue about it just because this page had over-extended itself.

    The point of FRINGE (and common sense) is to make sure that bizarre views don't make their way into articles about mainstream positions. But it is being used to remove material about people (even in articles about those people) who have views that deviate from the mainstream, in the opinion of some Wikipedians. That is, they're interpreting this guideline to allow them to engage in original research. So long as it's being interpreted this way, the guideline should not be extended at all, or as Blueboar argues it should make clear that its purpose is to explain how to include certain types of material, not how to exclude it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Since you are mentioning me in connection to Psychoanalysis, as I pointed out to you at the time when you asked; Nature and Science both say that it is far from the mainstream. These are top tier science journals. You have not addressed this point. Homeopathy and Naturopathy are practiced in Universities, hospitals etc etc. Does this make them not fringe too? It's not original research to realize that some sources are of better quality than others. They each have many practioners. This is a red herring anyway, since it has no connection to the current discussion. The point of FRINGE isn't just about "bizarre views don't make their way into articles about mainstream positions", I suggest you actually read these guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a red herring if it's a position you're still defending, that psychoanalysis is "fringe". Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry, a standard psychiatry textbook, writes that psychoanalysis "has established itself as one of the fundamental disciplines within psychiatry" (2007 edition, p. 190). Instead you focus on articles written by people who don't like it, and insist that anonymous Wikipedians, armed with those articles, should override what is actually taught in some of the best medical schools in the world, and practiced in some of the best teaching hospitals. If this proposal were to succeed, you could (in theory) insist that biographies about senior psychiatrists be labelled as "fringe" because they are also psychoanalysts. I'm writing "in theory" because that would never be allowed, which shows that this proposal doesn't pass muster, because it could never be put into practice.

    People like David Icke (the world is ruled by giant lizards) are already covered by this guideline; we don't need to add anything extra that specifically focuses on individuals. But people will support an extension to cover the lizard man, not realizing that some of the people who want the extension might try to apply it to regular physicians and academics. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  • If it were established that psychoanalysis were a minority but not fringe position, then it would not matter whether a narrow or broad interpretation were applied in that context. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly. This guideline is meant to show how other policies and guidelines are to be applied while dealing with fringe topics (most importantly, when the topic in question is mostly ignored by serious sources). Some of such guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Now why would we apply one set of rules to an article about the fringe theory and a completely different set of rules to an article about, let's say, a book proclaiming this theory? In this discussion two main arguments in favour of "Narrowly" seem to have been made so far: 1) the guideline might be misused, 2) the guideline often repeats what other guidelines say. Unfortunately, they seem to work against each other: a clearer guideline is harder to misuse (and sometimes clarity does require repetition). Also, those objections do not seem to be specific enough: other guidelines are also misused (for example, in far too many many cases someone who complains about "hounding", actually complains about something that the guideline does not condemn) and they often repeat other guidelines (for example, one of the main parts of almost any "special" notability guideline often repeats what is said in the general notability guideline). And it is not clear why stating that this guideline applies to articles about, let's say, books proclaiming fringe theories, would be supposed to lead to misuse of the guideline. Thus I'd say that the option "Broadly" is much better than the alternative. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Very Broadly. It is well known that 7-8 years ago, Wikipedia's growth was largely driven by users who were mostly idealists who had dreams of building a "real encyclopedia", but in time, as the number of page views increased, the number of opportunists who saw this website as a means of self-promotion grew. The price could not be beaten. WP:FTN is witness to the fact that these days everyone with a keyboard, a modem and a fascination with lunatic fringe items can just start an article, or edit existing articles to say something about the amazing cyborgs that live in the caves on Mars, or something to that effect. It takes effort to Afd these, and if the standards are too lax, many will get through. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very Narrowly. Because an encyclopaedia should not be judgmental about the existence of something (even if it has no scientific or academic support), only judgemental about the veracity of the subject. So while Wiki should accurately portray the views of fringe subjects with the normal caveats that apply to fringe theories etc., it should not restrict the information provided about the fringe subject. Any person or organisation should be excluded because while their subject may be fringe, the existence of an organisation or someone who has come to the public notice due to the fringe subject are themselves not fringe – because they actually exist even if their topic is questionable. A lot of mileage is made about the need to prevent self-promotion of fringe subjects or people associated with fringe subjects but this is already Wiki policy and only needs to be enacted in relevant situations. Furthermore, a fringe subjects needs to be notable in the same manner of any other subject. A web article or self-published book on a fringe subject is not notable. In my experience, there are many frenzied editors with a born-again religious intensity involved with attacking fringe subjects, including people and organisations associated with the fringe subjects, which does Wiki no good because if a member of the public wants to know about psychics bending spoons, they should at least be able to read something about it without only be told it has no scientific value or support or having nothing at all provided by Wiki due to its fringe nature. I have perceived a censorship effort by many editors wanting to prevent information on fringe theories, or associated people and organisations, being provided by Wiki – is this beneficial or detrimental to Wiki? Terry Macro (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Response/Comment: The reason it is detrimental is that the presence of far out and fringe items discourages serious scientists from bothering to enter serious science into Wikipedia, for they will say: "why bother?" The more Wikipedia looks like a lunatic fringe website, the less likely it is to attract serious scientists who will see it as a rummage sale of semi-literate material. That is the harm that is built into fringe. History2007 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This risk is managed by WP:UNDUE. Bn (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Response: No, it is not. WP:Undue deals with ratios, the ratio here should be A/0. Any, and I mean any. presence of lunatic fringe makes Wikipedia look like a joke. Personally I find the most laughable aspect of WMF operations to be the attempt to sell Wikipedia:Books in printed format. Would I ever, ever, ever buy a printed Wiki-book on physics and give it to a young reader to read? No way. It could be so full of errors and fringe material to teach him errors long rejected by the scientific community at large. He could fail exams that way, set back his career, etc. Why not buy a physics book published by John Wiley? If one wants to support WMF, one just donates not buy these error prone, fringe laden books on physics that no scientist has checked, and some fringe pusher could have populated. This entire lax attitude and the "risk can be managed" mindset makes the scientific articles in Wikipedia look like sad jokes. Go to any respected physics department, walk the corridors, stop a professor and ask: "Would you recommend a book based on Wikipedia as a way to learn physics?" His laughter will likely be heard all over the corridor. History2007 (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Agreed re extracting textbooks from any encyclopedia — but if such books (exploiting a copyright gap) were themselves peer reviewed and edited, they could be valuable even to Wikipedia. OTOH nor would the physics professor recommend a book based on Encyclopedia Britannica, or Physics for Dummies. Conversely, remember Feynman's 1964 experience reviewing math textbooks.
The guideline disagrees with you (and so do I) if you're saying that there should be no mention of any fringe subject whatsoever anywhere in Wikipedia. This is not a reasonable requirement for any encyclopedia. Readers can have excellent reasons for wanting to know what a conspiracy theory claims, for example, or that a particular politician espouses that theory. In the sciences there is generally a clear demarcation between sense and nonsense, but outside of strongly disciplined subject matters perceived reasonableness is a graded phenomenon. Bn (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone holds the position that no fringe subjects should be covered on Wikipedia (it would make Wikipedia a dull place for sure :) ). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The issue isn't one of self-promotion, it's of promotion by advocates of the fringe beliefs. You are an astrologer, and it appears that you belief that astrology is science. You will undoubtedly always find a neutral coverage of astrology and related people/organizations unsatisfactory because it would present astrology without treating it like a science. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have never claimed that astrology is science and I believe that Wiki is totally correct in placing astrology in the fringe theory bracket because to my knowledge (correct me if i am wrong) no reliable or accepted research (by academia)has proven that astrology is a science (to date at least). I don't find neutral coverage unsatisfactory but neutral coverage must address the two sides. The reader of say the astrology topic should be presented with the scientific view on astrology (provided it is reliably sourced) but also many readers will want to know what astrology is as presented by astrologers (for whatever reasons)and if Wiki cannot do this they will go elsewhere. It is totally understandable that most academics consider astrology to be nonesense but that does not prevent the general public wanting to know about many areas of nonesense such as the world coming to an end on 21st December 2012. Regardless of whether a topic is nonesense or not from the academic viewpoint, notable people and organisations associated with nonesense topics are suitable for an entry in an encyclopedia. In my dictionary an encyclopedia is defined as " a book or set of books giving information on all branches of knowledge,... ". Encyclopedias should be 'comprehensive'. Even if astrology is classified as nonesense, the subject is packed full of information and has a history stretching back thousands of years and is therefore of great interest to anathropologists, archeoastronomers, cultural historians etc etc. Terry Macro (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Existing policy already allows the full history of astrology etc to be discussed (e.g History of astrology). We don't need to lower the sourcing requirements; there are plenty of books on the history. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me that History2007 is an astrologer as you say, and I see no evidence of special pleading in what he has written. But regardless of that, UNDUE is not about self-promotion, it's about balance, and so long as coverage in Wikipedia articles is in due proportion the personal beliefs of editors who achieve that balance are irrelevant. Even astrologers can be honest participants in our work toward NPOV, and ad hominem categorization is not helpful. Bn (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Good Havens! Moi? Astrologer? Good Heavens! I did write MPG/ESO telescope, but it was not for reading the palms of the stars. He was calling Terry a stargazer, not yours truly - he has seen my views too often on these issues: I think astrology (and almost all fringe) is pure nonsense. Anyway, this discussion is beginning to eat time like Pac-man, as most crowd-sourced discussions do, so BMU, BMU... I am out of here. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Bn, I am "almost sure" that IRWolfie- has meant user "Terrymacro" and not "History2007". Look at the indentation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess there was some kind of delayed update from the server … the entry by Terrymacro was not visible to me when I wrote and the comment aligned with those of History2007 and Bn above it, and I knew he didn't mean Bn.
But I hold to the main point of my comment: who says it doesn't matter, and what their beliefs are doesn't matter, if what they say is a genuine contribution to NPOV. A theory can be fringe, but a person cannot. I've known quite a few people who gave credence to ideas that I thought were fringe but those people were eminently reasonable in other respects. FRINGE is not an infectious disease, and it's not a tar brush. This notion of contagion is a kind of Puritanism that to my mind is inappropriate. Bn (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not implying that they aren't reasonable, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As long as we are discussing astrology, as an example, it is permissible to say "Famous Person believed Moon in Aries excused their repeated drunk driving arrests" - with WP:RS of course. Or "the arresting officer believed Famous Person's moon in aries was the cause of their repeated drunk driving arrests and therefore just drove them home." - with WP:RS of course. It is Not permissible to say "Famous Person's moon in aries was the cause of their repeated drunk driving arrests." CarolMooreDC 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly There is no way to separate this guideline from the related articles. Application should be across all articles; a narrow application would too easily lead to associated articles turning into coatracks, I fear. Yobol (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly per SV. I've seen people try and shoehorn things (a la COATRACK) into not-current-consensus beliefs still widely held on the premise that FRINGE demanded that we inform people that certain ideas were Not Mainstream. If every not-current-consensus belief article comes with a "Warning: may contain evil!" tag, then NPOV is pretty much out the window, and we have this incestuous spiral between RS (if it treats a FRINGE topic seriously, it must not be one), and DUE (no real RS? No space allocated to discussing it) that would, at its extreme, make a mockery out of NPOV. Our job is to present neutrally and fairly, and resist both puffery and debunking, and let the readers make up their own mind. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but your response appears to have no direct relevant to the particular question being asked. You refer to "not current consensus belief article", but I'm not sure if we are discussing the same thing. The issue is whether we apply the guidelines to articles about fringe adherents, fringe concepts, and fringe organizations, and not just the fringe theory itself. It is not about extending the scope to treat major alternative views in the same way as pseudoscience. As an aside, if a topic is not mainstream, it seems important that the article should reflect it's actual status and not be written as though it were mainstream; to avoid being misleading. That doesn't mean adding disclaimers, but it should be self evident as the article should be conveying what the sources do. If there are no RS on a topic, I'm not sure how you propose to discuss it in an article without OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very broadly per DV, Dougweller, History2007, et al. WP:FRINGE is mainly a description of how to properly apply NPOV to fringe claims, and it would be odd to restrict that only to articles where the fringe claim is the article subject. A false statement about a living person is a BLP violation regardless of the article subject; undue fringe promotion is an NPOV violation regardless of the article subject. I will also make a stronger version of Yobol's statement and say that fringe-associated articles will turn into coatracks.
Several of the comments above me seem to be attacking FRINGE itself, rather than addressing its scope. The main theme seems to involve concerns about the exclusion or minimization of valid encyclopedic material - which if true is a separate issue independent of policy scope. That said: the purpose of FRINGE is to protect Wikipedia's duty not to misinform, e.g. by UNDUE coverage. In an ideal world, FRINGE would be superfluous to NPOV. I hardly ever cite it in discussion; I cite UNDUE instead. We don't have lengthy descriptions of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in Barack Obama. The ideas are explained in the relevant articles, with appropriate qualification in order that Wikipedia's editorial voice is not making statements that are inflated, misleading, or provably untrue. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly – Since I agree with many responses to Broadly, either I or they are misunderstanding the terms of reference. Wikipedia:Fringe Theories should address all controversial fringe theories, views, claims and “proclamations of its adherents” in a very broad sense within any article not just those that are exclusively about the theory itself. So this includes an organization, product, service or an individual that promotes a fringe theory or any disguised attempt to promote a fringe theory with a WP:COATRACK article. Perhaps this should be made clear in the guideline.
If you read WP:FRINGE – even just the sub-headings, it is specifically written for fringe theories and claims. The guidelines are either inappropriate or irrelevant for content which does not include a controversial claim for entities like organizations or biographies. We should not have to thrash out the arguments about creationism or astrology or climate debate in every biography of a fringe proponent – a linked reference to the fringe theory is in many cases sufficient. This is no loophole as non-controversial biographies of fringe proponents are still subject to WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:NPOV or WP:V.
We cannot exclude a notable holocaust denier on the grounds that inclusion in Wikipedia is a platform to promote his or her warped views. Or an astrologer like Sydney Omarr can be notable under WP:BIO, WP:N, but adding the requirement that he must have been “referenced extensively in a serious and reliable manner” is taken literally by those who seek to eliminate popular fringe subjects from Wikipedia. These editors insist that only scholarly, peer reviewed or debunking sources are acceptable. I am here because I have seen the recent (Aug./Sept) broadening of the WP:FRINGE notability section applied by a couple of editors to a series of inappropriate AfDs of biographies of fringe proponents culminating in a Snow Keep here.[1] Broadening the scope of WP:FRINGE will lead to editors culling a great many relevant articles that would otherwise be notable, attract popular interest and are an essential part of the rich diversity of an Encyclopedia. Kooky2 (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry, your first sentence about "within any article" runs against the long standing statement by Jimmy Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." quoted in the WP:Due section. You then seem to be building the rest against that. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Response: I think we are on the same page on this point. What I am proposing is that if a fringe theory is to be presented on any page on Wikipedia other than through an internal link to the main fringe article, then WP:FRINGE applies to the wording. Wikipedia:Fringe theories should not apply to content that does not present controversial theories unless the article is dedicated to presenting a Fringe theory. Kooky2 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that our votes point in different directions... I wonder. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Response: History2007, I don't understand how the possibility of subordinating or excluding a topic contradicts the assertion by Kooky2 that this NP:FRINGE guideline “should address all controversial fringe theories, views, claims and “proclamations of its adherents” in a very broad sense within any article”. The consequences of using the guideline, and the policies on which it depends, might be to subordinate or exclude the topic, but that would come after the guideline was used to address the issue.
BTW, that (avowed) paraphrase of what Jimmy Wales wrote omits some important context. If you look at the original in a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list, he was talking about original research. Whenever original research is indeed the issue, WP:OR is the appropriate and sufficient tool.
St. Jimbo also said (and this, too, is paraphrased in NPOV with some loss of context):

[...] Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.[1]

How do we identify those “some cases”? The criteria for deletion are in policies, especially WP:NOT and behind it WP:RS. I agree with Blueboar that we must clearly distinguish reliability from notability, and (as paraphrased by SlimVirgin) that the purpose of FRINGE is “to explain how to include certain types of material, not how to exclude it.”
What is a ‘singular view’? A bit farther down in that email, Jimmy Wales says it is

[…] a view [that] is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and […] dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists. Usually the creative alternative-physics types will readily agree that virtually no mainstream physicists would agree.

So a ‘singular view’ is defined by its (few) advocates in terms of its conflict with a mainstream view.
A second thing about the quotations above is that they clearly concern standalone articles. Mention of one topic in article on another topic can require somewhat different treatment. Bn (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Final comment I could respond again and again. But as I said above, this discussion is eating up time now. I do not agree with you, but I have voted, explained before and time to deal with real life, and stop arguing against articles about the existence of 8 legged cyborgs in Martian caves. Whoever believes those articles deserves them. That is the justice of it in the end, I guess. Good bye. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an RFC, not a poll. I think everyone agrees about articles on fringe topics (those cyborgs). Broadening to articles about people and things that are associated with fringe topics (authors, publishers, organizations) has less agreement. Bn (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly Where there is an issue with giving undue legitimacy to a fringe theory it doesn't really make sense to make a distinction between whether it happens to be about a/the fringe organization, proponent or theory, or aspect of the theory. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question for those who wish broad interpretation: Where do we draw the lines? If we are not careful we could go too broadly, what we say could be used by POV pushers to squash legitimate minority views. For example... suppose a historian has fringe views about the death of Richard II, but holds legitimate minority views on the subject of Henry VIII... I am concerned that someone might point to WP:FRINGE and say "because he is fringe on Richard II, we can omit his views from the article on Henry VIII". Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the policy suggests no such thing, the problem does not arise. We don't label everything that a holder of a fringe position believes as necessarily fringe, obviously. This would be counter to common sense, never mind policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The question is a general question and does not apply just here, but also applies to the general distinction between "majority vs minority" , and "minority vs fringe" views. In cases where there are clear WP:RS sources providing an overview of the field that state what the majority, minority and fringe views are, the issue does not even arise. In those cases, the labels provided by the WP:RS sources will over-ride Wiki-editor surveys of the field. In many cases suitable searches can find the sources for that type of scholarly overview - it is a question of doing the searches. In cases where no such WP:RS scholarly surveys are available, WP:CON applies, of course. History2007 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance to the current RfC, which is not about fringe mentions in mainstream articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly, and with a heavy dose of common sense. Any implication that FRINGE "doesn't apply" to articles where the subject is not the fringe topic itself is an invitation to those who would game the system. The biographies of living persons policy provides a useful comparison, in that it covers all biographical content, even if it appears in an article that is not technically a "biography". There is no distinction between "Joe Bloggs is the president of XYZ University, and he stole $1 billion from its endowment" and "XYZ University is a four-year college headed by Joe Bloggs, who stole $1 billion from its endowment". There should also be no distinction between "Wongo juice cures cancer" and "Jane Floggs is the inventor of wongo juice, which cures cancer". szyslak (t) 18:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Editing error fixed by szyslak (t) 19:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
True... however, there is a distinction between:
  • Wongo juice cures cancer and
  • According its inventor, Jane Floggs, Wongo juice cures cancer.
(Assuming that the theory that Wongo Juice actually does cure cancer is fringe) It would be inappropriate to include the first statement in any article. However, It would be quite appropriate to include the second statement in the article on Wongo juice. A related distinction would exist between:
  • "Jane Floggs is the inventor of wongo juice, which cures cancer" and
  • "Jane Floggs is the inventor of Wongo juice, which she claims cures cancer"
It would be quite appropriate to include the second statement in the Jane Floggs bio article. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the points you made here. My real point here is that biased FRINGE content that violates WP:UNDUE, etc. is equally unacceptable regardless of whether the article happens to be titled Wongo juice or Jane Floggs. szyslak (t) 20:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I really don't understand the point of this question. WP:FRINGE is essentially a sub-guideline of WP:NPOV, and NPOV applies to all articles. Broadly speaking, NPOV defines 3 categories of viewpoints:
  1. Majority
  2. Significant minority
  3. Insignificant minority (or fringe)

This guideline is supposed to help editors deal with category 3. I'm not sure if actually does that (and maybe the guideline needs to be rewritten) but again, I don't understand the point of this question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well... half of WP:FRINGE is a sub-guideline of WP:NPOV... the other half is a sub-guideline of WP:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
True, that's a good point. Well, actually, one section (out of 8 or 9) is about notability. How about we solve this problem by deleting that section? Well, maybe not, the examples section is good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes - the question is ambiguous. I have asked the proposer for clarification. Many editors who have supported that the scope of the guideline WP:FRINGE should be applied broadly have put forward a case that is not in dispute and one where almost everyone here agrees. Of course it is and it should continue to be applied to all articles.
However, this is not the issue that has been discussed on this talk page over the past few months. The debate has been about whether the notability of fringe-related subjects, such as fringe organizations and fringe biographies should be subject to the same terms as fringe theories as set out in WP:FRINGE#Notability in addition to WP:BIO and WP:N. This question should be raised at an RfC so the discussion can be settled. Kooky2 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree and think that the RfC should be restarted with a very clear question. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, The question that I wanted to ask in this RFC is: "What is the intended scope of WP:FRINGE? Should it be limited to fringe theories, or should it be broadened to include fringe topics?" This question is not directly tied to the notability issue that others are talking about (although the answer would probably affect it)... it was inspired by my own re-evaluations of an edit that was made back in August (at the time, seven of us discussed this issue and seemed to reach a local consensus, but neglected to seek broader community input). Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, even if the RfC had asked that question, the answer is the same: WP:FRINGE is predominantly part of WP:NPOV and NPOV applies to all articles.
Regarding the notability issue, a good RfC question to ask is "Should the notability guidelines be different for fringe-related articles, and if so, how?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, I'm not sure I understand the difference, in the sense that I don't know what the practical application might be of that distinction. The only thing I know is that some editors use FRINGE to remove information from biographies of people they disagree with, calling their ideas "fringe" and therefore not allowed on WP on any page, not even in articles about adherents. And this proposal would seem to allow them to do that. But I don't think people supporting the "broadly" option are aware of that, or at least it's not obvious that they're aware of it, so restarting the RfC with a very clear question would be a good idea. Otherwise the outcome is likely to be contested and/or the closing editor will not know how to read the consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
In response to SV: I don't know which examples you're referring to, but when a dedicated article for the fringe theory exists, it seems that the biography should contain only a summary. Plus, if it's the case that something has no reliable sources describing it, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
In response to AQFK, I don't think the notability section is unique either. The only difference is that it's common for fringe topics to have many unreliable sources discussing a topic but no or few reliable ones, and so that issue is emphasized in this policy. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I think slim is referring to this rather extended discussion Wikipedia:RSN#Robert_Almeder. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not referring to any particular article. Arc de Ciel, whether a biography should contain a summary or more detail of a subject's views has to be a matter of editorial judgment on the page. It's not good to try to decide these things centrally in advance, especially not when people will use the guideline as an excuse to remove material they don't like, no matter how much a reader might find it interesting. That always has to be the bottom line -- what the reader is likely to find interesting (within the limits of NPOV, V, NOR and BLP). SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No, what the reader finds interesting is not the deciding factor. We aren't here to appease the audience; and sometimes they might even find what they see objectionable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No scope WP:FRINGE should be consigned to the dustbin. WP:NPOV is more than adequate. (a) There is no scientific definition of "fringe" (b) its interpretation is purely subjective resulting in editors being the arbiters of whether an article or idea is so labelled (editors become a primary source as a result of WP:SYNTH, i.e. their own opinion) (c) While "fringe" may mean "minority", it has pejorative overtones and hence is highly controversial, but requires no WP:V with WP:RS (d) Why do we focus on fringe science, and not other "fringe" subjects (e) no other encyclopaedia considers "fringiness" (f) science does not distinguish between highly specialised subjects and "fringe" subjects (f) Editors do not follow the guidelines anyway (I followed the guidelines to check a textbook to use as a reference and found unanimous WP:RS supporting non-fringe, but was overruled by an editor's opinion without a single WP:RS) --Iantresman (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: An important point has been raised here. WEIGHT can be viewed as a continuum, and FRINGE is often used to apply a threshold of acceptability to that continuum. The problem occurs when FRINGE is used on a sliding scale to include someone's "mainstream" theory while excluding others. If it can't be applied using an objective standard, it shouldn't be used at all. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hum, this account is a little different of how I remember it. Readers interested in the full story can read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Iantresman. Ianstresman claimed that a certain book didn't include certain fringe ideas, and he was topic banned under the provisions of the "Fringe theories" arbitration case. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly It covers a broad range of disparate topics ranging from outlandish historical theories to psedoscientific theories of everything. Often those promoting the theories are notable only in that context. Some of the journals, for example Progress in Physics, are virtual web-based publications without proper peer review, administered by those promoting fringe views. The fuzzy or blurred edges of fringe topics more or less dictate taking a broader perspective. The range of topics on FTN is a good imdication of that. Things have tightened up in the past five or so years, however, with more stringent application of BLP policies. That has resulted in problematic largely self-written bios being deleted, an example being Florentin Smarandache. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The broad/narrow dichotomy has two senses between which our discussion blindly equivocates. My initial position was narrowly. This restatement of it articulates that distinction:

  • Broadly (sense 1): Yes, it should apply to fringe ideas in all articles, not just in articles specifically about the fringe ideas.
  • Narrowly (sense 2): It should apply to fringe ideas, but not to people, organizations, etc. that are associated with fringe ideas. In an article about an organization whose main purpose is the promotion of a fringe idea, yes, the fringe idea should be contextualized with mainstream views so as not to give it undue weight. But to say that the organization itself is fringe, or must not be given undue weight, is kind of nonsensical (the question is, is it notable), and the desired effect on the article about the organization is achieved by applying the guideline to the fringe idea that the organization promotes.
If the RFC is restated, I hope this ambiguity can be clarified. Bn (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, maybe you should strike out the bolded "Narrowly" that stated your previous position..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly to hard science where facts are far more objective. In social sciences there is just too much subjectivity, too many diverse theories, and newer "fringe" theories frequently subplanting "mainstream ones." (Of course, this ALSO can be said of hard science so even there there is a place for some "fringe" theories.) I've had to put up with "fringe" being applied to political views held by millions of people in a lot of political articles (especially on libertarian, free market, women-related and Israel/Palestine issues). I think it's absurd and the ultimate in conservativsm to allow a broad definition of fringe.
As others have said, notability counts. If a fringe theory/view/etc. is notable, lots of people will be there to debunk it; not mentioning it or keeping it to one or two sentences just makes it look like Wikipedia is stupid or censored (and from experience I know censorship IS the goal of some people who bandy about "fringe.")
This is especially true for biographies. People are curious about fringy people and the more complete the article, the more it can clarify which individuals are ridiculous, which are questionable and which might have some point that is worth exploring. CarolMooreDC 14:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Errr, by social sciences I suppose that you mean Waco siege. There are tons of fringe and crackpot theories about that topic. Some were featured in several full-fledged video documentaries and even two films. Without WP:FRINGE, that article would be intractable. Less than one month ago I had to invoke WP:FRINGE here to remove fringe stuff.
And a exemption for "social sciences" is way too broad. It would allow to fill history articles with pseudohistory and historical revisionism (negationism). Archaeology would be mixed with pseudoarchaeology (archaeologers often have to make theories from small amounts of material, there is lots of room for fringe theories). Shakespeare authorship question would be a mess due to all the tiny fringe theories posited by one author, and Origin theories of Christopher Columbus would be an even bigger mess because some of the views are promoted by nationalist groups despite having awful reputation in academic circles. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean Waco Siege, an article I haven't worked on much which is why there is so much finge and barely relevant stuff and many many solid sources (mostly from govt reports and hearings) missing. CarolMooreDC 22:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC random break

Comment on the hidden harm of narrowing fringe items: As I said, I will not participate in point for point discussion here any more, but I happened to think of a table and the the "it can be handled" mentality expressed here based on the flatly incorrect "editor time is infinite" assumption. It reminded me of how when that mindset gets applied to fringe it exacerbates a larger problem which most Wikipedians are unaware of: the shortage of human resources. Unless policy is strengthened against fringe elements getting pages, etc. the level of junk accumulated in Wikipedia will continue to go up due to the hidden decline in content monitoring. I became aware of it when an academic writing about Wikipedia showed me the table embedded below:

Table of Wikipedia editor presence by edit frequency
Date (A) Article count (B) All users (C) editors (D) frequent editors
01/01/2002 19,700 333 158 24
01/01/2003 96,500 1,170 504 117
01/01/2004 188,800 4,144 1,500 297
01/01/2005 438,500 16,509 5,906 878
01/01/2006 895,000 58,244 25,317 3,332
01/01/2007 1,560,000 181,420 51,158 5,100
01/01/2008 2,153,000 316,811 44,901 4,543
01/01/2009 2,679,000 432,451 42,637 4,347
01/01/2010 3,144,000 538,830 39,907 4,060
01/01/2011 3,518,000 633,576 37,564 3,802
01/01/2012 3,835,000 725,452 34,940 3,560

The key ratios in the table above are C/A and D/A: number of regular editors (with over 100 edits per month) over the number of articles which have grown from 2 to 4 million (and growing at 30,000 a month), as shown by the following computations:

Computation of the decline in page monitoring
  • 2007: 51158/1560k = 32.7 editors for every 1,000 articles for midlevel editors
  • 2012 34940/3835k = 9.1 editors for every 1,000 articles for midlevel editors
  • 2007: 5100/1560k = 3.2 editors for every 1,000 articles for frequent editors
  • 2012 3560/3835k = 0.92 editors for every 1,000 articles for frequent editors
  • Ratio since 2007: 32.7 /9.1 = 3.5 for midlevel editors
  • Ratio since 2007: 3.2 / 0.92 = 3.4 for frequent editors

So in 2007 there were "3.3 times more regular editors per article" than in 2012. That is a very rapid decline. If the door to more fringe is not shut, that will exacerbate the problem, and will show in terms of neglected articles.

A few years ago, in his thesis "Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis" Felipe Ortega predicted the untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, which in time will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month and slowing down the reviewing process in Wikipedia. Thus "fringe pushing by coatracking" will continue to eat time like Pac-man and will just exacerbate the trend for regular editors wearing out and even walking from fixing articles, as well as discouraging academics from even touching Wikipedia for they often see it as a chaotic, fringe laden website, and not a serious "encyclopedia" in the sense that a university student could be told to rely on it. That is a serious hidden harm from entries on fringe items. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you, History2007. So what is needed are
  1. Clear and unequivocal criteria for identifying what is fringe, and what subject or subjects they are fringe to. (Fringe is a term of relationship, not a quality.)
  2. Clear criteria for distinguishing that subset that has so little support that WP:NOTABILITY can eliminate them.
  3. UNDUE so that an article or a mention in an article reflects properly the relationship between the fringe topic and that to which it is fringe.
  4. More editors addressing the problem of fringe topics. ;->
The most important and most difficult task of this guideline is defining what is fringe. The bulk of the guideline text just points to policies and either says "go read the policy and do what it says" or paraphrases it, though in some places it gives more detail, e.g. in the case of notability it gives more detail on how to resolve the problem of few reliable sources. If the main reason sources are rejected as unreliable is because they publish a fringe idea there is a risk of circular reasoning.) Bn (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a proposed approach to this that might reduce wheel-spinning controversy. Don't rely entirely on the editor's common sense as to what is fringe. The editor can say "here's a reliable source (or reliably sourced article) that contradicts what this proposed article/section says" and then if there's enough notability proceed to state the contradiction as NPOV relationship. Bn (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I am going to play devil's advocate here, and address BN's four points from the "inclusionist" perspective...
  1. Clear and unequivocal criteria for identifying what is fringe is impossible... because fringeness is often blurred and depends on context. For example, is Bigfoot/Sasquatch a fringe topic? From a scientific prospective, yes... but as a pop culture icon, no (and as a fictional character, Sasquatch is no more a fringe topic than the Geico Gecko, or the Pillsbury Doughboy).
  2. No... what is needed is clear criteria for distinguishing which subset have the minimum support necessary so that WP:NOTABILITY can include them.
  3. UNDUE so that a mention in an article reflects properly the relationship/relevance between the fringe topic and the subject/topic of the article in which it is mentioned.
  4. More editors who understand when and how to address fringe topics appropriately (it isn't necessarily a problem to do so).
Note... I am intentionally being overly "inclusionist" here... my actual stance is that there is a balance... so I come out somewhere in the middle. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Your amendment of (3) suggests that UNDUE applies only to mentions in an article but not to articles as a whole. But UNDUE says “In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint …&rdquo etc. I assume the omission was an oversight. Therefore:
3. #UNDUE so that a mention of a fringe topic in an article reflects properly the relationship/relevance between the fringe topic and the subject/topic of the article in which it is mentioned; and so that an article about a fringe topic includes mentions of the mainstream ideas that it contradicts in such a way as to reflect properly the relationships/relevance between the fringe topic and those mainstream ideas. Bn (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we're closer than may appear.
  1. Yes, fringe is a relationship (“depends on context”). Talk of ‘fringeness’ as a quality can obscure that essential fact and devolves too easily into people being offended and unable to cooperate. No action can be taken without identifying specific contradictions with mainstream views. And yes, in a strongly disciplined subject matter with explicit definitions that must be conformed to or you are no longer in that subject matter (the paramount example is a science), sense/nonsense is well defined, but in other domains the perception of what is reasonable is a graded matter.
  2. Thank you! Yes, of course, the emphasis should be on inclusion. Especially in dialog with proponents editors should frame the proponent as an ally rather than as an adversary: “Look, we have this problem. Work with us to fix it. What is written here contradicts these reliable sources (or a reliably sourced article). This article/section needs to say so.” I know a lot of good editors work hard at doing this.
  3. Yes, we can probably assume that “that to which it is fringe” is the subject of an article. (Exceptions are conceivable.) Could work the other way, of course, where the mainstream idea is mentioned in the fringe article.
  4. Yes, there have to be more editors who understand the when and how and who furthermore actively apply their understanding to the influx of questionable material. Bn (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's look at that list:
  1. "Clear and unequivocal criteria for identifying what is fringe, [...]" - would you count "Fringe view is a minority view that tends to be ignored rather than argued with." as a "[c]lear and unequivocal criteria"? If you would, "fringeness" of other types of topics can be found out by using common sense (a book is "fringe-related" to the extent that it has been written to promote views that are fringe etc.).
  2. "Clear criteria for distinguishing that subset that has so little support that WP:NOTABILITY can eliminate them." - in a preceding discussion I have "proposed" a formulation that seems to be rather clear ([2]). In short, remove the sources sympathetic to the fringe view, and see if the rest of the sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability in some way (using all relevant notability guidelines).
  3. "UNDUE so that an article or a mention in an article reflects properly the relationship between the fringe topic and that to which it is fringe." - good. Of course, we do have it.
  4. "More editors addressing the problem of fringe topics. ;->" - no. The correct formulation should be "More editors addressing the problem of fringe topics reasonably well.". We can do without the ones that do it badly (Wikipedia:Competence is required etc.).
And about the "circular reasoning" - the main problem that is addressed by this guideline is that for some fringe views we have no good sources (or little good sources) that actually argue with them in sufficient detail. Such views are simply being ignored. This guideline is meant to prevent the other policies from forcing us to describe such views as if they were universally agreed with when in fact they are almost universally disagreed with. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
On the last point: can you clarify the seeming contradiction between "universally disagreed with" and "no sources that argue with them"? Bn (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, this "contradiction" is the main reason why we need this guideline! But, of course, it is not really a contradiction. Let's take something very fringe. For example, I vaguely remember some writing that took some similarities between some foreign and Lithuanian words and tried to demonstrate that, er, Lithuanians were great in some way (although I do not really remember the conclusions). As far, as I know, no one took this writing seriously enough to write a rebuttal. Thus, technically, no writing in existence oppose this theory - or, in other words, all writings in existence that address this theory support it. However, if we actually asked anyone, we'd find out that no one (with exception of the author and, perhaps, some of his friends) actually supports the theory - everyone considers it to be nonsense unworthy of attention. But no one took the trouble to write that down. As you can see, there is no contradiction. And that's the case when this guideline should come into play. Is it more clear now..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like you are saying that the purpose of this guideline is to take care of this corner case. Is that really what you mean? Anything that fits this description is at best of marginal notability. For this example have been considered notable, some of the supporting RS must have been independent of the subject. Bn (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You asked me to show how there is no contradiction with some of my statements. I have given you an extreme example that should make it obvious (by the way, could you please confirm that now you see that there is no contradiction?). It doesn't mean that only this example exists. The problem is that "some of the supporting RS must have been independent of the subject" is not well defined without this guideline. To get another example, we have a book promoting a fringe theory. And then we have a review of that book in some "pro-fringe" journal. Is that an independent source? Why or why not? It is not an unrealistic scenario: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life. If we are going to count such sources as independent, then, quite predictably, we end up with an article that praises the book - when it is not exactly universally admired... But is there anything in other guidelines that lets us to count such sources as not independent..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your point now. And yes, ‘independence’ is not always easy to judge, although OTOH often it is not so difficult. But I still am averse to the tar brush effect: this periodical/publisher/person/organization has published something on a fringe idea, therefore the periodical/publisher/person/organization is fringe, and therefore whatever they publish is not a reliable source. I recognize the extreme that you identify; do you recognize the extreme that I am identifying? What advice in the guideline will promote appropriate balance between these extremes? Bn (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that, while not always accurate, "this periodical/publisher/person/organization has published something on a fringe idea, therefore the periodical/publisher/person/organization is fringe, and therefore whatever they publish is not a reliable source" is a relatively good heuristic in general - assuming that this "something" (that has been published) was sympathetic to the fringe theory and not critical of it. Statements supporting the fringe theory are generally taken to be false (otherwise the theory wouldn't be fringe), and proclamation of things that are generally understood to be falsehoods tends to be incompatible with reputation for fact checking and accuracy (being a reliable or "authoritative" source)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(1) “minority view that tends to be ignored rather than argued with”: Yes, and in general if the literature of topic F refers frequently to the literature of topic M but not vice versa then topic F has an appendant relationship to topic M.
(2) “remove the sources sympathetic to the fringe view, and see if the rest of the sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability in some way (using all relevant notability guidelines)”: The specific rewording that you offered [3] did not get consensus. As Blueboar put it “ Independent sources can certainly be sympathetic (or unsympathetic) to the subject they cover. When it comes to Notability Wikipedia does not care whether a source is sympathetic to its subject/topic or unsympathetic to its subject/topic... only that it be independent of it.” Reframing this as though in dialog with a proponent, an editor could say that they need to find RS discussion of the topic by people who are not active in creating or promoting it. It has to have been noticed outside the immediate community of interest to be accounted notable. Such notice may sound sympathetic or not, and still be independent.
(4) is obviously outside the scope of this guideline. Where should it be addressed? Has some form of recruitment been tried, analogous to the fundraising drives? Per discussion above it should emphasize behavioral guidelines e.g. BITE, FAITH, EQ. And BTW use of shortcut names as abbreviations amounts to an in-group jargon that is daunting to newbies. WP:Editors doesn't give or point to any introduction to this, so it's sink or swim on the talk pages.
Bn (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
"The specific rewording that you offered did not get consensus." - yes, it didn't. At that discussion, that is. However, the arguments used to support its rejection tend to be used to support the option "Narrowly" here. And it doesn't seem to be supported by a broader consensus. Of course, it is not the only wording that is compatible with option "Broadly", but then again I am going to be content with many of them.
"(4) is obviously outside the scope of this guideline." - well, you added it here... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, History2007 did. (in the “RFC Break” just prior to the list) Bn (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-issue. I can't understand why there is even a question here. The guideline starts with the ArbCom definition, which clearly sets out four categories of ideas that might be thought fringe. Then it carries on with a load of common sense, good practice and re-statement of existing policy, that could be beneficial to any article. Take, for example, Heterodox economics, an "alternative theoretical formulation". I suppose a broad definition of "fringe" would rule it in, and a narrow one would rule it out of scope. A lot of time could be wasted on arguing its pros and cons on talk and project pages. But actually it really doesn't matter either way - and shouldn't matter to us. People can just carry on editing it, finding good sources for what these economists think, and writing the sources up with due care. All else is advocacy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"I suppose a broad definition of "fringe" would rule it in, and a narrow one would rule it out of scope." - no, in this case "Narrowly" and "Broadly" do not mean anything like that. In a sense, the question is "Does this guideline apply to some books?". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Or, more importantly... does the guideline apply to people? Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
More importantly? Er, so, does it mean that you personally believe there is a reason to apply it to books, but not to people? I'd like to stress that "personally", since by now I am not sure when you tell your own position and when you are speaking as "devil's advocate"... In one case above you did say "I am going to play devil's advocate here" explicitly ([4]), but I am not sure if that's the only instance... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
No, "more importantly" means I (personally) think the question of whether WP:FRINGE applies to people is more important than the question of whether it applies to books. I have not (personally) made up my mind on either question. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah... Well, it explains why I wasn't able to find out what consistent position you defend - in a sense, you do not have a consistent position, but are still exploring. Thank you for explanation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, in your example, you suggest that heterodox economics might be excluded from a narrow scope and included in a broad scope. I agree with Martynas Patasius that this is a misunderstanding of the RFC question. Your comment and example evoke a different and also valid question about the extension of the guideline beyond hard sciences to less ‘hard’ fields that may be considered science or not, depending on who is doing the judging. Broadening in that sense has already taken place, willy nilly.
The ArbCom definition concerns pseudoscience. The guideline has already been broadened to other kinds of subject matter, and that's where a lot of the stickier difficulties lie. The guideline concerns not only ideas that are considered pseudoscience but also those that are considered fringe in a broader but less well-defined sense. I think probably almost immediately it was taken to include as well products and services seen as promoting such ideas; in any case, that is also part of the RFC's formulation of what a narrow scope means. I think this status quo is what that first part of the RFC refers to. We have a narrow scope now, limited to fringe ideas (and implementations of them); do we want to broaden it.
In the specification of what a broad scope means, this RFC asks if it should also include the people, publishers, organizations, etc. that are seen as promoting the ideas.
Confusion persists among us about these several senses of broad and narrow. Bn (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Bn (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC random break II

  • Broadly mainly because of things presented above, but I'll restate them. The policy on fringe theories is meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not been mainstream or reliably sourced. If we narrow the definition of an article that the policy applies to, we are allowing articles to pop up that aren't construed in this policy that really shouldn't exist. For example, if we disallow the Puppies Have Five Legs association, but allow an article on its founder because it's founder doesn't apply under FT, then we are effectively allowing a huge loophole for those who want to use Wikipedia for promotion of non-notable or non-factually accurate things. gwickwiretalkedits 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is one of the reasons I think the RfC should be restarted with a clearer question. Whether we have an article on Puppies Have Five Legs will depend on whether sufficient secondary sources exist to support it, and whether we have a separate article on the founder will depend on the extent to which secondary sources have written about his or her life. It won't depend on anything this guideline says. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly - wikipedia is seen as a free publishing platform for those holding marginal views to gain recognition and establish acceptance of their viewpoints, anything that can help curb the abuse is good. Davémon (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question. Lawrence, I see people saying narrowly or broadly depending on different interpretations of your question. Could you clarify exactly what the RfC is asking in relation to people? You propose that FRINGE "should also apply to ... people whose main claim to notability is the promotion of such [fringe] views ..." and you give a number of examples, including David Irving. The existence and content of our article on Irving is governed by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTE (or specifically its subpage, WP:BIO). What difference would inclusion within the scope of this guideline make to that article? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment This is an issue that the community here needs to resolve. In the discussion preceding the RfC, editors disagreed about whether this guideline should apply to only theories, or to fringe topics broadly construed (including organizations and people advocating fringe theories). Editors also disagreed about whether this guideline should apply to the articles about those organizations and people, and supplement other policies like WP:NOTE and WP:NPV in those articles. The person(s) who closes this RfC should address this issue in the closing statement. LK (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering the size that this RfC will probably end up, I would prefer a 3 admin close. Any objections? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Lawrence, what would it mean exactly to apply WP:FRINGE to a biography? You offered David Irving as an example in your RfC question. Can you explain what difference it would make to that article if it were, as a result of this RfC, to fall within the scope of FRINGE?

    As things stand, I don't see how the the RfC can be closed, because it's not clear what is being asked, and it's obvious from the responses that people are confused about what they're agreeing to, or disagreeing with. Can it be rephrased and reopened? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Broadly with the help of NPOV and UNDUE and a regular dose of WP:FTN, the fringe theories noticeboard. I think if you keep an eye on the noticeboard, you very quickly come to what is called sensus fidelius of WP, the sense of what is fringe and what isn't, what belongs and what don't belong. Common sense in any other word. The RfC does ask about coatracking and self promotion. There is a clear need to keep an eye on these issues; however the existing parameters of FRINGE are enough to monitor this. Whiteguru (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly. The usual problem with our coverage of fringe topics is that, when the only sources are themselves credulous fringe publications, we can't cover the topic in the neutrality that we require, which should include a clear and sourced statement of the fringe nature of the topic. This applies to organizations equally as well as to theories, and even more strongly to BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly For example, it needs to cover the theory (ancient astronauts), its proponents (Erich von Däniken), and its books (Chariots of the Gods). In a narrow interpretation, WP:FRINGE could be ignored when describing the proponents and their books, independently of how fringe they are. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a no-brainer. Follow the ArbCom decision -- aka Broudly. The wording makes it very clear that it applies for all coverage of fringe topics, and certainly the same principles of NPOV policy that apply to fringe theories would apply to fringe topics in general and mainstream topics that end up covering fringe topics within articles about larger topics. We don't just stop following NPOV policy because the article title isn't specifically about a fringe theory. Those who want to interpret it narrowly are basically just making a not too transparent attempt to undermine it by wikilawyering. (I at least have to give credit to the editor who outright said it should be abandoned, as at least there was no subterfuge in motives there.) DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Counter-proposal: we should be skeptical of all information that comes from the mainstream media (e.g. NBC, Fox, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post) since these organizations have known financial ties with governments and corporations that preclude neutrality on most topics (as well as choices of what to cover). We should privilege sources that are sufficiently on the fringe and do not have the same investment in how the story is covered. groupuscule (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly. Anything else encourages WP:COATRACK articles, and puts us in the ridiculous situation where, say, Homeopathy has to reflect science, but Samuel Hahnemann could promote homeopathy by just claiming that it's accurately reflecting what he thought. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC Restated

In August, the scope of this guideline was changed from discussing Fringe theories (defined in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field) to discussing fringe topics (including the individuals who advocate fringe theories, the books they write, the organizations they form, etc.) This change has now been challenged as taking the scope of the guideline too far. The question we are dealing with is: Should the scope of the guideline be fringe theories or should it be fringe topics? Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you post the diff to the change? I think it would be helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the diff is [5]. The discussion was from 8/27 to 8/31. Bn (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. That's hardly a neutral phrasing of the question. Very prejudicial, in fact. Drop the second sentence entirely. The rest needs work, too. And why are you basically starting a second RfC when the consensus in the above is pretty clear? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe part of the confusion lies with terminology? There's no such thing as a fringe topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Weak. A fringe topic is any topic related to fringe ideas and their proponents. It't not that ambiguous. If you wanted to be clearer, you might use "fringe-related topics". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but if we replace "fringe topics" with "fringe-related topics", does not the confusion go away? Maybe this is what caused the problem in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd have no objection at all against changing "fringe topics" to "fringe-related topics". If it reduces ambiguity, go for it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I am restating because several of the comments asked for it. In what way is my restatement prejudicial? A change occurred last August, and it is now being challenged. Is that not accurate?
As for the new suggestion of "fringe topics"-->"fringe-related topics"... Can people or organizations be considered fringe-related topics? That is the basic question that prompted the current challenge to the August edits. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course fringe-related topics refers to fringe proponents and organizations. There is absolutely no ambiguity there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Then I would strongly oppose the suggested change. A perfectly mainstream person/organization (such as a University professor, or a professional association) can support views that are considered fringe without being fringe himself/themselves. This guideline should be about when and how to discuss ideas... not when and how to discuss people. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The concern is not about persons who are otherwise notable, like Linus Pauling, but about persons whose supposed notability is inextricably tied to a fringe idea. The primary concern is (self-)promotion and (self-)aggrandization, and multiplication of articles on fringe topics to make monitoring difficult and frustrate AfDs. Sorry, but there are a LOT of people who come to WP to promote themselves or fringe ideas they support, or to use it as a platform to publicize their own "research", and they quickly become masters at gaming the system. The loophole here is one that they often attempt to exploit. Also, there is no contradiction in being a well-respected mainstream scientific authority by day (meaning when one is subject to peer-review) and a barking mad fringe crank when "off the clock". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Then that's an issue for the notability guidelines, not this page. It makes no sense to talk about "fringe" people. They are either notable or not. If Holocaust denial is fringe, what would it mean to say that David Irving (an example used in the RfC question) is fringe? Lots of sources have written about him and his ideas, and their material (I assume, not having looked for ages) is rightly repeated in the article. What actual difference would it make to the editing of David Irving if he were, or were not, to fall within the scope of this guideline? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
If a significant amount of the individuals notability revolves around his fringe theory work then it should be expected that the reliable sources should exist to put the views into perspective with the mainstream position. If the fringe theory work is only getting a trivial mention and doesn't contribute significantly to the notability, then it's less of an issue. Also note that FRINGE already has things to say about notability: Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Take someone like Alex Jones (radio host)... a well known and clearly notable fringe conspiracy theory advocate... The article appropriately discusses some of the conspiracy theories he is known for advocating, but it does not bother to "put his views into perspective with the mainstream position" because there is no need to do so. There is no need to "debunk" his theories in this article, because the article is not about his theories... it is about him (and it is appropriate to discuss someone's beliefs in an article about that someone). Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. When writing about David Icke, should we put his views in perspective? ("The overwhelming consensus of mainstream scientists is that human beings are not giant lizards from another dimension.") [citation needed] The point is that when we write about people, we repeat what reliable sources have written about them, and to whatever extent "debunking" is needed, it will be in those sources. The notability, sourcing, neutrality and original research policies/guidelines (including BLP) determine content in bios already; there is no need for FRINGE to impinge. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, looking at the article ([6]) I wouldn't say that "[t]he article appropriately discusses some of the conspiracy theories he is known for advocating"... Given that it's probably the first time I heard about him, I find little information about the fringe theories in question. If, as you seem to say, first of all he is notable as an advocate of fringe theories and not for some other reason (I have no idea if it is so), then giving so little information about those theories clearly violates WP:UNDUE. And if there was more information, it would become necessary to explain that those theories are not universally supported - and, perhaps, why. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"Then that's an issue for the notability guidelines, not this page." - among other things, this page is a notability guideline. That's why it has a chapter "Notability" ([7]). And the discussion preceding this RFC was about notability. Thus different versions of "rules" might make little difference to articles about clearly notable "fringe theorists". But it would make quite a difference where notability is less obvious. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Anything that affects the notability guideline should be discussed on that page, and if needed changed there. It's not good for offshoots to spring up, because inconsistencies develop, and it's often only the people who focus on those offshoots who comment. So we end up with guideline ghettos and people not speaking the same language. The content policies, NPOV, V, NOR, and BLP, apply to all articles on WP, including all bios, as does NOTE bearing in mind that it's a guideline. (I'm not sure what the AfD you linked to signifies.) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, SV, this nicely articulates a concern that I have had. As much as possible this guideline should refer to and rely upon the policies on which it depends. From 40 years of experience as a writer and editor and manager of same I can affirm that duplication invites inconsistency. Bn (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"Anything that affects the notability guideline should be discussed on that page, and if needed changed there." - so, just to be sure, you think that Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (sports), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Notability (books), Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and other "Subject-specific guidelines" (as shown in Template:Notability guide) should also be merged to Wikipedia:Notability?
"I'm not sure what the AfD you linked to signifies." - the nominator in this AfD has argued: "Fails our notability for books. In short, the only reviews are done in locations where the credulous have patting-each-other-on-the-back parties. The Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Philosophical Practice, and PsycCRITIQUES are fringe journals who cannot be established as independent with respect to this guideline." ("this guideline" links here, to, well, this guideline). If this guideline does apply to books, the argument is correct and the article would have to be deleted (the users who argued "Keep" ignored this argument). Otherwise the argument is incorrect and the article would have to be kept. That's the difference that this RFC is supposed to make. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to address your point about the notability subpages, they're meant to be consistent with the main guideline, just as MoS subpages have to be consistent with the MoS. Are you saying that FRINGE ought to become a subpage of NOTE? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"Just to address your point about the notability subpages, they're meant to be consistent with the main guideline, just as MoS subpages have to be consistent with the MoS." - and..? This guideline is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia:Notability. That guideline demands independent sources, this one explains what sources are not independent when fringe topics are considered. There is little room for inconsistency here.
"Are you saying that FRINGE ought to become a subpage of NOTE?" - no, I am not. I suppose it is possible to split this guideline and call one part "Wikipedia:Notability (fringe topics)", but, since it is going to say the same thing anyway, I don't really see what difference would that make. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the cited reviews is in Philosophical Practice 2.2 July 2006.131-135. The reviewer is Dr. Naomi Thomas. She is quoted at the beginning of (the abstract of) an article on epilepsy as follows:

“If you are exposed to radioactive toxic waste there are case reports of people developing super-powers; but lymphoma is more likely.” Naomi Thomas, paediatrician and philosopher

That doesn't sound terribly credulous or back-patting.
The journal is published by the American Philosophical Practitioners Association, an organization for those who apply their training in philosophy to psychological counseling. Though they have been around for at least the 7 years of the journal's publication, and 'philosophical counseling' has been around since the 1980s, and although they have been noticed at least once in the Washington Post, they may not be considered notable; but they don't appear to be organized for the purpose of promoting fringe theories. Nonetheless, the fringe tarbrush condemned them in the eyes of at least that editor who originated the AfD. Bn (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
That would have been a nice argument for that discussion (incomparably better than just ignoring the nominator's argument), but it doesn't matter here that much. I only use it for demonstration of "what difference does the question of RFC make". If you think that some source doesn't fit, simply imagine a world where that source wouldn't exist - that would be enough for demonstration. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the relevance of any of this. If there are reliable sources for a bio, per the policies, it doesn't matter whether Wikipedians regard a person as mainstream or fringe. Whether a bio exists and how it's written won't depend on anything this page says, so I'm still not clear what the RfC is proposing. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the RFC is proposing anything... it is an attempt to gauge consensus Re the scope of the guideline... that consensus will help us with a language choice: should the policy use the term "Fringe theories" or should it use "Fringe topics" (or as has now been suggested "Fringe-related topics")? "Topics" implies (at least to me) a broader scope than "Theories" does. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • For that matter Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin have no scientific respectability whatsoever, yet they're very notable... AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I think we should also consider how a change to WP:FRINGE would affect articles on fringe ideas/topics that have nothing to do with scientific acceptance... let's not forget that WP:FRINGE also applies to fringe ideas/topics that relate to other academic disciplines (history/pseudohistory for example) as well as fringe ideas/topics that don't fall within the scope of any academic discipline (conspiracy theory for example), ... how would extending WP:FRINGE affect our bio article on Robert Lomas, and how would it affect our article about one of his books: The Hiram Key? Or an article like Anti-Masonry? Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal: The motivation for broadening the scope appears to be to help editors resist inclusion of articles or topics about people, organizations, etc. that are associated fringe ideas. In practice this too often devolves to a tussle of judgment.
To cease being dysfunctional, this guideline must define fringe by objective criteria for two reasons. First, relying on the subjective 'common sense' of individual editors is weak ground to stand on and invites controversy. It's insufficient bulwark against fringe proponents. Second, in what way is a wikipedian editor's 'common sense' judgment not original research? An anti-fringe zealot should not be exempt from the general requirements that apply to all.
Fringe means marginal relative to consensus. One objective criterion of fringe that I have suggested to thread a path between Scylla and Charybdis (fringe proponents and zealous pseudoskeptics) is whether the fringe sources refer to Mainstream sources but not (or relatively very few) vice versa. This adds very little work to a search for reliable sources that must be undertaken in any case. This objective criterion supports inclusion of e.g. Sheldrake, von Däniken, Sitchin, and Lomas in proper relationship to mainstream ideas that they contradict.
There is a caveat to avoid the tarbrush effect. Thus, in the example above the AfD proposer appears to have assumed that none of the listed reviewers and journals were independent of a postulated group or community promoting the idea of reincarnation. This illustrates the circular logic that has been mentioned in this discussion. Roughly: the idea is fringe so any source that talks about it must be fringe so there are no non-fringe sources, so the idea is fringe (as well as not notable).
Once something has been identified objectively as fringe, the principal guidance to editors is in UNDUE and NOTE. A great many paragraphs in this guideline could be reduced to a sentence with a reference to policy.
I believe objective criteria like this and some cleanup will alleviate much of the difficulty with FRINGE so that editors can rely on policy (as they should), NPOV/UNDUE, V/RS, NOR, and NOT, with help from NOTE and other guidelines. Bn (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Re: "The motivation for broadening the scope appears to be to help editors resist inclusion of articles or topics about people, organizations, etc. that are associated fringe ideas." That may well be the motivation, but (in my opinion) it is a flawed motivation. We have lots of policies and guidelines that cover this... We have notability guidelines like WP:AUTHOR and WP:ORG. We have policy statements like WP:UNDUE to guide us. To my way of thinking, the goal of WP:FRINGE isn't to resist inclusion of fringe topics. I think the goal is instead to explain how to include fringe topics... appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, but I refer to the RFC Break statement: "The policy on fringe theories is meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not been mainstream or reliably sourced. If we narrow the definition of an article that the policy applies to, we are allowing articles to pop up that aren't construed in this policy that really shouldn't exist." The statistics cited there are a valid concern. More (qualified) editors is the obvious solution to that. Less obvious, perhaps, is to make the job of editors easier and less adversarial. That's what I have in mind with the above proposal. Bn (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Bn (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: The policy on fringe theories is meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not been mainstream or reliably sourced. That misstates the purpose of WP:FRINGE... I don't think the policy is "meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not be mainstream or reliably sourced." I think the policy (guideline actually) is meant to instruct editors on when (and how) we include information about fringe theories. And the question isn't whether we should narrow the definition... its whether we were correct in expanding the definition back in August. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree entirely, Blueboar. I believe editors should enlist the cooperation of advocates of a fringe topic, establishing a shared goal of including the fringe topic in an appropriate way. Others disagree, and emphasize use of WP:FRINGE to exclude things that are inappropriate. The immediate evidence for that is the initial paragraph at #RFC_random_break_II, from which I quoted. Disagreement between those who are in favor of broadening the scope and those opposed to broadening the scope appears to be closely correlated with editors' understanding of the purpose of this guideline. Bn (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Why should editors "enlist the cooperation of advocates of a fringe topic"? If by advocates you mean people who are on wiki in order to promote fringe theories, then it is they who need to ensure that they cooperate with those of us who try to edit neutrally. We wouldn't want to engage fringe advocates who are not on wiki, either. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:AGF as opposed to WP:ABF. By this I mean assume that they want a hearing for their favored ideas and show them what they have to do to accomplish that. It's a difference of attitude. The adversarial attitude is "No, you can't say that"; an alternative attitude is "Yes, you can say that if you meet these requirements". "You can say that troglodite theorists believe that Morlocks really exist and have traveled back in time and live under Montauk, and H.G. Wells was trying to warn us, if you can show that the idea is notable by finding reliable sources that talk about this theory, but you have to accept that the proposed article also says that the consensus view is that this is not so." As several discussants here have pointed out, and as the guideline itself says, WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE should suffice for this much. Bn (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
We can AGF and say firmly and politely that if they want to promote fringe viewpoints they are in the wrong place. They would be in the wrong place even if they wanted to promote non-fringe viewpoints. This is particularly important when some new users try and insert WP:SPAM. I agree that WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE are relevant and those are among the policies we should direct promoters of fringe towards. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
If when you say "promote" you mean WP:SOAP, of course I agree. But there are appropriate ways of writing that don't fall in any of the buckets defined there. The point is rather than saying "No, you can't talk about that idea because it's fringe" it's more useful to say "If you want to have something about that in Wikipedia it has to meet these requirements". I agree with Blueboar that the proper function of this guideline is appropriate inclusion, not exclusion. Bn (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am afraid that this proposal is completely "offtopic" here. The question for this RFC is clear and it has nothing to do with decision on what is fringe as such. Thus, please, keep this discussion orderly and create a separate one for your proposal. Although, given the overwhelming consensus in favour of this guideline, I don't think that proposal calling it "dysfunctional" is likely to pass... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Martynas, if the question is clear to you, please explain how this proposal, if passed, would affect the editing of articles such as David Irving, Rupert Sheldrake, and David Icke? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I already gave you an answer with example where "Narrowly" and "Broadly" would make an important difference ([8], [9]). You dismissed it because you think that other guidelines - as interpreted by you - will "outrank" this one ([10]). Well, in such case neither option will make much of a difference to you. You do not seem to like this guideline before the RFC, I don't see how any option would make you like it. You gave your opinion, it is rather clear. I don't expect it to change - nor do I see how you are going to change opinion of anyone else. Then, what's the point of discussing it further..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The current scope of FRINGE is ideas that are considered fringe wherever they are discussed, whether in a standalone article or in the context of another article, which indeed may be an article about a person, organization, etc. that advocates or promotes the idea. I oppose extending the scope to include such persons, organizations, etc. as such. First, we already have the necessary tools for persons, organizations, etc. and the current scope of FRINGE covers (or should cover) the discussion of fringe ideas in context of talking about those persons etc. It appears to me that the reason some of us want the broader scope is because they believe it will provide them stronger tools, and they believe they need stronger tools because resolving disagreements with fringe proponents is contentious and time consuming, and they often remain unconvinced, believe they have been unfairly treated, and seek alternative ways to get what they regard as a fair hearing. I fear that providing tools for editors to clamp down on mentions of people, etc. just because of their association with fringe ideas will only exacerbate this adversarial situation. In my view this is because there are no clear, objective criteria for what fringe means. Even pseudoscience has its difficulties, but at least for pseudoscience the ArbCom ruling gives some fairly specific guidance. This is why I believe that the proposal that we need clear, objective criteria as to what is fringe (and relative to what mainstream ideas) is indeed relevant to this RFC and not at all off topic. Bn (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You are proposing that Wikipedia change its policy regarding what it considers 'fringe' - this RFC isn't about such a proposal. If you wish to make that proposal do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Andy... what do you think this RFC is about? Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I rather like the definition Jimbo gave[11]:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
That last bit about "except perhaps in some ancilliary article" is important... this is based on the concept of relevance... if a fringe theory is relevant to an article's subject/topic, we should mention it... if it is not relevant, we shouldn't. Of course how we mention it is just as important as whether to mention it (we want to give it due weight given the context of the article's topic... yet not give it undue weight by going into too much detail). Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
"What it is relevant to" is the same as "what it is fringe to". If a fringe proponent asserts that a proposed article is relevant (ancillary) to an established article we (and they) need some principled guidance to say aye or nay. Bn (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily... If a notable movie star is known to be an adherent of a fringe theory, that theory is "relevant" to the article on the movie star. It might be perfectly appropriate to mention his adherence in the bio article on him. How much to mention it is another issue. It may rate noting more than a passing reference. In such a "passing reference" situation, it would be undue to go into the mainstream criticisms of the fringe theory. The mainstream view is actually irrelevant to the topic of the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
True enough. Further, under the proposed broadening of scope someone might say that the movie star was fringe, whereas under the present (narrower) scope they should not be able to. In practice, some editors appear to have assumed the broader scope in this respect, insofar as such attributes are seen ("so-and-so is a fringe author"). Bn (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Taken literally, Jimbo's definition is narrower than the present scope of FRINGE. The appropriate name of the guideline would be "pseudoscience" or "fringe science". We're not going to get a "majority of the scientific community" view of an article about Jimi Hendrix, for example, much less the relevance of an ancillary claim. Bn (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am not "Andy", but, if you (Blueboar) really do not know what this RFC is about, then, in short, it is about the choice between the pair of words "fringe theories" and pair of words "fringe topics" (or "fringe-related topics", or something). Nothing more. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, but words in policy/guideline pages do not exist in a vacuum. In order to reach a consensus as to which of these word parings to choose, we have to discuss how these words will be interpreted in the context of the policy. So we do need to discuss the distinctions between "Fringe theories" and "fringe topics"... what kinds of things fall into each... And how the guideline applies to those distinctions. In short, in order to answer the RFC, we need to discuss what the scope of this guideline should (and should not be). Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter what things are "fringe theories" and what things are "fringe topics". But that is a difference between "theories" and "topics". "Fringe" stays the same word with the same meaning no matter which of those two formulations ends up being chosen. And the introduction of this RFC does a reasonably good job at explaining what is the intended meaning of "theory" and what is the intended meaning of "topic". If you want to discuss the meaning of "fringe", you will need a different discussion. And if someone wants to argue that fringe theories, topics and the like should be treated as equals of non-fringe, still other discussion will be necessary. As Germans say, "Ordnung muss sein". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah... then we are talking about the same things... that was not clear to me. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Martynas, has someone advocated that "that fringe theories, topics and the like should be treated as equals of non-fringe"? UNDUE requires unequal treatment. Bn (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that part was added mostly "preemptively". Still, several users do seem to advocate, if not "equal treatment", then "more equal treatment". For example, to ignore "fringeness" when judging notability. That's simply "offtopic" here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure it is off topic. When it comes to judging notability, we don't look at how "fringe" the subject is... we look at how much coverage there is of it in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, when it comes to judging notability... we actually do treat Fringe theories and Non-fringe theories the same.
As to UNDUE... we have to remember that the flip side of giving UNDUE weight to something is giving it is DUE weight... in an article that is about a fringe theory, it is appropriate (ie DUE weight) to devote more article space explaining the fringe theory (and sub-aspects of fringe theory) than to debunking it or explaining the mainstream. Indeed, sometimes it can be enough to simply note that the theory is considered fringe by the mainstream, and leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It is "offtopic" here, in this RFC. It would only matter if you would think that it is important to take "fringeness" into account while judging notability of theories and ignore it while judging notability of, let's say, books. But it seems clear that you do not think so. It looks like almost no one does. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
And, of course, "As to UNDUE..." is also "offtopic". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Not quite. With fringe topics, we have to be much more skeptical about manufactured notability and notability only within fringe communities, as well as self-promotion and advocacy. Fringe proponents and supporters ALWAYS aggrandize the notability and level acceptance of their ideas and themselves, usually by several orders of magnitude. We cannot rely on sources linked to them or from within fringe communities to determine notabiity, or to determine how much weight the topic should receive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that leads to the question of whether sources from within a "fringe community" are truly independent of the subject? Not an easy question to answer (and because it isn't easy, I don't think the community has a consensus answer... save to say that it must be judged on a case by case basis). Personally, I agree that we need to be wary of "fringe community sources"... but that does not mean we should ignore them altogether. Certainly a fringe author that is discussed extensively by other fringe authors should be considered more likely to be notable than those that are not. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no they wouldn't be. Fringe communites are more often than not extremely incestual mutual adoration societies and walled-gardens that are largely ignored by the mainstream community. What happens inside a fringe community is of little encyclopedic significance UNLESS it has been substantially commented upon in the mainstream scholarly literature. Even the mainstream popular press is of limitted use in determining notability and weight, as they generally lack the expertise and experience to do so. They are more interested in newswerthiness, or even entertainment value, which is a completely different animal than notability. For example, the Creation Science community and its ideas have been commented on extensively by the mainstream scholarly community, whereas the "astrological community" and its ideas barely receive any mention at all. Both ideas are equally batshit crazy, but one has major significance outside of the fringe community, and the other does not. We have plenty of reliable mainstream sources for the one, and practically none at all for the other. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
A lot depends on which fringe communities you are talking about... some fringe communities are HUGE ... they have very significant plantations rather than small walled gardens... and in these cases an author who has everyone in the community buzzing about his new book can be considered notable.
The astrology issue is one of these plantation sized topics... I have to question whether astrology really qualifies as a "Fringe" topic. Yes, if you look at it as being a pseudoscience, it is... but that is not the only way to look at it. It is also a "belief system"... and as a belief system, it really isn't all that fringe. I think it almost qualifies as a religion... And, if we approach it from a quasi-religious POV, the dynamic on notability changes. We have no problem labeling some religious insiders as "an authority" or "an expert" on his religion... and those authors that are well respected and discussed by others within the religious group are considered note worthy if not notable. I think there there is a parallel to be drawn with authors on Astrology who are well respected by the Astrology community. In other words if we treat astrology as if if was a religion, we get a different sense of who and what the notable sub-topics are. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, no. If you spent only a fraction of the time sifting through the sources on astrology as I have, you would quickly come to the conclusion that everything you've written above is just plain nonsense. The "it's a religion" canard is often trotted out by fringe proponents, and is a classic example of special pleading.
Astrology doesn't resemble a religion in any way at all. There is no agreed upon set of beliefs; it's basically every clown for himself, with a few clowns banding together in self-aggrandizing associations, often with pseudoscholarly names, all of unknown significance to the world at large.
There are no clear "authorities" or "experts", just a lot of clowns who claim that they are such, and perhaps get their buddies to say so, too. None of the books and "journals" undergo any sort of review for fact checking and accuracy, and, at best, can be considered good enough soley for entertainement purposes.
Even religions are not notable unless covered in reliable sources. There was one "pagan" religion that was mentioned here in WP that turned out to be no more than some loopy woman, her cat and one extremely enthusiastic adherent. The fact that she got a couple of new age magazines to interview her does not add anything to her notability or that of her "religion".
One problem is that you are assuming good faith on the part of fringe proponents and supporters, and that is a huge mistake. They ALL misrepresent their own significance and that of their ideas, like I said, by orders of magnitude. Another huge mistake you are making is equating newsworthiness, entertainment value and popular appeal with notability. You seriously need to reconsider your understanding of the concept of notability, and of what constitutes a reliable source for information of encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
My point is that fringe theories can cross genres... we can not limit our evaluation of "fringeness" to just what the the scientific community thinks. It is possible for a theory to be considered fringe by one mainstream group, and yet not be considered fringe by another mainstream group. To give another example... let's look at Global Warming denial... from a science community perspective denialism is most definitely fringe ... but... from the perspective of the political community (ie as a political science topic) it isn't... denialism falls within the mainstream differences of opinin. I am not saying we should ignore the scientific POV... However we also should not ignore the political POV. Both POVs need to be taken into account. In an article the focuses on science, we correctly present denialism (and denialists) as fringe... but in article on politics we don't (or shouldn't). Context matters.
As to your last comment... I do not equate newsworthiness, entertainment value and popular appeal with notability... However, I do recognize that newsworthiness, entertainment value and popular appeal are all indications that a topic is likely to be notable. They are part of the mix. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
And, to bring this back to the question of "theory" vs "topic"... when a fringe proponent writes a best selling book that has been reviewed by major news papers, or is the "go to" guy that the media always interviews when covering the theory, that is an indication of notability. It shows that the mainstream has taken note of the proponent and his theory. The theory (and the proponent) may still be considered fringe, but the theory is likely to be notable, and the person definitely is notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Blueboar has hit on an important point here, which I think boils down to a confusion between fringe theories and pseudoscience, which have somehow ended up being equated on WP. But they are not the same thing. Psychoanalysis, for example, is arguably pseudoscience (or not science at all), but it is definitely not fringe. It has large numbers of respected, mainstream proponents within the medical profession and is taught in the best medical schools. So the psychoanalytic perspective is not one that can be drowned out on Wikipedia, because it's not up to us to decide that the psychiatrists who practice it are wrong and should have no voice. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The most reputable scientific secondary sources say psychoanalysis is not in the mainstream. I think you overstate it's level of support amongst psychologists (their opinions are what is relevant here in terms of the theory surely), IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's your POV that the opinion of psychologists is more relevant than the opinion of psychiatrists. This is the problem here. The individual POV of editors is causing this confusion between fringe and pseudoscience and minority views, because a lot of it boils down to things you just don't like. But when people question you, you wheel out the David Icke-type examples, and everyone falls back, hushed and in agreement. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anything about psychoanalysis, but does not being in the mainstream equal fringe? That's not right. It focuses on the extreme minority and is relevant as applied to an article about a mainstream topic. Morphh (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
What one of the sources said ([12], for example, was "Freudian psychoanalysis is far from the mainstream in modern mental health care." Far from the mainstream sounds like fringe to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"Far from mainstream" does not equal fringe, and that was just one opinion that was cherry-picked. You keep ignoring all the other sources, the mainstream textbooks that say it dominates psychiatry. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Definition of fringe that Wikipedia gives: "By one definition (see below) it is valid, but not mainstream, science, whilst by another broader definition it is generally viewed in a negative way as being non-scientific. Clearly psychoanalysis can fall under the first definition. Cheery Picked? I looked at the two best scientific journals at the time, and a book on psychology that I happened to have, and you think that's cherry picking? These are good representative sources .... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You know that if we were to hold an RfC asking that psychoanalysis and its practitioners be placed under FRINGE, people would say no. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
FRINGE already applies to all topics that don't have the broad support of the scholarship. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Re the broad generalization about astrology by Dominus Vobisdu ("There is no agreed upon set of beliefs; it's basically every clown for himself, with a few clowns banding together in self-aggrandizing associations, often with pseudoscholarly names, all of unknown significance to the world at large", etc.) I did a little poking around. This brief statement by Percy Seymour (theoretical astrophysicist, Principal Lecturer at the Plymouth (England) Polytechnic Institute), seems apt:

“The counter claims, made by many scientists, that astrology is opposed to the basic principles of Western science comes from a total misunderstanding of serious astrology, and an appalling lapse in their understanding of the methodology, philosophy, and history of science itself. What these scientists normally call astrology is in effect the cheap sun-sign astrology of the horoscope columns run by some newspapers. These bear as much resemblance to the research now being done on astrology, as do the scientific reports in these papers bear to what is actually going on in the laboratories and observatories of the world. Yet these same scientists are usually extremely annoyed when people base their appreciation of science on this type of science writing. [...] I am a scientist. As such I cannot propose or understand a model of reality which does not take account of scientific data. I am not an astrologer - in fact this theory developed out of an examination of the arguments that astrology cannot work! As a theoretical astrophysicist, with an interest in the relationship between fundamental physics and the large-scale structure of the universe, I am searching, as are many others, for a model to explain the current anomalies and paradoxes in these areas that are beyond the domain of astrophysics (ie: biology, chemistry, and to my amazement, astrology).”

The two parts of this quotation are from Seymour's 1992 book The scientific basis of astrology NY: St. Martin's Press, 1992. The lecture by Robert Hand found in related links in his bio article articulates the distinction between astrological research and pop astrology in similar terms but with different emphases. In Kuhn's terminology, "research astrology" (Seymour's term, as distinguished from pop astrology) appears to be in the pre-science or pre-paradigm phase, which per Mr. Hand is in resumption now after a scientistic hiatus. Also relevant is The cosmic clocks 1982 by M. Gauquelin (foreword by Frank A. Brown, Jr., Morrison Professor of Biology at Northwestern), and there are other like resources that I have not personally examined. So I agree with Dominus Vobisdu that astrology is not a religion (though I think Blueboar was only likening it to religion), but I do not agree that it is entirely worthless trash unworthy of serious consideration. Researchers with properly credentialed expertise have reported that there is something going on there that we do not understand at all well, and to place them in the same bucket with Sydney Omarr is inappropriate.
The point here is not a defense of astrology—I don't have a dog in that fight—but rather to point at the elephant treading around in the middle of this RFC discussion. It's been mentioned before. The RFC asks whether or not it was appropriate last August to broaden the scope of this guideline from fringe theories to fringe "topics" or the like. The elephantine problem is that our only clear definition of fringe is the ArbCom list of indications about pseudoscience, which has been only informally and vaguely extended to include "other fringe". Even in the case of astrology, which is conventionally held up as a prime example of pseudoscience, the application of FRINGE is more subtle and nuanced than expected. To what science is it fringe? Astrology does not conflict directly with astronomy—the only point of contact is the calculations, where the differences are superficial matters of notation (signs vs. RA), and astronomy rightly says nothing or next to nothing about the relevance of celestial cycles to terrestrial life. There are more points of contact between astrology and psychology, which is notoriously all over the map, and which Kuhn did consider to be pre-paradigmatic. The objections that I have seen generally say that astrology obviously must be BS because there is no physical basis for it, so any description of phenomena must be illusory or faked and anyone talking about such phenomena must be deluded or a charlatan. Scientists like Seymour turn this on its head: here are definite, measurable phenomena, now what might the physical basis be? The former is scientism, the latter is science. Again, the point is not the encyclopedia-worthiness of astrology (which has been settled), the point is that in absence of clear criteria for what is fringe (and fringe relative to what) it is a matter of editors' subjective opinion as to what is "obvious", and that's a sure recipe for controversy that wastes everyone's time when there are too few editors doing the work. For witness only review the extended RFC discussion above and below. The tool is too dull; let's sharpen it. If this is out of scope for the present RFC, as Martynas Patasius has said, then IMO the present RFC will continue to spin its wheels until we start another to resolve the question: what is the definition of fringe? Is a separate RFC an appropriate step? Or can we clarify the definition here as a necessary part of resolving whether or not to extend its scope from fringe theories to entities associated with fringe theories? Bn (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - looks like your post clearly demonstrates that, in general, it is "pro-fringe" reasoning (for example, taking astrology seriously) that supports the option "Narrowly" (or opposition to this guideline as such, which seems to be what is really behind the option "Narrowly" in many cases).
Anyway, "If this is out of scope for the present RFC, as Martynas Patasius has said, then IMO the present RFC will continue to spin its wheels until we start another to resolve the question: what is the definition of fringe?" is wrong. The RFCs take about 30 days. This one has started "07:47, 30 November 2012", so it will end before the New Year (it doesn't mean that it will be closed before the New Year).
If you want to have another RFC, then, well, I guess you can initiate it after this one gets closed, but I'd say that consensus is clear. In a sense, the position "Narrowly" is "fringe" - in the sense that it is a position of a relatively insignificant minority. Sure, by itself it does not mean that it is wrong. But I would recommend you to act like a good and helpful "pro-fringe" editors are supposed to act and accept that - deservedly or not - your view is in minority now.
The rest of your post seems to be rather irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter if there is any truth in astrology - neither here nor anywhere else in Wikipedia. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest removing the biography examples from the RfC question

There's a lot of confusion about the impact this RfC would have on the editing of biographies, including BLPs, and it has to be sorted out before the RfC can be closed. I've asked several times what difference it would make to biography editing, and no one can explain. I also asked Lawrence, who opened the RfC, and he couldn't explain either (see here).

I'd therefore like to suggest that we remove that the guideline should apply to " 2b. people whose main claim to notability is the promotion of such views, e.g. David Icke (lizard people), David Irving (holocaust denial), David Balsiger author of The Lincoln Conspiracy." For two reasons: first, because no one can say how the editing of David Irving, for example, would be changed by this proposal, and second, because those extreme examples have been used to encourage people to support, when there are more nuanced biographies that might give people pause for thought.

So I'd like to ask Lawrence (or others) to agree to the removal, or alternatively to ask the closing editor to leave that part out of his closure or to rule that there's no consensus for it. I suggest we then open a separate RfC to look at biographies, with a clear question and some less dramatic examples. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the David Irving article would not be effected because there is lots of material required to contextualise the relationship of his views to the mainstream. WP:FRINGE already applies to the content on David Irving. This RFC is essentially reaffirming current practices, with the addition that Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability applies also. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
How would you contextualize something like David Icke? We can't add that mainstream sources say people are not giant lizards. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It already does. There's even a section on academic views. (of course you don't need to say people are not giant lizards, it's so obvious it would be pointless) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If those academic views hadn't existed, what would you have suggested? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
But many sources do exist that address him, so it's a terrible example. Perhaps you can consider an example where this is not the case? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It's more-or-less like saying that the section of notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN applies to the articles "Barrack Obama" and "George W. Bush". No, nothing that that guideline can be reasonably expected to say is going to change those articles (those politicians are obviously notable). But such articles could be useful examples of articles about politicians who are considered notable, just as that guideline says. Likewise, David Irving is someone who is considered notable, because (among other things), this guideline says so. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
David Irving and David Icke existed before this guideline did. They're notable in WP's terms because lots of reliable sources write about them; nothing to do with this guideline. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"David Irving and David Icke existed before this guideline did."... Yes, they were born before Wikipedia was created. But that fact doesn't seem to be very useful in this discussion... Did you have anything else in mind..?
"They're notable in WP's terms because lots of reliable sources write about them; nothing to do with this guideline."... Do you think that "it" has nothing to do with the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources as well? For both guidelines say what sources "count" and what do not when we judge notability. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Those articles were created and written because they are able to conform, and when I last looked they did conform, to the three content policies: NPOV, V and NOR. They were created before any of the guidelines you're referencing existed – we managed fine without them, and I believe we had more editors too (I also believe those two facts are not unconnected). :) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Er, so..? You argue that..? Anyway, I didn't ask you if things went better before someone wrote those guidelines down. I asked you if you agree that now they (specifically, Wikipedia:Reliable sources; I plan to get to this guideline later) have something to do with notability. There is also an "implicit" question "Why do you think so?". I answered some of your questions (even if you did not like my answers) - maybe you could answer some of my questions as well..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I just got a message from an RFC bot to comment on this. WTF is going on here?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure myself. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
SV, even though I wrote the RfC question that kicked this off, I don't have any special 'ownership' over the ensuing discussion. I'm just the guy who tried to neutrally summarise the preceding dispute, and provide a 'frame' for the ensuing discussion. I think it's up to the closer(s) to decide how to write up the community consensus on this issue, and whether or not to exclude BLPs from the close. Hopefully, the closer(s) can distil a community consensus to the questions: "Should WP:Fringe apply to topics narrowly or broadly construed? And, should it supplement other policies/guidelines for articles about those topics?" --LK (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting continued

  • Narrowly or Void for vagueness - per some of SlimVirgin's comments; I'm really confused about what the practical consequences of extending WP:FRINGE to an organization's article or a BLP would be. I mean, say you agree that Fringe Theorist X is pushing Fringe Theory X. How would WP:FRINGE dictate that you treat Fringe Theorist X's BLP any different? I think some of the confusion here arises from the fact that WP:FRINGE is more of a WP:ESSAY than a WP:POLICY. WP:Fringe doesn't really have any actionable instructions in it, other than to simply say you should be more observant of WP:V and WP:N when dealing with fringe articles. I'd be happy to consider changing my opinion here, but someone would have to give me a really specific and clear example of how and why a Broadly result would affect an article. NickCT (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very Broadly Wikipedia has many, many True Believers who are fighting to keep their favorite fringosity from being called fringe, and a "narrow" interpretation will just add ammo to their wikilawyering. We have few or no cases where someone wants to call something fringe when it is non-fringe --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Psychoanalysis is an example of a mainstream practice that a few Wikipedians want to call fringe, because they see it as unscientific, so if we extend FRINGE to cover biographies, they'll be trying to label as fringe some of the world's most eminent psychiatrists. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Further, in the context of talking about fringe theorist x all you can do is apply UNDUE etc. to talk about fringe theory x. FRINGE already applies to talk of fringe theories wherever such talk occurs in Wikipedia. If someone wants to talk about fringe theorist x without mentioning fringe theory x at all, what's your basis for objecting? Assuming the person is notable. For example, Vitamin C megadosage is labeled quackery. Talk of it in the article about Linus Pauling is properly contextualized so that it does not have undue weight. Extending FRINGE to cover Linus Pauling as a theorist has utterly no effect. So it would be likewise with less well known advocates of fringe theories. Bn (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
In other words, it is not the case that a narrow interpretation leaves a loophole by which unbalanced talk about a fringe theory can be inserted into articles about fringe theorists, publishers, etc. That supposition is false. It is based on a category (logical type) error. Wikilawyering on that basis would be no more difficult to refute than it is now. Bn (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In whatever way that doesn't allow POV pushing on either side It's folly to believe that there aren't "mainstream True Believers". One example that has come up is the "heterodox fringe economics" label that has been applied to pretty much everything that isn't Keynesian or neo-Keynesian. Economics isn't some hard science where we can say that there's a five sigma level of certainty and that all other theories are "fringe". Our fringe guideline has been good for helping reduce the amount of true pseudoscience coverage to an appropriate level, but it's also become a weapon for those who push mainstream POVs (or even political views) to the exclusion or discredit of valid, but not as popular POVs. Gigs (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly especially in any case where WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for a "contentious claim" and we can regard labelling a person as holding "fringe views" to be a "contentious claim". No RfC can override WP:BLP in that area, and the "broadly" views hed by some appear to violate that policy, which an RfC can not do, and any admin closing this RfC should note that fact. Collect (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly As an example, I attended recently a lecture by Roger Penrose on his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology. This seems a bit fanciful but is an interesting idea and seems more testable than string theory, say. Science is still quite open to novelties of this kind and other intellectual fields such as economics and music are even more debatable. An encyclopedia should be comprehensive and even eccentrics like Stanley Green merit coverage where their notability is clear. Warden (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Narrowly. It should only be about the theory itself. If the theory is mentioned in another article, how the theory is presented applies. For an article about a person, BLP applies. Apteva (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Does this RFC serve a purpose?

Some time ago, this RFC became 'whatever you want it to be' and votes are supported by expressions of editors' general views on fringe topics. It was ambiguous at the start. Recent comments have left me no wiser. Now it has no clear purpose. I think that engaging in a discussion possibly leading to a clearer RFC would be more constructive at this stage.

With that in mind, can any editors cite examples of articles of fringe biographies or publishers that comply with WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:NPOV or WP:V but would fail Wikipedia:Fringe theories if it was applied to the entire article? As I understand it, WP:FRINGE currently applies to all coverage of fringe theory in all articles, but is it also relevant to the non-controversial parts of biographical articles or articles about fringe publishers? And if so, how would it be applied in practice? If the guidelines are not clarified and extended, does it leave a loophole for pro-fringe editors to sneak in promotional content, non-notable articles and WP:COATRACK? Or would it enable anti-fringe editors to wikilawyer and remove notable fringe proponents and non-controversial content by a strict interpretation of rules designed for other purposes? Kooky2 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

re "can any editors cite examples of articles ........... if it was applied to the entire article?" - Exactly. An example of what would be affected here would be helpful.
re "Now it has no clear purpose." - Indeed. No clear purpose. NickCT (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there is no clear purpose here. ArbCom distinguished different kinds of fringe theory. Now it seems that some editors think that it is our purpose to rule on whether topics, theories or even people are simply "fringe" or "not fringe", in a binary way. It isn't necessary or appropriate for us to do that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the RFC does serve a purpose... Back in August we had some discussion about a series of bold edits to the notability section of the guideline... those edits are now being questioned.

The question is: What is the consensus of the broader community concerning these edits? (Note... The answer to this question may determine whether other, related edits, in other sections also enjoy consensus or not). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • 'Summary of changes: For convenient reference:
A fringe theory can be considered notable enough ...
A fringe subject can be considered notable enough ...
A fringe view can be considered notable enough ...
Fringe views and the organizations who promote them can be considered notable enough ...
A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough ...

(The change of "can be" to "is" in that last revision may usurp the function of WP:NOTE.) Bn (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar - Folks arguing that this RfC serves some purpose aren't answering the question that been asked by several editors now. Let me repeat it. What is the practical consequence of this policy change? Give a specific example of an article which would be affected and how it would be affected. If their is no practical consequence to this policy change, then no, it doesn't serve any purpose. NickCT (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be more useful to phrase a question that asks if the fringe guideline constitutes an additional subject-specific notability guideline in that it refines the GNG, or if it's only restarting the GNG. Gigs (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I have agreed that the proposed 'broadening' has no effect and is based on a misunderstanding (a category error). The requirement that the topic of an article must be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of [its] promulgators and popularizers" adds nothing to WP:NOTE. Zero. The sticking point seems to be fear that without this extension someone can claim notability for a proponent person, publisher, organization, etc. on the basis of publications that are not independent of the proponent community. But this possibility is already thoroughly covered by WP:NOTE and in particular by Wikipedia:Independent_sources, which it references. It's also possible that some editors responding to the RFC harbor the misconception that this RFC is about narrowing the scope of FRINGE. It is not. It asks whether a recent 'broadening' (so called) was appropriate. Bn (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
re '"seems to be fear that without this extension someone can claim notability for a proponent person, publisher, organization, etc. on the basis of publications that are not independent of the proponent community" - Once again..... has anyone presented an example? Can anyone give me an example of where this so called broadening has a clear impact? NickCT (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously its an attempt to broaden the definition BEYOND what the arbitration template says. Seems like only an arbitration could do so.
One relevant issue that needs addressing in WP:NPOV project page under Wikipedia:Undue#Due_and_undue_weight is that WP:Undue gets too conflated with fringe science and points made in the Giving "equal validity" subsection perhaps need more emphasis higher up. (Not to mention general cutting of excessive verbiage.) It's not sufficiently clear that 20 sentences on some minor incident/concept/program that some selection of biased WP:RS make a big deal of STILL should be cut to only 10 sentences to be NPOV. CarolMooreDC 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The example has been given several times ([13], [14]): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life. Such discussion would have to be closed as "keep" if this guideline applies to biographies and "delete" if id does not. Yes, things might go differently if someone would have thought of a better argument for keeping the article, but no one did at the time.
You can point out some problems with this example, but pretending that it does not exist doesn't look reasonable.
By the way, I will note that I do find the position of some "pro-Narrowly" editors rather self-contradicting. On one hand, it is said that "Obviously its an attempt to broaden the definition BEYOND what the arbitration template says." ("CarolMooreDC", [15]), on the other hand, it is claimed that not even a minor detail of any importance has been changed. So, why such a passionate opposition, if you think that the change is meaningless anyway..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't get your point in last paragraph, i.e. it is claimed that not even a minor detail of any importance has been changed. My point is there are other ways besides "fringe" to judge WP:Undue, including especially notability. "Fringe" is just too loaded a word and probably should not even be applied to hard sciences.' CarolMooreDC 22:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"I don't get your point in last paragraph, i.e. it is claimed that not even a minor detail of any importance has been changed." - my point is that your position "Obviously its an attempt to broaden the definition BEYOND what the arbitration template says." and Bn's position "I have agreed that the proposed 'broadening' has no effect" ([16]) are going to be hard to reconcile. In a sense, they cancel each other out.
Of course, the RFC is not about the word "fringe" (if you want to change it, start a new RFC), so I'll avoid commenting on that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
{Insert response]: Two people can support (or oppose) the same idea for opposite reasons. That is not logical inconsistency within one's person's view. "Mr. X should have died because he was a bastard." vs. "Mr. X should have died because he was too good for this world." Opposing views from different people but both in themselves logical. (Just first example came to mind, from watching too much violent tv probably.) CarolMooreDC 03:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The ArbCom ruling is about pseudoscience or fringe science, the content of Wikipedia "on scientific and quasi-scientific topics".
The FRINGE guideline has long been extended beyond science to other fields in vague and ill-defined ways. That's confusing, but it's not the extension we're talking about. The August revisions were to the Notability section, which by definition is limited to the acceptability of articles, but the RFC (with its associated discussion) concerns the content of articles as well, so it concerns the effects of NPOV, especially UNDUE, and carrying the changes through to completion would entail revisions to other sections. The discussion never got that far.
The August revisions broaden the definition beyond the ArbCom ruling in a different way. The ArbCom ruling says nothing about pseudoscientists, pseudiscientific journals, pseudoscientific organizations, or other entities associated in some way with pseudoscience, and perforce it says nothing about entities associated with other kinds of fringe ideas. The August revisions say that FRINGE should be extended to all of these. This is the extension beyond ArbCom that CarolMooreDC and others have pointed out.
On the other hand, there is no contradiction in saying, as a number of us have, that this extension (from ideas to entities associated with the ideas) can have no practical effect. However, it can have unintended negative effects, some of which have been discussed, duplication, ambiguity, confusion, and needless contention among them.
You, Martynas, point to the AfD on "Life Before Life" and argue that without this extension of FRINGE the independence of RS is not well defined. That AfD rejected the journal Philosophical Practice (among others) as a fringe journal because it published a review of a book on a fringe idea, and therefore rejected the review as a RS because the journal is fringe. You may have missed [http:://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFringe_theories&diff=526789108&oldid=526767108 my comment] about this. The extension from ideas to entities associated with ideas supports and encourages this kind of pernicious circularity. This is one of the unintended negative effects of the proposed extension of FRINGE.
At issue in the places where you cited that AfD is the independence of RS. As I said earlier, the independence of RS is well defined by WP::NOTE and in particular by WP::IS, which it references; and also by WP::V. You seem to be saying that those standards of independence are not adequate when dealing with fringe partisans. It seems to me we have the same problem with any kind of partisans. Even scientists are not exempt from partisanship in support of their favored views! So if the standards are inadequate, they should be strengthened in the primary places such as those listed above, not in a specialized essay/guideline like FRINGE. Specialization for a particular kind of subject matter as in WP::ORG should not degenerate to a mere double standard. Bn (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"You, Martynas, point to the AfD on "Life Before Life" and argue that without this extension of FRINGE the independence of RS is not well defined. That AfD rejected the journal Philosophical Practice (among others) as a fringe journal because it published a review of a book on a fringe idea, and therefore rejected the review as a RS because the journal is fringe. You may have missed [http:://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFringe_theories&diff=526789108&oldid=526767108 my comment] about this." - no, I did see your comment. My comment "Yes, things might go differently if someone would have thought of a better argument for keeping the article, but no one did at the time." does refer to the thing you mentioned. In other words, the closer would have used the evidence and arguments given in the discussion and not the arguments given long after the close. Thus I guess that he would have assumed that the review in "Philosophical Practice" was fringe. Presumably, there are also discussions that do not have related problems.
"The August revisions broaden the definition beyond the ArbCom ruling in a different way." - sorry, but you do seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say "I have agreed that the proposed 'broadening' has no effect" and now you say that there is an effect. So, what is your position? Do you think that there is a practical difference between options "Narrowly" and "Broadly", or do you think that there is none? "On the other hand, there is no contradiction in saying, as a number of us have, that this extension (from ideas to entities associated with the ideas) can have no practical effect." is just an assertion, without a more detailed explanation how such positions do not contradict each other (and I'd say that such an explanation would be very beneficial).
"As I said earlier, the independence of RS is well defined by WP::NOTE and in particular by WP::IS, which it references; and also by WP::V." and "So if the standards are inadequate, they should be strengthened in the primary places such as those listed above, not in a specialized essay/guideline like FRINGE." - a "point of order": Wikipedia:Independent sources is an essay and Wikipedia:Fringe theories is a guideline (not a "essay/guideline").
"Specialization for a particular kind of subject matter as in WP::ORG should not degenerate to a mere double standard." - as I have mentioned earlier, if you think that fringe and mainstream must be treated equally, start a new RFC. This one is disorderly enough as it stands. Also, until you persuade the Community to treat fringe and mainstream equally, you should accept that they are not going to be treated in such way. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The August revisions say that FRINGE applies to entities associated with fringe ideas. This is a broader definition than the previous consensus, which says that it applies only to fringe ideas (beginning with pseudoscience). However, applying FRINGE to such entities has no practical effect for reasons stated. Such entities are not themselves fringe; only the ideas that they are associated with are fringe. For example, Vitamin C megadosage is a fringe idea, but Linus Pauling was not a fringe person. The whole idea of persons etc. being fringe is nonsensical. It's more obvious (there's less of a verbal smokescreen) if you go back to the core concept at the basis if FRINGE, that is, pseudoscience. There are no pseudo-persons. You can talk loosely of a person as pseudoscientific, but that is not in the same sense as saying that their ideas are pseudoscientific. The two usages of the word are different because persons and their ideas are of different logical types: one is 'meta' to the other. Confounding logical types in this way is a category error. The above constitutes the requested explanation why there is no contradiction.
I referred to FRINGE as an essay/guideline only as a nod to NickCT.
You believe that I am saying that fringe and mainstream must be treated equally, and as you note you have accused me of this before. It's still not true. That is not what I said. Specialization for a particular kind of subject matter does treat things differently. That's precisely the purpose of the specialization. The difference between such specialization and a double standard is NPOV.
The question immediately at hand in this section is whether or not this RFC serves a purpose. My view is that the proposed redefinition of scope serves no useful purpose, and that the intended purposes are properly served by existing policy and guidelines, with perhaps some clarification about in-group vs. out-group RS. (That would be an example of a specialization for fringe ideas.) The RFC serves the purpose of seeking consensus as to whether that is true or not, and if not then identifying what practical function the proposed redefinition would have. Your AfD example only shows that editors who apply the fringe tarbrush carelessly to entities associated with fringe ideas are perhaps more liable to reject publications as 'fringe' which in fact are good RS. In the example, because a review was about a fringe idea, the editor seems to have assumed that the reviewer and the journal were also fringe, and therefore concluded that the review was unacceptable as RS. The circularity of the logic is obvious when I lay it out here, but in the heat of editing that circularity is obscured by the category error, treating ideas, people, and journals alike as 'fringe'. Embedding this logical fallacy in this guideline is a bad idea. Bn (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In short, you have seen the example, but cannot force yourself to imagine what would have happened if it was closed in accordance with one and another option given here..? I will note that the quality of the discussion was truly low and one should not expect a very good result after such discussion.
Second, if you think that "fringe person" (a pair of words that, to the best of my knowledge, has only been used by the ones who support the option "Narrowly") is a "category error", you have an option of "fringe-related topic" (or "fringe-related person", if you wish).
Third, I still see no difference between complaining about double standard and wanting equal treatment. If you complain about a double standard, you probably want a single standard, a single set of rules for fringe and mainstream (I have failed to imagine a "triple standard"). Well, shouldn't that be called "equal treatment"? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Martynas, let's imagine that the AfD example was closed with a 'broad' version of FRINGE, that is, while the Notability section of FRINGE said that this guideline applies to "fringe-related" topics. It has been argued (and I believe) that the Notability section adds nothing to what is said in policies and guidelines elsewhere. If this is true, then asserting that it applies to Fringe-related articles says no more than that WP:NOTE applies to all articles, which of course it does. An opinion in favor of the change to a broad version must show what the Notability section of FRINGE adds that is not said elsewhere.
What does the Notability section say? It says you need at least one secondary RS. It requires RSs that are independent of the promulgators and popularizers of the topic of the article. These things are said in WP:NOTE. It also directs us to give less weight to "References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject - such as the creator of a theory". One might argue that this is an additional refinement, but I think it's covered elsewhere, e.g WP:IS.
We don't have to imagine what would happen if that AfD were closed while the narrow version of FRINGE was in effect, because it was closed on 23 May 2010, more than two years before this change was introduced. The narrow version was in effect at that time.
But now I'm puzzled about what your complaint is about that AfD. Elsewhere, you say "discussion would have to be closed as "keep" if this guideline applies to biographies and "delete" if id does not. Yes, things might go differently if someone would have thought of a better argument for keeping the article, but no one did at the time." But in fact you got your wish: the outcome of that AfD was "keep". All the votes said either keep or merge, except for one. Further, the one vote to delete said "Fringe reviews and small pressings in other languages that have attracted no attention do not equal notability", and this objection did not depend upon a broad version of FRINGE, WP:NOTE requires wp:independent sources).
Your second point: The category error is in the assumption that the word "fringe" means the same thing (a) referring to an idea and (b) referring to an entity (writer, publisher, organization, etc.) that is "fringe-related" because of being a popularizer or promulgator of the idea. It is like the Augustine/Gandhi distinction between sin and sinner. Treating these as the same leads to misuse of the 'fringe' label as a tar brush. Specifically, writing or publishing information about a fringe idea does not make a writer or publisher unreliable as a source, unless that's all they're known for writing or publishing. In your example, the nominator of the AfD said that Philosophical Practice was a fringe journal, apparently because the book in question was reviewed in it. Using the label 'fringe' as a tar brush (and please do look up that phrase for its meaning), he or she extended the fringe characterization of the idea (reincarnation) from the book to the journal. However, most of what that journal publishes is not fringe, and most of what the author of the review writes and does is not fringe.
As to your third point, "double standard" is an idiom in English. The meaning is not the same as the literal meaning of "two standards". The article "Double standard" gives an explanation. With this in mind, what I have said may make more sense to you.
Bn (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for concern. It is true that I am not a native English speaker, but I do think that I know what you meant by "tar brush" and I do know what "double standard" is ("A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or to different people in the same situation." - [17]). Speaking of which, I don't think that you chose a right link... That one is a redirect to "List of ethnic slurs" ([18]), the place with explanation "derogatory descriptive phrase for a person of predominantly Caucasian ancestry with real or suspected African or Asian distant ancestry." ([19])... I don't think you meant that...
As for the AfD, let's put it this way: what arguments and evidence would the closer have used? Can you make a short list?
"But now I'm puzzled about what your complaint is about that AfD." - oh, right. After some rewriting I must have mixed up the words "Keep" and "Delete"... Sorry. I meant that, if the closer would have taken the version "Broadly" into account, the result would have been "Delete", "Merge" or "Redirect" (most likely "Merge"), and if the closer would have taken the version "Narrowly" into account, the result would have been "Keep". In other words, in one case the closer would have counted all three sources and in another one he would have found out that all three have been challenged without objection (yes, the ones who were for the option "Keep" should have objected, but they didn't; perhaps it means that the result would have been wrong - but if the participants argue badly, maybe they deserve a wrong decision?). Of course, closers who do not take any arguments into account and simply count the words given in bold (by the way, would you consider striking off the first such word you wrote in this discussion, since it looks like you changed your opinion later, giving two other such words instead) are also not unheard of. In such case the close would be "Keep" (and, since the closer gave no explanation, it might be that it is exactly what happened). Of course, in such case no wording is going to make a difference - we might as well add some words "not" in random places... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I will stop using the pejorative idiom "double standard." We have a single standard expressed in WP:NOTE and in the GNG in particular. Specialized guidelines have been created for specific kinds of subjects, such as WP:SCHOLAR, WP:NASTRO, WP:ORG, and WP:BIO. These specializations do not contradict the single standard. They call out problems that are often characteristic of the given subject matter, and recommend ways of dealing with those problems. WP:SCHOLAR — academics are more likely than some other professions to be notable without there being a secondary-source biography. WP:ORG — it may be particularly difficult to get independent sources about organizations, especially companies, and editors are urged to be especially watchful for advertising. So if it makes more sense to you, I'm happy to say that I believe there is one notability standard for all articles, but that this guideline may specialize that standard by saying what to do about difficulties that seen to be characteristic of fringe ideas. So the Notability section emphasizes that RS must be independent of the "promoters and promulgators" of the idea. This is much like what WP:ORG does about advertising and promotional literature. If you believe that there are or should be two standards, one for fringe ideas and another for everything else, no such separate standard is stated in the Notability section. If editors have been acting as if FRINGE does provide a different standard, it seems to me that they have been mistaken in this.
I'm not going to second-guess hypothetical thought processes of the AfD closer in May 2010. You believe that if the Notability section had at that time said that FRINGE applies to articles related to fringe ideas it would have made a difference to that AfD. I can see that if someone had objected that FRINGE does not apply to judging the notability of the book that was the topic of that article, it would have overcome that objection. But in that AfD vote nobody made that objection. In practice, editors have applied FRINGE to any topic in which a fringe idea is discussed. And no one has pointed to a case where a fringe promoter objected that FRINGE did not apply to an article about a book, organization, bio, etc. because the change under discussion in this RFC had not been made. I doubt that it has ever happened. You're the only one who has answered the request for an example showing how this change makes any practical difference at all. And that is because it doesn't. In the case of this AfD, the Notability section says nothing about how to judge the book's notability, beyond what is said in WP:NOTE. The Notability section of FRINGE emphasizes independence from advocates; WP:NOTE refers to independent sources 17 times and links to WP:IS for more detailed treatment. There is really no substantial or practical difference. Bn (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
"OK, I will stop using the pejorative idiom "double standard."" - as you wish...
"I'm not going to second-guess hypothetical thought processes of the AfD closer in May 2010." - you can "second-guess" the thought processes of a hypothetical closer instead. If you refuse to do that, you won't "get" the example. I don't think there is much left to discuss in such case. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The notability requirement for fringe-related articles are no different than any other topic. I have never seen an admin close an AfD saying "This article meets WP:GNG but because it's a related to a fringe theory, the requirements are higher." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Note to the closing editor: a BLP concern

I have a concern about part 2b of the proposal. It is unclear what is meant by proposing that the guideline apply not only to fringe theories, but "should also apply to ... people whose main claim to notability is the promotion of such views, e.g. David Icke (lizard people), David Irving (holocaust denial), David Balsiger author of The Lincoln Conspiracy." I am therefore requesting that, whether or not consensus is gained for any other part of the proposal, the closing editor rule that consensus was not gained for part 2b, so that we can hold a separate discussion on what it would mean to apply FRINGE to biographies.

In more detail

Several editors have asked what it would mean to apply FRINGE to biographies and in particular to BLPs, because it has the potential to cause BLP violations. No one has been able to explain. I asked Lawrencekoo, who opened the RfC, what he meant by it and he also seemed unable to explain. [20] I therefore asked him to withdraw part 2b of the proposal, and propose it later in a separate, clearer RfC. [21] He declined, saying this was a decision for the closing editor. [22]

Some of the people supporting this proposal have firm views (arguably extreme views) about how far FRINGE should extend. For example, IRWolfie regards psychoanalysis as fringe. Would this proposal allow psychoanalysts to be labelled as fringe practitioners or pseudoscientists in the text of their biographies? If so, we would be labelling as fringe some of the world's most eminent psychiatrists. Would it allow editors to insist on removing the ideas of psychoanalysts from their biographies? Lawrencekoo offered only extreme examples in the RfC question, such as David Icke who believes the world is governed by giant lizards. The danger is that these are acting as a Trojan horse to gain consensus for a proposal that could affect more nuanced examples and even relatively mainstream thinkers.

The situation at Christian Science is an example of the concern I have. There, IRWolfie and others support saying in the lead – in Wikipedia's voice and at one point unsourced [23] – that Christian Science is a pseudoscience, when in fact it has nothing to do with science. IRWolfie argued that the personal website of James Randi, a stage magician, is an appropriate and reliable source to determine this. [24][25] (Note: Randi is not the only source for the claim.) He also referred in an edit summary to FRINGE as justification for the edit. [26] If FRINGE is extended to cover people, we may see similar attempts to add "fringe thinker" or "pseudoscientist" to the leads of biographies, or attempts to remove from biographies the ideas of their subjects, on the grounds that FRINGE now governs the page content. I respect the motivation of IRWolfie and others, which is to keep nonsense to a minimum, but it can be taken too far. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, WP:FRINGE is largely a subset of WP:NPOV and NPOV applies to all articles. This is how it already is. Likewise, the part in FRINGE about notability is a subset of WP:GNG and GNG applies to all articles. This is how it already is. This RfC doesn't affect any of those articles because it doesn't change anything. It simply reaffirms the status quo.
FRINGE only exists to provide additional guidance to editors. It does not alter NPOV or GNG. In fact, if there is anything in this guideline that goes against NPOV and GNG, those parts in FRINGE should be ignored. NPOV and GNG are the guiding principles here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but the point is the amount of argument that ensues when some editors try to remove material they see as being governed by FRINGE, or try to add that something is pseudoscience. It can be very time-consuming. When they do it to new editors, the new arrivals don't know that other policies and guidelines take precedence. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but a correction is in order. "Would this proposal allow psychoanalysts to be labelled as fringe practitioners or pseudoscientists in the text of their biographies?" (presumably, without a source) - no. Actually, user "Blueboar" (mostly neutral here, I guess?) has proposed that one can use WP:IAR to do something like that ([27]), but such an idea has been met with clear disapproval both by me ([28], [29]) and by "IRWolfie-" ([30]). I hope that those diffs will alleviate your fears about this guideline and "IRWolfie-" at least a little. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the diffs, but I can't see anything in them that would rule out labelling people as fringe or "pseudoscientists" in their biographies if they think this guideline will allow it. The point I was making is that some editors will interpret an extension of FRINGE as licence to repeat in biographies the kind of situation that's going on at Christian Science. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering that the vast majority of male editors of WP:RS still in their hearts consider any one in the least feminist to be "fringe" and anyone to be fringe who is the less powerful position in any other situation where one ethnic/national/religous/political/etc. organizational/governmental/media grouping has more power than others, this remains a status quo proposal that will lead to slurring of individuals and deleting any new ideas/theories/discoveries/opinions/etc. that are not approved by the ruling elites of whatever grouping is most relevant. CarolMooreDC 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Note to the closing editor: Imbalance and censorship concern

First, considering the distain for censorship on Wikipedia, I cannot believe that 24 people asking to censor out allegedly fringe material from all and any articles (as opposed to 10 opposed) is a real reflection of the community and this should be taken to a much wider audience. (I just got it from RfC Bot myself.)
I did just notice reading SlimVirgin's comment that LawrenceKhoo is the LK who originated this. He actually was the person I had in mind when I wrote above that "free market" economics was dismissed as "fringe" by some. Censorship of ideas is not supposed to be part of Wikipedia's purpose but that is how many people will try to use a broadening of this policy; warfare on many articles will be the result. CarolMooreDC 17:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I'm not a big visitor to Village Pump policy but thought an announcement of this belonged there and didn't see any past announcement. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories.23RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE.
Second, given that many people are involved in holiday activity during the second half of December, no "decision" should be made about this til at least mid-January. CarolMooreDC 22:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, these are the 4 diffs:

Given that the majority of editors (perhaps even a consensus) have agreed that FRINGE should be interpretted broadly and my own opinion nothing is changing, (see below) it seems to me that the real problem is simply one of poor wording. Therefore, I propose that we use the phrase "fringe-related topic".

My argument that FRINGE is a subset of NPOV and GNG so it applies to all articles, and that the RfC reaffirms the status quo.

WP:FRINGE is largely a subset of WP:NPOV and NPOV applies to all articles. This is how it already is. Likewise, the part in FRINGE about notability is a subset of WP:GNG and GNG applies to all articles. This is how it already is. This RfC doesn't affect any of those articles because it doesn't change anything. It simply reaffirms the status quo.

FRINGE only exists to provide additional guidance to editors. It does not alter NPOV or GNG. In fact, if there is anything in this guideline that goes against NPOV and GNG, those parts in FRINGE should be ignored. NPOV and GNG are the guiding principles here.

  • Comment: This passage is in the Notability section. It has been argued that FRINGE changes nothing in WP:NOTE, and no one has convincingly shown what effect those changes will have on acceptance of articles. If that is true, then it doesn't matter how you word it, the change has no effect and should be rejected. (See the Void for vagueness comment by NickCT.) If the desire is to have warrant for labeling topics as being about fringe subjects, the Notability section cannot provide that, so this RFC is irrelevant for that purpose. WP:UNDUE provides that wrt fringe content within any article. Bn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The suggestion to use "topics" was originally mine (made back in August). I now realize that this suggestion was a mistake. The word "topics" can too easily be abused, to apply this guideline in ways and situations that it was never intended to be used (such as applying it to people and organizations). While the guideline should be interpreted broadly, the word "topics" allows it to be applied overly broadly. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The result will be censorship. This is already a problem here. An example is that of those scientists who have published somewhat notable but not famous notable work on conventional subjects, and have also denied published work denying global warming, or even supporting creationism or ESP. The tendency has been for AfDs on them to have the argument: he can not be a significant scientist, or he would not have gotten involved in such things. And usually the articles get deleted, because the anti-fringe people oppose them, while articles on people with equivalent purely mainstream reputations would not. Fringe is a term that can be used very expansively. There's an argument above that it applies to psychoanalysis; I've heard it applied at WP to Christianity. Once we go beyond the sciences it can mean any social or political or artistic position I one personally considers absurd.
But there is a real problem, and it applies to all sorts of articles, including mainstream science. It's the attempt to write an expansive articles on not just an individual, but also on his theory, on his book, and on his research center. About half the content is common to all 4. I've seen this done by commercial concerns, by mainstream practitioners, by advocates of specific ideologies, by conventional academics, and by fringe people and groups. It sometimes emanates from the individual or their press agent, but the most sophisticated tries at this come from the organization's press office. (There are two or three universities of the highest respectability that are currently particularly active in this). difficulties here.) This isn't a fringe problem alone, though fringe politics or social science are another key place to find this, and I have one or two particularly in mind, and about 100 to get to some day. The attempts of some such groups in science have motivated the proposal for broad application here, but the expansion of fringe is not the way to handle it, but rather a subject-independent NPOV approach to the promotionalism.
This proposal is completely correct that it's a subset of NPOV as it applies to all articles, but wrong in proposing to redefine fringe to deal with it. The reason for applying fringe specifically and narrowly to ideas is to prevent people from being misled on subjects where there is a clear consensus when they are looking for information on a subject. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you name some AfDs where the article was deleted even though the topic clearly met WP:GNG? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
DGG, this points to the ignored elephant in the middle of this discussion, the lack of a clear definition of criteria by which to determine that something is 'fringe'. The extension beyond pseudoscience is informal, vague, and ill defined. Bn (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Appreciate attempt to finesse this, but how can you be related to something fringe? The question remains, should anything explored/described by commonly accepted WP:RS but nevertheless not considered credible by some small sample of wikipedia editors, established or drive-by, be considered not worthy of inclusion [added later: in most articles in the encyclopedia]. Should the opinions of Professors Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises be driven from Wikipedia just because some Keynesian-oriented professors don't like them? CarolMooreDC 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Granted, these aren't people I'm particularly familiar with, but even still we seem to have articles on all three of those people. Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises are not redlinks, so how are they being driven from Wikipedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Clarify: [added later: in most articles in the encyclopedia] CarolMooreDC 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
My proposal is in the section of FRINGE about notability. Notability only refers to whether Wikipedia should have article about a particular topic. It has nothing to do with article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. DGG's and Carol's points go to the heart of this, namely that we see a lot of No true Scotsman-type arguments from certain editors: he can't be a reputable academic if he wrote that, or if he published there, or if he believes this, and therefore we have the right to exclude him. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I guess it should be noted that in this case the choice is between "fringe topics" and "fringe-related topics" and not between "fringe theories" and "fringe-related topics". The second choice is what the RFC-proper is about - and at the moment there is pretty clear consensus that either "fringe topics" or "fringe-related topics" is to be preferred (and I would recommend the ones who supported the contrary option to accept the result). Anyway, I guess that the choice between "fringe topics" and "fringe-related topics" is to be left to the ones that didn't like that result (personally, I don't see much difference, but maybe someone else does). Unfortunately, this discussion seems to be about almost everything but the real topic... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Blueboar. Use of "fringe topics" is bad enough, and "fringe-related topics" only compounds the problem. It should be self-evident that people are not fringe. Where is the objective standard that relates them to the supposed-"mainstream" people? This is nothing more than censorship. Please return to the pre-August version using "fringe theories". Then, per BN, there can be a new RfC to resolve what criteria should be used to define the scope of fringe theories beyond pseudoscience. Ignocrates (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
What problem? The requirements for notability for fringe-related topics are no different than any other topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but notability is not the issue here. Fringe is a relationship between two things, such as a theory in question and a second theory which serves as an objective standard. Ignocrates (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
But the change under discussion in the RFC is in the Notability section. Bn (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
A fringe theory can be notable, as many examples above have shown. The real problem is defining the scope of what is meant by fringe. Imho, the current wording is overly broad and creates a potential to be misused. Ignocrates (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Other than the pseudoscience core, there is no clear definition of fringe. It's an "I know it when I see it" free for all, like pornography when Joyce's Ulysses was banned. Bn (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. And "I know it when I see it" is a synonym for Original Research. That is the core of the problem. It can be made into whatever someone wants it to mean. Ignocrates (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record (so if anyone wants me to walk away from this discussion, let me know), but I really, really like the definition given by Jimbo's 2003 e-mail and WP:NPOV, which I'll combine here, with some tweaks of my own:

What do mainstream texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent experts say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream academic community on this point?

Roughly speaking, there are 3 general categories of viewpoints:

  1. Majority - If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  2. Significant minority - If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent experts;
  3. Fringe - If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

What's wrong with this definition? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this definition in the scope for which it was formulated: science. For a science, it is very easy to identify the community of scientists within which majority and minority views are held, and not too difficult to identify views which are entirely outside the community of scientists engaged in that science. For other fringe/mainstream judgements it is more difficult to circumscribe a relevant community whose standards should apply. Majority/minority opinions among chemists have little to no relevance to determining RS for the article on alchemy.Bn (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Even for the sciences banning such material is problematic. Fifty years ago the theory that a meteor impact killed the dinosaurs was heresy in science; now it's as commonly accepted as the sky is blue. If just a few real life scientists are promoting an idea and it is covered by WP:RS - especially in the scientific media - even if it is ridiculed or dismissed, ti may bears at least a sentence or two in a relevant article. Most scientific discoveries start with often flawed by eventually useful theories and Wikipedia looks stupid dismissing them all as fringe, as if we are the Pope banning Galileo from society for saying the earth revolves around the sun. CarolMooreDC 19:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Dear me, oppose, let's not drag the relatives into it. If you use "fringe-related" you open the door to including Evolution because it is "related to" Intelligent design. I foresee horrible issues with this phrasing. KillerChihuahua 14:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
This is already the current policy and my proposal doesn't change anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Please clarify, thanks. KillerChihuahua 15:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:Fringe_theories#Notability is a subset of WP:GNG and the requirements for notability are the same regardless of the topic. I've never seen an admin close an AfD saying that an article meets WP:GNG but because it's a fringe theory (or fringe-related theory - however you phrase it), so the article must be deleted. If this section is causing this much confusion, perhaps we should just delete it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I was unclear. My objection is that your suggested phrasing makes Fringe not even unnecessarily broad, but simply not a limited term at all, because you're opening the door to applying it to everything. I see potential for serious misuse of this by pov-pushers and wikilawyers. And I'm not talking about Afd. Your arguments that we're covered on Afd do not address my objection. Is this clear now, or have you questions? KillerChihuahua 16:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It already applies to all articles. I'm just try to clarify something that's apparently causing a lot of confusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The suggestion (in the 3 general categories above) that "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless ...." is simply a rationale for censorship. Are there people who believe The Moon is made of green cheese? Perhaps so. They have a viewpoint that is extremely small, their belief is not true, they cannot prove it. But what if we labeled this belief (or similar beliefs) as fringe and then sought to exclude it?--S. Rich (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
<Sigh> You're confusing NPOV and notability. If a fringe theory meets WP:GNG, we don't delete it simply because it is fringe. The notability requirements are the same for all articles. As example, Bigfoot, Roswell UFO incident, and Moon landing conspiracy theories all meet WP:GNG so we keep the articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
<Sigh back at you> There are lots of things that I'm confused about, but this is not one of them (unless I'm confused about what I'm confused about). I point out what your #3 criteria says and what it leads to. Your proposal simply leads to confusion (and possible censorship). On the other hand, you've said, there "is already the current policy and 'my proposal doesn't change anything'." Seems that even defining the proposal, which doesn't change anything, is getting nowhere. As a long-standing alternative, we do have the WP:FTN. All of those marginal, minority, absurd, etc. theories get hashed out there. --S. Rich (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it allows for ancillary articles. Again, if the topic meets WP:GNG, it should be kept. If the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, it should get deleted. My proposal doesn't change anything. This is how it already works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Problems occur when NOTABILITY and NPOV overlap:
  1. Notability (creating/keeping a stand alone article on a fringe theory or a person/organization connected to a fringe theory) - we tend take an inclusionist approach here, setting the bar fairly low... if there are a few reliable sources that are independent of the topic, we can create or keep the article.
  2. NPOV (discussing a Fringe theory or its proponents in other articles) - we take a somewhat exclusionist approach here, setting the bar fairly high... we give fringe theories (and their proponents) DUE WEIGHT (which can mean not mentioning them at all).
The current text of the guideline says all of this... and says it well, in my opinion. However, there is one area where I think the guideline is unclear and could use some improvement... when we have an article on a WP:NOTABLE Fringe theory, there is a question as to how much WEIGHT should be given to its various proponents; and in an article about a WP:NOTABLE fringe proponent/organization there is a question of how much WEIGHT should should be given to discussing the theory - and a related question of how much weight to give a) the mainstream view b) various alternative variations of the theory. In other words... in an article about a fringe theory, or a bio article about a fringe proponent, does context affect DUE weight?
My answer is that it does... we should give significantly more weight to fringe proponents in an article about a fringe theory than we would in any other article... and we should give a lot more weight to a fringe theory in an article about a proponent of that theory that we would in some other article. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
A great example of the right way to do this is the Duesberg hypothesis, which takes an inclusionist approach to what is now regarded as a fringe hypothesis, and the parent article AIDS where the controversial hypothesis is mentioned but given very little weight. Ignocrates (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: Do we need a notability section at all in FRINGE? The presence of a notability section may cause some editors to equate fringe with non-notability. If the notability requirements are no different than for a "mainstream" article, why don't we simply state that under Notability versus acceptance and direct the reader to NOTE? Ignocrates (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I've seen where outside-the-mainstream got translated to heterodox to pseudo-science to fringe and then deleted as non-notable. Specifically editing skirmishes about Friedrich Hayek and Austrian School economics. The Nobel Prize was not enough to persuade certain editors that the school was not fringe.--S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Just an observation... It is interesting to look back at the evolution of this guideline through the years. When we first wrote WP:FRINGE it was primarily a Notability guideline (focused on explaining when it was appropriate to have an article on fringe theories and when it was not)... today, it more of a NPOV guideline (focused on when it is appropriate to mention fringe theories in articles and how)... and now we are starting to ask if we should discuss notability at all. My how things change. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Notability still needs to be mentioned, briefly, if only to provide a contrast to acceptance. Otherwise, many editors will conflate these two very different concepts. The crux of fringe is non-acceptance rather than non-notability. I see nothing wrong with this change in emphasis over time. We are continually sharpening our editing tools. Ignocrates (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly. Apologies if I've formatted this incorrectly. Wikipedia is baffling.

    I've tried to add information to some articles that would fall under a broad definition of fringe. This information was from more than one national UK newspaper (and the broadsheets, not the tabloids). I was careful to stick to NPOV. My edits were quickly reverted, and then edit warred over (not by me!). On one side were the supporters of the fringe practitioner who would not allow anything negative into the article. But disappointingly the other side were TRUTHers; nothing but a wholesale condemnation of the fringe practitioner would be allowed into the article. Unless you were saying "John Doe is a fraud and a sham and a charlatan" you would not get an edit into the article.

    Really, Wikipedia does not need that. Just have unbiased articles about those people. Let the facts speak - someone who does not have a real degree, for example, does not need to be called a sham. Just point out that the degree is bogus. Obviously, if they have convictions or prosecutions for fraud that's useful information.

    TL:DR - fringe covers theories, organisations, and people. But please reign back the direct attacks, and just concentrate on facts. --82.3.143.88 (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe Notability

Support (broadly). However I think Mangoe is wrong about notability of major figures in major fringe theories like Astrology. If someone is widely acknowledged within the fringe theory as a major author or speaker, and people into that sort of thing pack lecture halls and write reviews of their ideas, I'd say they were notable. Maybe we need a new term, FringeNotable or whatever, to say "I don't believe a word you say but I'll defend to the death your right to an article on Wikipedia". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Request for clarification: Is this an arbitrary break, or are you proposing a different set of criteria for fringe notability? Currently, the criteria for notability are the same for all articles, including fringe articles. Ignocrates (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose I am: the current criteria require non-fringe notability for people (and major books) that may be highly significant within a fringe group but, because they make fringe assumptions (say, the validity of astrology) they fail to meet GNG. I find it odd, for instance, that past presidents of astrological societies are basically assumed non-notable by default. Without at all wishing to assert that they stand for anything valid, it just seems extraordinary that acknowledged fringe thought leaders should be excluded. I think we should be big enough to say "Mad Jack Bloggs was the leading theorist of astro theory XYZ", as any other encyclopedia would do. My own (scientific, mainstream) worldview is not the only possible one. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you are proposing something, then think it through and write it down clearly. Only two options (called "Narrowly" and "Broadly") are available in this RFC and, while you did write "broadly", the explanation doesn't make it clear if that's really what you are supporting. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability and Acceptance are independent guidelines

  • Proposal: Notability (WP:NOTE) and Acceptance (WP:FRINGE) are two independent guidelines within NPOV policy (WP:NPOV) that should be applied simultaneously and in parallel. Both guidelines use WEIGHT, but in different ways, and neither is a subset of the other. Ignocrates (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Working Example - Microwavable Toast: Let's say someone comes up with a new way to make microwavable toast.
  1. First, consider the notability of the new invention, and assume the toast and method of preparation are unremarkable (i.e. acceptable): The popular and authoritative response might be 1) enthusiastic & widespread (our toast problems are solved!), 2) middling (ok, another way to make toast), or 3) a blip (so what).
  2. Second, consider the acceptance of the new invention and assume the notability is at least middling: The level of acceptance might be A) superior (best toast ever!), B) mediocre (as good as a toaster), or C) poor (who would eat this?).
  3. Note how these can be combined independently ranging from 1A (new mainstream article) to 2B (new section in the article on toast) to 3C (not in this encyclopedia). But other combinations are possible, like 1C (possible new fringe article) or 2C (tiny mention in toast article). WEIGHT is applied in each case, but used independently to evaluate notability and acceptance. Ignocrates (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Um, that's not a proposal, it's just you stating something and giving an example you feel is illustrative. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but could you please explain it further? Technically, what you said makes little sense for the simple reason that guidelines are not "sets"... And the "working example" seems to be pretty useless: you do not even mention sources - and without sources nothing counts as notable in the sense used in Wikipedia.
Also, your proposal doesn't seem to have much to do with the RFC (unless it is a try to subvert clear consensus - and I hope that it is not, although, since it is not clear, I have no idea what would be its effect). Maybe it should be in a separate section (as you put it at first - [31])..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Eh, subvert is a loaded negative word which suggests a lack of good faith on your part. The purpose of the working example, intended to be a light-hearted illustration, is to demonstrate that editors are being asked to make a false choice by changing the wording of a notability guideline that doesn't really belong in FRINGE. Ignocrates (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, sorry, if the word "subvert" felt, er, a little out of place (I will add that I did say I hope it is not the case), but the idea is as follows: this RFC has two options ("Narrowly" and "Broadly"). If your proposal doesn't, um, "cancel" it in some way, I don't see what it is supposed to do as a part of this RFC. So, since I am not sure what your proposal actually is, do you think it is completely compatible with both offered options ("Narrowly" and "Broadly")..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am expanding on an earlier discussion with Blueboar in the form of a proposal with a working example to illustrate my point. I await his response, along with anyone else who is genuinely interested in advancing this discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I have been involved in a lot of discussions relating to the RFC, and I am not sure which discussion you are referring to... so I can not respond (yet). Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to your just an observation statement that immediately followed my question. It occurred to me after you made that observation that two things are being confounded in this RfC, point 1) the scope of fringe (ideas only vs. ideas and persons), and point 2) the application of fringe (acceptance only or notability and acceptance). Point 2 is the larger policy issue because it clarifies the difference between notability and acceptance. Ignocrates (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification... I don't think we can address part 2 until we settle part 1. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we should immediately move to a new RfC for part 2 after part 1 is decided, setting aside for now the thorny issue of how to apply FRINGE to articles outside the scope of pseudo-science. I believe that one will require another ArbCom. Ignocrates (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment about closing this RfC

I'm concerned that this RfC is almost impossible to close. First, it's not clear what's being asked. Second, there are potential BLP issues with 2B, which the proposer has not clarified. Third, there are people commenting in subsections that asked different questions from the main question, and it's not obvious that they all intended to address those different questions. Is it too late to come up with one clear question and ask everyone to give one clear answer to it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This RfC is a train wreck. Not only is the question being asked unclear, it doesn't even make sense. WP:FRINGE is a subset of WP:NPOV and WP:GNG, and these apply to all articles. This is not negotiable, or at least not here. The proper venues for changing WP:NPOV and WP:GNG are at their respective talk pages, and nobody even here has suggested that WP:NPOV or WP:GNG be changed.
I honestly don't know what's going on here. I get the feeling that some content dispute (or disputes) has (or have) spilled into policy pages, but I'm not sure. If this is the case, I suggest the disputing parties follow dispute resolution. In particular, the Dispute resolution noticeboard seems to have some success. Perhaps the RfC closer can refer disputing parties to WP:DRN? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Quote: This RfC is a train wreck. Hear hear, right on, etc. CarolMooreDC 22:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As the person who originally suggested we hold an RFC in the first place... I have to agree. This RFC has become a train wreck. We all seem to be answering different questions (which tells me that the actual question, as asked, was overly confusing). I suggest we close this as "NO CONSENSUS", and start over again with a much clearer question.Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2012 (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.
  1. ^ "[WikiEN-l] NPOV and 'new physics'". Lists.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2011-11-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_18&oldid=1137414175"