Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ideas ignored by the mainstream 2 Consensus? Fringe v. minority? 3 Merger? 4 RFC on Scope of this guideline 5 Content, notability or both? 6 Publication 7 Christian doctrine 8 Merge note 9 Test case 10 Another test case 11 Allais effect 12 Word choice in articles 13 Content guideline? 14 RFC - Does this guideline have consensus? 15 Mainstream 16 Quote 17 "Mainstream" 18 fringecruft board? 19 Singular primary sources? 20 Discussion moved 21 Comparison of versions 22 Stable version 22.1 Enumeration of changes 23 Appeal to particular attribution 24 WP:NOR... 25 Long and unwieldy 26 Consensus 27 Application of WP:Fringe to hoaxes and myths?

[edit] Ideas ignored by the mainstream

When ideas that criticize the mainstream are ignored by the mainstream and we are writing an article about the mainstream, it is inappropriate to also include the ignored ideas. This is simply because the context of such articles is not to "debunk" the mainstream but to explicate the mainstream. Inasmuch as the mainstream is in charge of reporting itself, articles regarding the mainstream should not be subject to critique from people who are ignored by the mainstream. --ScienceApologist 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... could you run that by us again?

I think you are trying to say that Fringe theories should not have to be included in articles about mainstream subjects. If so, I would agree. Blueboar 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You got it. --ScienceApologist 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and this subject cuts right to the heart of concerns I have (not that I plan on jumping ino controversial battles between skeptics, debunkers, and proponents.) I strongly agree with the above, but would like to see this principle applied in converse scenarios (to some degree) as well: ie articles about fringe subjects should not be forced to bear constant aknowledgement that they are fringe or just how fringe they are. If it can be agreed that they meet the tests to warrant an article, then let it be, and let the oposing topic have its own article. This principle could go a long, long way towards lessening the battle ground effect.216.67.11.229 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

While the mainstream should not be critiqued by the fringe, the fringe should be critiqued by the mainstream. Fringe subjects need to be characterized as fringe and compared to mainstream understanding lest the reader become misled regarding the fringe status of the idea. --ScienceApologist 09:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus? Fringe v. minority?

Is there really consensus for this to be a guideline? I'm not sure I see it here. Also, is anyone else concerned regarding minority views possibly being considered fringe by folks who want to push a general POV? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI... I have put this page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies with the comment that there is some question of whether there is consensus or not. Hopefully the comments will help us determine that.

As to your concerns, POV pushers will quote and misquote all of our guidelines and policies to achieve their desired agendas... and I am sure they will attempt to do that with this one. However, I have faith that the community will see through such attempts. I think it is important to note that the guideline does not rule out all articles on fringe theories... it simply rules out fringe theories that have not been extensively discussed in at least one reliable source such as a newspaper or peer reviewed accademic journal. In other words, a Fringe theory has to be notable enough to have a non-fringe source report on it. Blueboar 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read the project page and some of the discussion, and my opinion is that this should not be a guideline. My main objection is that it seems to duplicate several other guidelines, notably NPOV. And it's poorly written, I can't even imagine how a discussion on a specific case would look like. Researching the page history, I find that this was a proposed guideline until August 31 when it was changed to an essay with the edit summary "no clear consensus, has potential as an essay". A few minutes later this editor changed his mind and tagged it as a content guideline with the edit summary "Actually, it might work as a content guideline". I don't think there has ever been consensus. -- Steve Hart 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The question you should be asking is not "is this out of process", but "do I agree with what it says". You are of course welcome to edit the page to improve it. Note that NPOV is a policy, and we generally have guidelines to supplement policy, or clarify specific cases thereof. This page was created in response to problems with fringe theories in the past. (Radiant) 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. Yeah, I do agree on principle, I just don't see it warranting a guideline on its own. I'm a bit lost on whether this applies only to entire articles (as stated in the lead) or not. A couple of minor points: could the page be better off titled Notability (fringe theories), and if so, does it duplicate WP:SCIENCE. Anyway, 1/5th of the text should be enough, we don't want CREEP do we? :)). -- Steve Hart 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is probably a good idea to cut the unnecessary text from this page, and merge it with the (newer) WP:SCIENCE. Other than that it does "warrant a guideline on its own" because, despite it seeming obvious to some, it describes one of those situations that crops up a lot. (Radiant) 10:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I can do a rewrite tonight and post it here for comments, unless everybody is fine with it the way it is -- Steve Hart 10:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This guideline is very important in my line of editting. I encourage its continued status. --ScienceApologist 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While it was created due to Science issues, I have found it has relevence to other areas as well. Especially some of the nuttier pseudo-historical theories. Blueboar 03:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (science). I agree that there is a degree of conceptual overlap between the two (in that both attempt to deal with similar issues), however I think a bit of discussion is needed before any merge can happen. For one thing, which article will get merged into the other? Or do we merge them both into an new guideline? I know this guideline started in response to several debates over scientific fringe theories, but recently it has had a bearing on non-scientific fringes theories as well. I would contend that this guideline is the more general one and that, if a merge were to take place, Wikipedia:Notability (science) should be merged into this guideline (as a sub-section dealing purely with science topics). However, I am not sure if a merge is really the right approach. Blueboar 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the discussion below indicates that this is not limited to the sciences, and so probably shouldn't be merged. If anything the merge should go the other way around; the science specifications are a subset of these general ones. But I think they are fine as separate guidelines; they basically say the same thing. --Fastfission 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Scope of this guideline

The following question has come up at a recent AfD: Does this guideline apply purely to science related theories, or does it apply to fringe theories in other disciplines?

My feeling is that it should apply to other disciplines. While this guideline was originally written in response to a debate about how to handle scientific fringe theories,it seems like excellent guidance for dealing with fringe theories in other areas as well. Historical and pseudo-historical fringe theories for example. Please comment. Blueboar 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It specifically says it applies to conspiracy theories, and has since the time it was created "This refers to "theory" in a very broad sense, including (self-described) scientific thories, conspiracy theories, or things which in a stricter sense may be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this not to apply to every field. Scientists don't own the fringes, we're just more often and more obviously and more shamefully publically ridiculed for ours. KP Botany 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Botany. No reason to limit the scope here. (Radiant) 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This guideline applies across the board (not just to science articles). --ScienceApologist 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hereby lodge my agreement: this guideline applies beyond the confines of science articles. Anville 01:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that my attention has been drawn to it, I merged some content from Wikipedia:Notability (science) and tried to clean up the stuff we had here. Edit away — criticism is the only known antidote to error. (-; Anville 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this guideline should apply across the board. TomTheHand 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When I helped to draft Wikipedia:Disruptive editing I specifically worded that guideline in broad terms so that it could apply to any discipline rather than only to science. Due to problems I've encountered at Joan of Arc I fully support applying the concept of fringe hypothesizing outside the hard sciences. Durova^Charge! 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content, notability or both?

Should this page be classified as a content guideline, notability guideline or both? The category page for content guidelines currently states,

Wikipedia guidelines for the content of pages. These are not guidelines about whether topics are important enough to be in Wikipedia (notability guidelines), nor guidelines about how to present such material (style guidelines). Instead, these seek to provide guidance on what topics are appropriate, and what material should be used in articles on such topics.

At the moment, WP:FRINGE covers both "whether topics are important enough" and "what material should be used".

Alternatively, should we have two pages, Wikipedia:Notability (fringe theories) based on generalizing Notability (science) and Wikipedia:Content of fringe theory articles? Personally, I feel the division between those would be awkward. I don't mind having the same page cover both notability and content, so that we can say "Delete per WP:FRINGE" in AFD as well as "rewrote per WP:FRINGE" in an edit summary. Thoughts? Anville 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't really matter. All guidelines are basically equal, and the only reason we've subcategorized them is because otherwise CAT:G would become unwieldy. There is no inherent difference between a content guideline and a notability guideline. (Radiant) 10:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then shouldn't the verbiage in Category:Wikipedia content be rewritten? Anville 20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes :) (Radiant) 10:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publication

ScienceApologist has added a good note about the need for peer reviewed publication. I would say, however, that it should not be limited to purely scientific theories ... shouldn't the note apply to any theory relating to an accademic topic (Science, History, Mathmatics, Art...etc.)? Blueboar 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the language to make it a little more general. Anville 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian doctrine

Describing the book of Genesis as "a Christian doctrine" is a bit muddled, since it was written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ and is hardly doctrinal. Also, its significance is not exclusively Christian (it is important in Judaism and Islam). The point of the paragraph is that its article should not concentrate on the cosmological, which is surely correct, but should concentrate on more relevant aspects. Bucketsofg 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine is creation (theology), if I'm not mistaken. --ScienceApologist 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

current wording is acceptable... the point was that in any article on the book of Genesis, one can (and should) discuss it's role as a theological doctrine, but not discuss it as a scientific theory. Blueboar 15:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge note

Indeed, this page should not be merged into the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (science). However, the two pages do overlap strongly. I think it'd be a good idea if (the worthwhile parts of) that proposal would be added to this page, and that page made a redirect to here. >Radiant< 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test case

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem like the overriding issue has anything to do with fringe theories, but rather the notability and verifiability of the concept. I don't know if this would really be a "test case" of anything here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• EU is technically a fringe theory and I mentioned this guideline in the nom. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another test case

Another test case of interest for people working on the proposal is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden, which focuses on notability criteria for scientists working on fringe theories. --ScienceApologist 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allais effect

Does anyone agree with me that this theory, the Allais effect, is fringe and should be put up for deletion? Thanks for the advice... Lunokhod 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No... the theory is discussed extensively on the NASA webpage. here Remember that WP:FRINGE relates to the level of coverage about a given theory (ie it's notoriety) not to how many people think it is true. As long as it is discussed extensively in a mainstream source (even to disprove or debunk it) it passes WP:FRINGE. NASA is definitely Mainstream. Blueboar 21:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens if it is discussed extensively in non-mainstream sources, or if it exist independently from science; For example widely known conspiracy belief that becomes part of a supermarket tabloid war?

What about something that follows all of the mainstream rules but is so taboo that it has little or no mainstream coverage. For example, a (hypothetical) study linking race and IQ. Do those studies which showed that doctors should treat African American and white American patients differently for certain conditions such as heart disease count as being fringe? They originate from mainstream doctors but receive only fringe coverage because it is politically difficult to print anything serious that says that there are racial differences beyond skin color (Basically, African slaves whose bodies didn't preserve salt died more and so they had less children. Where as slaves whose bodies preserved salt levels survived and therefore passed their genes on to their children. Thus modern African Americans have higher salt retention levels that white people or immigrant Africans).

-perfectblue (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word choice in articles

What's the appropriate term to use to describe those who do research but may not be trained in science or may not be recognized in the scientific community? Researchers? What criteria must a person meet to be called a scientist? What's the NPOV term for a non-scientist? How best to handle experiments that have been done by non-scientists, have no verification or review, or are otherwise questionable? Does it give too much credibility to call them experiments? Tests? Studies? Also, in the case of a "fringe" theory, is it NPOV or WP:WEASEL to say "proponents say...", "XYZ claims that...", "XYZ believe that...", "Allegedly a photo/recording of..."? Generally, it's considered weaselly to say things like "Some believe that..." but with fringe topics is that OK or is there a better way to phrase? With a fringe topic, is it OK to describe failure to accept the topic by scientists/the scientific community, or refer to them as skeptics? Any guidance would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are really talking about a range of terms... at the more respectable level there are "Amature Scientists", some where in the middle are "Hobbyists" and "Science Enthusiasts", and at the low end are "Quacks" and "Charlitains". As for weasle issues... I would say it is best to quote the major proponent of the theory... as in: "According to Dr. Ima Looney, 'exhaustive experimentation on a single white mouse has led to the definitive conclusion that wearwolves hate cats'<ref>Looney, Ima, ''101 fun things to do with a Lycanthrope'', Igor Press, 2006, p.52</ref>". Blueboar 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Problem with that range of terms is that POV pushers want to describe anyone who does an experiment, regardless of how "homemade" it is, as "researchers" (if not scientists). How best to handle "experiments" done by people with no credentials whatsoever listed? Or should they not even be mentioned in an article if we can't judge their credibility? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... let's be charitable, unless someone else has called them a quack or something (in which case we can quote that usage), we can call them "Amature resarchers" if they come close to using the Scientific Method, and "Pseudo-Scientists" if they do not. Blueboar 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content guideline?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories&diff=prev&oldid=73020352

I am not sure how these things work, but shouldn't there be some discussion or consensus before inserting project related tags on pages?

Also, use of word 'mainstream' in this article is very problematic, and I am not sure that such a general guideline can be made considering a variety of topics and subjects included included in Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, ... This (part of a) sentence is especially problematic. Among other things, Encyclopedia should contain the sum of all human knowledge, not just mainstream ...

Notability in science deals much better than this page with related (and more specific) problem.

Lakinekaki 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very important and useful guideline. There's lots of fringe POV pushing going on on various articles, and we absolutely need things like this to maintain NPOV. "Mainstream" is consistent with WP:NPOV which talks about majority/minority views and undue weight. It doesn't mean that notable ideas outside the mainstream should be ommitted, just that they should be presented in the context of their level of acceptance. For example, wikipedia mentions that there are people that believe the earth is flat, but we don't write the article Earth in a way that treats that view as if it had the same level of acceptance as the mainstream view that the earth is round. --Minderbinder 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I did try to find that consensus, but failed! Can you guide me, and give some links to this consensus (that made it a valid guideline) [1] you are talking about.Lakinekaki 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "that consensus"... but take a look at WP:NPOV#Undue weight... one of our key policy statements. Blueboar 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will explain. I put on the article page tag that it is a proposed guideline, not a valid guideline. Minderbinder removed my modification with explanation that there was no consensus for such an action. Then I asked Minderbinder, where was a consensus for a valid guideline tag at the first place. That tag is on a page and it just appeared there one day. There was no consensus for putting it. It may be in part along the spirit of WP:NPOV, but that does not give justification of tagging it with official guideline tag.

Let me give you another example. Let's say that I write some essay now for example saying that people should not wait for consensus before tagging official tags on pages. And than 2 months later I put an official guideline tag on it. ?!? How can I do that. There was no consensus and extensive discussion on it. That is what some editors here are doing with guideline tag. Lakinekaki 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was edited by quite a few people before and after the guideline tag was added. The fact that the tag stayed on for months without anyone disputing it demonstrates that it had consensus to be a guideline. See WP:Consensus: "silence equals consent". --Minderbinder 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I found something related to policy proposals [2], so I guess it was presented to people. However, there were some objections before[3]. Lakinekaki 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that editors of this page should definitely take a look at Talk:Notability (Science) and see how transparently it is discussed there if the page deserves an official guideline tag.Lakinekaki 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Hopefully something similar will occur at this page too.

Lakinekaki, are you questioning the process by which this became a guideline? The content? or Both? If it is the process, we can always post a request for confirmation of the consensus at the Village pump and see who responds. If it is the content... why not suggest edits? Blueboar 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Process was most troubling. I think that confirmation on the Village pump would be a good thing to do. Regarding content, as I said in the first post, the use of 'mainstream' is really problematic in my opinion. As article reads now (have in mind that English is not my native language, and I may read it wrong), if a topic is accepted by many non-mainstream groups and say thousands and thousands of people, if it was not in mainstream media then there is no place for it in Wikipedia. I find this very troubling. If I open any Encyclopedia, I can find so much information that has nothing to do with 'mainstream' thing. The sentence Since Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, ... is extremely alarming. I think that major/minor view on things as described in WP:NPOV is much healthier than this mainstream view. Lakinekaki 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well... I will ask at the pump. I hope you don't mind my waiting a bit... right now most of the people who get involved with policy/guideline issues are focused on the WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:ATT poll and debate. I think we would get negative reaction if we asked about the consensus of yet another poliy/guideline at this time (I am not talking about a negative answer to the question ... I am talking about a negative reaction to asking the question in the first place. We want people to look at the issue at this page dispasionately, and not let their reactions to a different issue on a different page get mixed in). Blueboar 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. Just please let me know when you do it, as I'm not following village pump's discussions very often. Lakinekaki 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Blueboar 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So, poll had finished some time ago. Why not put this thing now on village pump? I don't think it is good that guideline like this is being cited elsewhere, including policy WP:A as well as a number of talk pages, while in the same time, it is questioned here on procedural grounds. Lakinekaki 04:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC - Does this guideline have consensus?

A question has been asked (above) as to whether this guideline has community consensus or not. It was suggested that an RFC/straw poll would help to determine the answer. Blueboar 12:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to formulate a question we can mark as agree, disagree or comment as required? This would make counting easier. LessHeard vanU 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK (I really didn't intend this to be a "vote"... I was more interested in comments, but if you feel we need to structure it...)Blueboar 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's have discussion first and we can consider a poll should it become necessary. --bainer (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is fine as well (it's what I originally intended). I'll add back my comments:

• I think this should indeed be a guideline... but we may need to revise the language if the consensus call for it. The underlying concept is one I strongly support. Blueboar 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  That's not how guidelines work. It should be written to reflect the will of the community, and only after it achieves widespread consensus does it become a guideline. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?. — Omegatron 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the underlying question here... I am under the impression that it was written to reflect the will of the community... and that it was promoted to guideline status based on that. I know it has been cited in various AfD debates as a guideline, so at least some people consider it to be such. However, this status is being questioned. Thus we are in the position of having to confirm whether it does or does not have community consensus. Perhaps what we need is a discussion of how to determine if a policy or guideline has lost community consensus, and what to do about them if they have. Blueboar 14:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's questioned by a significant number of editors, then it does not have consensus, by definition.  :-) After everyone's concerns are taken into account, it becomes a guideline again. — Omegatron 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it isn't a question of it being questioned by a significant number of editors... this was started because one single editor questioned the process by which it became a guideline ... the comments that single editor made (above) provided enough food for thought that I agreed we should ask about it. That is what an RfC is for. I think it has consensus... but perhaps it doesn't... and if it doesn't, we need to know if it would gain consensus with a few edits an amendations, or if it should be scrapped. Let's see what the comments say before we make any definitive statements. Blueboar 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• It needs substantial cleanup and tightening, in particular it needs to use similar wording as in our core policies and refer to them more accurately and prominently, while avoiding creating new policy. But as a guideline could be indeed useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• It does not have my consensus. It fails to discuss what the mainstream consists of, which fields. For example: The Sphinx has wear patterns that some state is because of water erosion which causes them to predate the Sphinx before that commonly accepted by Egyptology. Egyptologists generally state the wear patterns are caused by sand while geologists generally state that it is classic water erosion and could not be caused by the sand. Who is in the mainstream here? The Egyptologists or the Geologists? Each is in complete opposition to the statements of the opposing field's mainstream. The guidelines that the mainstream acknowledges it is also a bit strenuous. Wikipedia was founded to include all of human knowledge, not just a non-controversial version of it all, whitewashed. If verified, and written in a neutral manner, without original research, anything should be able to be written about. Of course, deletionists will immediately pick up on this and even if the guideline does not specifically state that you cannot write about it if you are able to do that, or even state that it is actually binding, suddenly it is enforced by administrators and teeming hoardes of deletionists. We have to be very careful about putting anything out there as an interpretation of existing policies like this. KV(Talk) 14:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... I would say neither of the theories in your example are FRINGE... you're talking about two competing mainstream theories. A Fringe view would be someone stating that the wear patterns were really carved by Ancient Egyptian Freemasons to send a secret coded message to their extra-terrestrial overlords or something. And even that would be acceptable under the guideline as long as it is discussed (even disparagingly) in a mainstream source.

Ditto. If a theory is covered by mainstream sources, which both of those theories are, then it's a mainstream theory. I don't see an issue here. JulesH 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it must be expressly stated. I have seen how these have been enforced before.KV(Talk) 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... it is expressly stated... "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its small group of adherents." Blueboar 18:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I support it. Bubba73 (talk), 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any problems here. This is a quite good explanation of what WP:NPOV#Undue weight means, along with some clarifications of what the implications of that are. Definitely useful to have it as a guideline. JulesH 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose for reasons stated here. Use of mainstream gives impression as if wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. If it is, maybe it should be renamed accordingly. Lakinekaki 18:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You think that Wikipedia is not mainstream? Where did you get that impression? From WP:WEIGHT? --ScienceApologist 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly! Not once is mainstream mentioned there. Lakinekaki 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • NPOV doesn't use the term "mainstream" but it talks about majority/minority views. What is a majority view if it's not a mainstream view? Your complaint sounds like it would apply to Undue weight and NPOV policy as well. And if WP were not a mainstream encyclopedia, what do you think it is, an encyclopedia of fringe material? --Minderbinder 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is an encyclopedia. Minority/majority issues are very different from mainstream issues. My complaint does not apply to undue weight or NPOV. Text in that policy is fundamentally different form the text in this (proposed) guideline. Lakinekaki 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream is the majority by definition. --ScienceApologist 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Majority is NOT mainstream. Definition of mainstream is not majority. It is more something like: the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend: the mainstream of American culture. [4] Does that mean that only mainstream culture is worth of noting in encyclopedia? NPOV and undue weight deal with minor / major views within articles, this guideline deals with articles themselves, I am sure you knew this. If they were the same, as some here 'naively' claim, what would be the purpose of this guideline? If it is the same, try to push word mainstream into NPOV/undue weight. For some reason I think you will fail. Lakinekaki 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on... I think I see one area of confusion here... This guideline does not say that a Fringe theory has to be accepted by the mainstream... it simply says such a theory must have been discussed by the mainstream (even to disparage it). In other words the theory has to have a certain level of mainstream notability to be included in Wikipedia. FRINGE comes in at a different stage in the article writing process than NPOV. First we apply FRINGE to see if we can discuss the theory, then (assuming we can) we apply NPOV to tell us how to discuss it. Blueboar 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the difference between majority and mainstream. How is something "principal or dominant" without being the majority view? And nobody is arguing that only the mainstream should be noted, this guideline says the opposite, that fringe views should be included if they are sourced and notable, and that they should be presented proportionally. Same as NPOV, which also says that the views of tiny minorities probably shouldn't be included at all. --Minderbinder 19:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying, User:Lakinekaki that the article on mainstream in Wikipedia is incorrect? --ScienceApologist 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources,... That is in RS policy. It DOES NOT say by mainstream reliable sources, or major reliable sources.

1) why does it have to be discussed by mainstream? 2) deciding what is mainstream can be very difficult, given a variety of topics, historical periods, geographical areas, languages of original sources that are translated by few (in this case) English speaking authors, and other things. How can you tell what was mainstream 3 centuries ago? How many sources one needs to find to prove something was mainstream? Do they have to be on Google, or can they be in a library in the middle of Balkans, that by the way, happened to be destroyed during last war? There are so many questions that this 'guideline' does not give answer to. It only opens doors for problems. Lakinekaki 19:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unimpressive argument. Mainstream = majority. If there is a majority opinion on a subject, it is almost always determined by means of editorial consensus. Hemming and hawing over destroyed libraries and historical scholarship is beside the point. If you have a case that a subject is mainstream when others say it isn't, that's what the talk pages are for. --ScienceApologist 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Because if something has not been discussed by the mainstream, it isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Blueboar 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar said it isn't notable and there was it isn't notable (god said there will be light, and there was light). I shell accept that religiously. Lakinekaki 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good... so we are in agreement then? (gee that was easy... I should pronounce my commandments more often. For my next trick I shall appear in a burning bush). :>) Seriously, I was paraphrasing what the guideline says, not what I say. If you are questioning why the guideline says this... look at WP:NOTE, WP:NOT, and several other content policies and guidelines. We exclude topic based on notability all the time, and this is just one more criteria. Blueboar 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that's in the guideline and I am objecting to that. WP:NOTE, WP:NOT don't mention mainstream either. I guess many other editors are sensitive to this word as much as I am. I have no problems with those policies, but this guideline is not reflecting those policies, it is introducing a mainstream bias into them. Policies talk about sufficient reliable sources, not majority nor mainstream sources. Lakinekaki 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that when those policies and guidelines talk about reliable sources, they are primarily talking about sources that are in the mainstream (academic journals, books published by mainstream publishers, mainstream media outlets, websites with fact checking and editorial accountability). That's what makes them reliable. if there is a mainstream bias, it is systemic to all of Wikipedia and not just this guideline. But I really don't see a mainstream bias in any case... All this guideline asks is that the mainstream has acknowleged the existance of the Fringe theory. It does not say the mainstream has to agree with the theory (in fact it specificly allows for the mainstream to not agree). If a theory is so obscure that no mainstream source has commented upon it, how can it be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Blueboar 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't detected a lack of consensus myself. I would like to offer a perspective that's been mulling in my brain for a while: WP:FRINGE is to WP:N as WP:RS's "extremist sources" section is to WP:V/WP:ATT. They are two sides of the same coin. RS asks "can we trust stuff that is outside the mainstream?", while FRINGE asks "do we care about stuff outside the mainstream?". I think an argument can be made that they should remain separately maintained, but kept in synch and cross-referenced to each other, and that both of them add a dimension (as flexible guidelines not as inflexible policy) of specific-scenario interpretation (that has consensus) of their respective policies; while on the other hand, they could both (I mean FRINGE and the "extremist" section of RS, not all of RS!) be merged into a single document about fringe sources (which logically automatically includes extremist sources, by definition), addressing both notability and verifiability concerns with regard to such sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While I get what you are saying... we should not say that Fringe = Extremist. They often overlap, but they are not the same. To me, FRINGE says, "Is this notable enough to include" while the Extreme Sources section of RS says "Be careful... this may not be reliable enough to include". Some extremist theories are Fringe. Some Fringe theories are extremist. But there are also extremist claims and theories that fall well within the boundries of this guideline (the Nazi theory of Aryan supremacy, for example, is definitely extremist... but it clearly could not be excluded for being Fringe... as it has been heavily discussed in all sorts of mainstream literature). And there are Fringe theories that are not really extremist. So let's be careful about drawing too many analogies. Blueboar 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose guideline status. This page has a lot of words on it, but is really just an instruction creep restatement of other policies and guidelines, and it emphasizes notability too much. There seems to be a growing trend towards deletion of articles about pseudoscience lately and I don't like it. If this "guideline" is part of that problem, then I'm definitely opposed to it. Neutral, verifiable articles can (and should) be written about a lot of topics that aren't mentioned at all in peer-reviewed literature. The only reason I can see for not including them is that they are difficult to maintain in a neutral state. But they should be covered, ideally. I think more liberal use of semi-protection and temporary blocks can help with this, just like on other heavily disputed articles. — Omegatron 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a neutral article be written if the only sources are ones that are biased and haven't had scientific scrutiny? If you only include one side (source: Timecube Weekly), it's not neutral, so what would be the fix for that without this guideline? Even if you attribute questionable claims, you don't have a balanced article if it's nothing but those claims. --Minderbinder 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does this guideline require that the topic has to be mentioned in peer-reviewed literature? A few mentions in some mainstreme newspapers, or in a published book (other than self published), or in a host of other reliable mainstream sources makes the theory an acceptable topic according to what this guideline says. In fact, given how the media loves to talk about the weird and unusual... I would think MOST Fringe theories are acceptable according to this guideline. Blueboar 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly support the general idea, but not most of the details. It seems closer to being in line with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight than other notability guidelines, although perhaps the notability guidelines have exerted too much influence on this article. I would prefer to see more discussion of sliding scale due weight and less of binary notability. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is a generally well written and balanced, and supports NPOV and the status of Wikipedia as representative of the material which can be cited without taking sides on issues. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly has my support. It even specifically provides for those theories which have been discussed in mainstream sources, even to disparage or debunk them. Anything that doesn't even merit that isn't notable at all. The theory/view in question must have received some reliable mainstream attention, so that in the interests of NPOV, we can provide the mainstream view. If a fringe theory becomes widespread enough, it will eventually receive some attention in mainstream sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly does not have my support. Factual information does not have to be "discussed" in "mainstream" sources (is 'mainstream' being used for another term for "peer review" or "scientific"?). If it does, even if it disparages or debunks the theories, that's great ... but not absolutely necessary. Anything that does get mention in popular culture would have merit, but that is different than "mainstreaming". If the so-called "mainstream" has neglected the topic, that is not a issue of the NPOV policy. If you can provide a "mainstream" view, then do. If not, then that is the fault of the "mainstream" press. If a fringe theory becomes widespread enough, it will eventually receive some attention in popular sources ... and there is plenty of topics that are from popular sources in Wikipedia. J. D. Redding 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, it does, and has done so for a long time. If there are problems with the wording, {{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support: This seems to me to be an unequivocal expansion of WP:WEIGHT, and I see no practical difference between "mainstream" and "majority" + "reliable". Citations in the Weekly World News do not add weight to a view.
  • This page does say that "mainstream" here is not necessarily respectable, and it may be as well to say that again.
  • Deletion of articles like Time Cube can be a problem; one of WP's functions is to answer "What the [theological reference] is that phrase, which I haven't seen, but these people have?" This page, however, offers reasonable arguments to retain articles and sections on non-mainstream views; and therefore should be a help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you refer to this weekly world news ? Lakinekaki 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that link have to do with the Weekly World News? If there are two, I mean the one with the WP article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Link illustrates cases of plain deception in "mainstream" + "reliable" media, and some parallels between 'reputable' newspapers and tabloid. Lakinekaki 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See #quote below. Nowhere in this guideline does it say the mainstream is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am curious. Is Project Censored mainstream? It is not majority, and probably by your standards not reliable? Things published there probably wouldn't make it into your mainstream encyclopedia either? Lakinekaki 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's endorsed by Walter Cronkite; that's a good start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And your answer totally avoided my question!Lakinekaki 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's as much as I can say offhand about an enterprise I don't know. Someone who wanted to use it to show mention of an idea would probably have better arguments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a neutral article be written if the only sources are ones that are biased and haven't had scientific scrutiny?

"X is a device claimed by Y to do Z. This is contentious, as A points out that the claims of properties b and c would conflict with well-known laws of d." — Omegatron 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream

This word is used 31 times in this article, while in Mainstream article it is used 27 times (title and disambiguation sentences not included, or 33 times total). What more can I say? Lakinekaki 08:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That "Mainstream" is important? Blueboar 12:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

From the present policy page:

In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its small group of adherents."

This does not mean that, as some objectors seem to suppose, that we should always, or even usually, adopt the views of the mainstream; we should not. It means that if the mainstream hasn't mentioned X. even to debunk it, X probably isn't notable. This is a guideline; there are exceptions. But as extraordinary claims, they would require really good evidence of notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to project censored, read all those facts that didn't make it to the mainstream media, and tell me if they can be noted in encyclopedia. Lakinekaki 14:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

While I admit that I know very little about the Project Censored website... I note that the wikipedia article on it states that: "It is also been criticized for reporting on stories which are arguably not "under-reported" or "censored" at all, as they have appeared in The New York Times and other high-profile publications. In addition, the group periodically is criticized for shoddy reporting or misrepresentation of facts, the same fallacies the group itself claims to battle." Therefore, I would question your statement that there are "all those facts that didn't make it to the mainstream media." Also, since wikipedia takes a fairly broad view of the term "mainsteam"... and since Project Cesored itself is a colaboration run by a respectable university... there is a good argument that Project Censored is itself "Mainstream". If so, the very fact that Project Censored has reported on something could well mean that the topic meets our criteria for inclusion under WP:FRINGE. Blueboar 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are funny! Why are you quoting encyclopedia (Wikipedia), when you should know that it is not reliable and not to be trusted. Quote some primary source that is referenced - that's the whole point, presence of primary sources in articles. And no, Project Censored is not mainstream. Don't twist the meaning of the word. If it is mainstream in your opinion, that it is such a vaguely defined word, and should be avoided in policies and guidelines (as it is in all policies). Lakinekaki 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As a further note... I took a look at the first five of the "top censored stories" listed on the site ... each one mentions at least one mainstream media source that has discussed the story. Therefore, even if people feel that Project Censored is not itself mainstream... I would say it is a good source for finding mainstream sources that discuss a given theory or topic. Blueboar 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran. Did I miss some source you are talking about?Lakinekaki 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It mentions BBC and Wall Street Journal coverage... Obviously I did not go check the references in depth... so they may not be exactly on topic, but they would be good places to start looking for something that is. Blueboar 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On a lark, I googled "Halliburton Iran" and I found several mainstream sources (NY Times, Newsweek, etc.) discussing Halliburton and it's dealings with Iran. It would not surprise me if one of them may discuss concerns about nuclear technologies being transfered (even to say it didn't happen). But all of this is a bit silly... I hardly think concerns about Halliburton dealing with Iran counts as a FRINGE theory. it may be controvercial or POV... but not Fringe. We would have to have something like: "Halliburton is controled by Illuminati Space Aliens" for us to be in Fringe Theory territory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Here is the link so that others can see what you are talking about as I cannot understand what you are saying. see story #2 Lakinekaki 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that Project Censored probably is "mainstream" in the sense of this page; but I don't have to decide until the matter comes up. I would accept language saying that "mainstream" != is not equal to "Establishment". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to broaden that even more... Mainstream = serious, established, respected, reliably published, and read/viewed by a sizable segment of society... in some ways I would define it as - "Mainstream = Not Fringe", (although I do see how that would not clarify things all that much). Blueboar 19:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Septentrionalis you don't have to decide anything. In the same way I can express my concern that when the time comes, and than you have? to decide, your decision will havilly be based on this guideline? which avoided to consider this kind of issues. In other words, it is just an instruction creep. Lakinekaki 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but what does any of this section have to do with FRINGE? I don't see what is relevant or what point is trying to be made. --Minderbinder 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Deciding what is mainstream is problematic as example shows, and implementation of this guideline will encounter numerous problems. Lakinekaki 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this example site shows anything. Are you saying there's an example there of something with no mainstream mention that should still be covered in wikipedia? Do you have an example of a specific topic? --Minderbinder 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Halliburton sale of nuclear technology to Iran. Lakinekaki 21:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Washington Post not considered mainstream? --ScienceApologist 23:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oil drilling equipment is quite different thing from Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. 207.229.174.119 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a definite distiction. However, on careful examination of the references there is exactly one source for your distinct nuclear reactor components claim: Jason Leopold. In his original article in globalresearch.ca, Leopold neither identifies what the "key items" in question are nor does he identifiy the source for this information except to say that it is a Halliburton insider. While I rarely write articles on current events and politics, I have to say that this is not very well-sourced at all and may very well warrant exclusion from our encyclopedia. What is a well-documented fact is that a relationship between Halliburton and Iranian energy interests exist, including some individuals who worked in both Iran's oil and nuclear sectors. --ScienceApologist 00:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I looked into this further and I found that Al Jazeera reported that it was specifically centerfuges and detonators which were sold. Again, no individual was named except to say that it was a Halliburton insider. Anonymous sources are not the greatest in terms of verifiability standards of Wikipedia, but Al Jazeera is definitely a pretty mainstream source for news in the Arab community, so I am very hard-pressed to understand your argument here. I think you just don't like the thought of your favorite sources being mainstream. Is that about right? --ScienceApologist 00:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My favorite sources do include mainstream media from more than just US territory. My favorite sources also include non-mainstream media. 207.229.174.119 01:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you define what makes a media source "mainstream"? --ScienceApologist 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Something most people have heard of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.229.174.119 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Not very many people have heard of Machin-like formulae, I'd imagine, but that doesn't mean that they aren't mainstream. --ScienceApologist 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked a question about mainstream news sources. I'm sure most mathematicians have heard about your example. Lakinekaki 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things: how do you know that most mathematicians have heard about your example and how do you know that most media-studies academics haven't heard about your example? What references do you have to support your assertions? --ScienceApologist 17:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat what Minderbinder said: what does this have to do with FRINGE? That Halliburton sold centerfuges and detonators to Iran may be an exceptional claim (and thus require exceptional sources) but it is not FRINGE. Blueboar 13:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it sais there by reliable news media, no mention of mainstream, and for a reason. Lakinekaki 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

...We use the word theory in a very broad sense, including ...novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the "theories" addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. ...

We propose these guidelines in the belief that an appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories. If another, adequately reputable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to notability. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in an NPOV manner if the subject completely lacks mainstream discussion. If all available sources aren't neutral but instead put forward a point of view, doing so risks violating the No original research policy.

By reading this part of Fringe article, the above Halliburton speculation has no place in Wikipedia because it doesn't come from mainstream source, although it does come from a very good non-mainstream source. Therefore, if mainstream is avoiding reporting on something (who knows for what reasons and influences), then such reports coming from non-mainstream sources are invalid for encyclopedia, at least so this guideline claims. That's absurd. Lakinekaki 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a mainstream source. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[5]

Don't blame me if you can't figure out how to find newsstories. [6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't blame you. I blame google search an aljazeera search (type aljazeera halliburton+iran and you'll get no results). Interesting how even mainstream info is hard to find, not to speak of non-mainstream. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.229.174.119 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

However, if you search Google for ("al jazeera" +halliburton +iran) you will found 186,000 hits. -- LeCour^T:C 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you misguided me by telling me you found it in a news source, when actually you found it under 'conspiracy theories' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.229.174.119 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Mainstream"

"Mainstream" has nothing to do with anything.

• In deciding whether to write articles about things, we look to whether they are notable, meaning that they are significantly talked about. Doesn't matter if the things are legit or not. See Wikipedia:Notability.
• In deciding how to write articles about things that we have decided are notable enough, we try to maintain a neutral viewpoint, which means that we address the concept in a stale, detached, objective manner and don't make value judgments about it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

That's it. — Omegatron 22:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bingo! I've been trying to express something like that, but have obviously failed! This guideline is just plain absurd, confusing, biased, unnecessary, useless. Lakinekaki

Legit might as well be reliability. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Reliability of sources pertains to how trustworthy they are for the things that are cited to them. This is orthogonal to the legitimacy of what is actually being said. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Completely bogus claims can be cited with a reliable source, as long as they're attributed. You're not using the source to say that the bogus claim is true, you're using the source to make the who and what of the claim verifiable. — Omegatron 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, this guideline has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the theory ... The key to this guideline is indeed notability... a Fringe theory must have achieved a degree of recognition (ie coverage) in the mainstream for it to be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia (either as its own article or as a section of some other article). That recognition can be approving or disapproving of the theory... that does not matter... all that matters is that it can be shown that at least one mainstream source has taken notice of the theory and discussed it in some detail. Blueboar 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notability. "Mainstream" is not notability. Notability refers to coverage in peer-reviewed journals just as much as it does newspaper articles written by people who flunked high school science classes. We need to stick to our actual notability policy and not shoot off on tangents about peer-reviewed research. If it's worthy of note, we write about it. — Omegatron 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence is where I have a problem... how do we determine if something is worthy of note? "Worthy" is subjective, I may think some totally rediculous theory is "worthy" of being noted, but you may disagree. No, we have to draw the line at things actually being noted. I would say that publication in a peer-reviewed journal is certainly a great way for something be be noted (and for scientific theories I would agree that it is probably the best way). But there are other ways for something to become notable... such as being discussed in "mainstream" newspapers. Blueboar 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fringecruft board?

A relevant discussion takes place on WP:VPR. We should determine a way to enforce the policy. Currently it is hollow, as there are hundreds of pages full of fringecruft and no mechanism to deal with them promptly and efficiently. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singular primary sources?

What are "singular primary sources?" A "singular primary source" would obviously mean one source. But what does "singular sources" mean? Is this a typo, or is there some hidden meaning that needs to be revealed? Dhaluza 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It should probably read "single primary source"... as in one primary source. As opposed to having only one secondary or tertiary source, or multiple primary sources. Does this clear up your confusion? Blueboar 12:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is much clearer. But just to make sure I understand, what is meant by a source? Is it a publication or an author? Dhaluza 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a tricky question ... the word "source" is used in Wikipedia with multiple meanings... depending on the guideline or policy in question, it can mean the author or the publication... or both (it can even mean the location of the document.. ie where the document is to be found - for example: a website).

Primarily (but not always), when Wikipedia policies and guidelines talk about "sources" they tend to be focusing on the document itself... the publication. In the case of the specific sentence from this guideline that we are talking about <"Articles about non-mainstream theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds">, we seem to be talking about the publication... in other words if there is only one document that mentions a fringe theory, it probably is not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

However, when taken in context with the entire guideline, it is clear that the intent seems to be to include the author as well... in other words if the only person who talks about a theory (no matter how many books or papers he/she wrote on it) is the person who came up with the theory, it is not notable enough for inclusion.

The key to this guideline is that a Fringe theory has to have a degree of recognition to deserve an article. Someone other than the creator of the theory has to have discussed it (in some detail). That recognition does not have to agree with the theory... it simply has to demonstrate that someone (in the mainstream) has taken note of the theory and deemed it worthy of being commented upon. Blueboar 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion moved

Removed duplication of discussion here. Removed own edit ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of versions

User:Martinphi in a typical show of righteous arrogance wholesale reverted some stylistic edits I made to this policy with a very flippant edit summary. [7] I have documented this here so that others may comment on the level of controversy (or lack thereof) that my copyedits of this policy entail. ScienceApologist 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some are merely style. The attempt here:

On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources to aid in research. It is strongly encouraged to the collect and organize information about fringe theories mostly from existing secondary sources which are more apt to offer neutral descriptions of the subject than primary sources about fringe theories.

seems to be to eliminate the use of primary sources in fringe articles. SA has worked on paranormal articles a lot, and knows that this would cripple them. So don't call me a liar just because you are subtle. Here is the diff [8] ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources (ones that have been published by a reliable source) should be used sparingly, and only then in companion with reliable secondary sources if explanation of the primary source is attempted. This is obvious, I should hope. Moreschi ^Talk 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this resolves it then. What's the remaining beef? ScienceApologist 21:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi has gone on to give considerably more weight to primary sources than is suggested in WP:PSTS. If he wants to see this part of the guideline changed, he should first discuss it over at WP:PSTS and then return here. ScienceApologist 13:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, you've taken out some requirements for reliable sources, as opposed to just sources, you've eliminated use of primary sources entirely, and a few other things: Moreschi is right, but your edits are wrong. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I encourage you to argue about primary sources at WP:PSTS. I have not removed any "reliable sources" requirements. ScienceApologist 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A note to all... First, while WP:PSTS strongly cautions against the misuse of primary sources, it does not ban them outright. Second, PSTS is currently the subject of protracted discussion and debate on the WP:NOR talk page (the discussion continues back into at least the last two archives). To summarize: It seems that there is consensus for the idea of PSTS, but a lack of consensus on its wording. Since any change there has implications for this page, perhaps some of you might want to pop over to NOR and get involved in the discussions. Blueboar 13:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That's what I've basically been arguing. ScienceApologist 13:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stable version

I put the page back to the stable version before recent edits. We need to discuss changes here before putting them in. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is game playing pure and simple and will be resisted. ScienceApologist 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So don't. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes here and do not editwar. Also note that a guideline cannot trump policy. Discuss at WP:NOR and WP:V, if you want to change the underlying policy about source typing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of SA's changes were good, but some of them changed the way sources should be used, and there were some other changes which might have effected how articles came out. I'd like to discuss the reasons behind any changes before putting them in. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Already discussed above. At this point the onus is on you to suggest changes. ScienceApologist 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is. If you want to change it, let's discuss your changes. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my changes are all cosmetic and aid in readability as discussed above. They also conform more to the stated text of policies outlined (unlike the edit summary of jossi which claimed the contrary). ScienceApologist 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think they were substantial changes. Let's discuss them here before inserting them in the guideline. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your disagreement has been noted. Since you have not started any discussions on the matter you have provided no explanation for your continued insistence on reverting. What's more since you have seemingly stopped participating in the above discussions with regards to the matter, there is no evidence that you are making an active dispute of any particular text. Therefore, there is no reason to not keep the guideline the way it is. ScienceApologist 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Editors are of course welcomed to be bold. However, after opposition has been voiced and two sysops have reverted on the basis of a lack of full discussion and consensus, continuing to push the change through edit warring is plainly disruptive. Please engage in a full discussion and show consensus for the change first. This is an official guideline on Wikipedia, and therefore is supposed to represent a fairly broad consensus in the community. The burden to show consensus is on those seeking to make a change, not on those reverting to the status quo. Aggressively pushing through changes and reversing the burden of proof are both simply unacceptable. Please seek additional input at the village pump and/or file a policy RfC. Vassyana 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions Is the content of this dispute just this? If so, how old is the older version? Where did the concept which appears in the original stating the use of primary sources "is essential to writing an encyclopedia" come from? I've never heard of anything like this at WP. Comment on the newer version: It is not always true that secondary sources are more apt to have a NPOV. For example, Kent Hovind is a "secondary source" of a kind for evolutionary theory. He is not neutral. Richard Dawkins is a "secondary source" of a kind for Genesis creation theory. He is not neutral. Along the same vein, the word "mainstream" for a source is a tricky usage too. For example, in many ways, Genesis creation theory and scientific evolutionary theory are both "mainstream". "Independent secondary sources from reliable publishers" maybe? WP:CONTROVERSY offers other nuanced suggestions. Professor marginalia 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin's "older version" is one from 29 September. The concept is nowhere to be found which is part of the reason I edited it out (see below). I agree with you that secondary sources are not necessarily neutral, but secondary sources that are critical or supportive of the subject (when not excluded by WP:WEIGHT) will aid in leading an article to neutrality when coupled/compared against other sources. The issue isn't that secondary sources are "neutral", it's that secondary sources provided a vital perspective needed for neutrally describing fringe theories. ScienceApologist 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, User:Professor marginalia for pointing out a way to improve the edits. I have tweaked the wording to indicate something closer to reality. Please tweak the wording further if you think it needs it. ScienceApologist 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's difficult to get the words right, but I don't think the problem with primary sources is necessarily that they're less "neutral" in the way they are used, but that they're more prone in the way they are used by editors to inadequate or disputed interpretations of the sources, or to other "synthesized" analysis of the sources. Many reasons can be implied by this sort of editor misuse, it could be bias, but it could be they just don't have the prerequisite background to interpret the information in any qualified way. Secondary sources are frequently preferred because they do provide interpretations, but interpretations which are vetted. Biased secondary sources, however, should be used just as judiciously when it comes to sourcing fact claims--they are best used to describe the point of view of "their" side, if you will, but should be treated very skeptically as to their descriptions of the "other" side. What I'd call the "bystander" sources, sources that don't have a dog in the fight, are best for sourcing claims in more "neutral" and objective terms at WP, or for characterizing the more general "consensus" view. NPOV requires all sides of the issue are represented, and biased secondary sources can be references for a side which they are in sympathy with, but they rarely do as adequate sources for verifying fact claims here made about the other side, not when those facts are disputed. In such cases, when the claims against the "other" are disputed, the claim has to be ascribed to the party or parties who make it. But the articles are no good if they're just "point-counterpoint" style lists of biased opinions from involved or closely involved parties either, even when 100% faithful giving proper proportional weight to them. That's only one element of a NPOV article. The definitions and interpretations referenced by independent sources are ideal, whenever they exist. Editors here probably know all this, but it's important to not to lose these important distinctions when wording the guideline.Professor marginalia 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't see the wording reversions proposed below as being divergent from this idealization. Do you? ScienceApologist 21:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from commenting further now that I understand that the WP:NOR policy itself is currently under debate. I tend to agree with that it's premature to go further here given some propose discarding the primary, secondary, tertiary distinctions made in the previous policy altogether.Professor marginalia 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enumeration of changes

I am enumerating the changes below. Editors are free to comment on each one as I will in turn. Here is the relevant differences: [9]

• For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of technical detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources. WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia. changed to For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of technical detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources to aid in research. It is strongly encouraged to collect and organize information about fringe theories mostly from existing secondary sources which are more apt to offer neutral descriptions of the subject than primary sources about fringe theories.

Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:

1. aiding in research is the primary goal of primary sources per WP:PSTS. Note that this does not exclude citing primary sources, but per PSTS, "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." What we are talking about is when we can make "explanatory claims". Per PSTS we should not make explanatory claims with primary sources, though primary sources are extremely important for aiding in research.
2. The inclusion of a second reference to WP:NOR is redundant. We can simply make it a reflexive statement.
3. We should be careful to enumerate that we are talking about fringe theories here and not mainstream theories since there are other places in the guideline where we give guidance about mainstream theories. In general, primary sources for uncontroversial mainstream theories aren't as problematic as fringe theories since the sources are generally more easily reliable and verifiable.
4. Note that NPOV takes a new role in the new description. This is because that essentially we need to be sure that neutrality is preserved in reference to fringe theories. Using solely the primary sources of fringe theories automatically violates the various prohibitions included in NPOV about undue weight and discussing pseudoscience.
5. Primary sources about fringe theories are, of course, useful when trying to find out what the fringe theorists say about a particular issue. However, relying solely on primary sources will result in a lack of neutrality most certainly. So if there are only primary sources available, there is no way that an idea can be included in Wikipedia. This is the essence of no original research.

• The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. changed to The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals does not itself establish notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so un-notable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, then it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:

1. it is inaccurate to claim that discussion by other groups is not a criterion for notability. Indeed it is a criterion for notability. This has been fought out on numerous WP:AfDs over the years: secondary sources are a vital way people establish notability in WP:WEB, WP:BOOKS, and WP:PROF for example. However, it is not sufficient criterion which is why the wording is slightly changed.
2. unnotable isn't technically a word, but it is a useful concept. I hyphenated it to coordinate with the appropriate standards of style.
3. if...then clauses are typically more clear if you include both the conditional conjunction and the necessary conjunction

• Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. If the purpose of the article is to explain a scientific subject and there are people who dispute this subject, unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community the theory does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself. The theory may still be written about and expounded upon in articles devoted to the theory itself or non-scientific contexts. changed to Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. Where an article is about a mainstream scientific subject, and there are people who dispute this subject, the theory probably does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community. A sufficiently notable theory may still be discussed in an article devoted to that theory itself, or in non-scientific contexts."

Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:

1. Article purpose is explained clearly in WP:ENC and sometimes is not confined to explaining a topic. For example, sometimes presentation of verifiable analysis is found in content forks. We need to realize, however, that even when there is an article that is not strictly descriptive, if it is about a mainstream topic it should not be subject to undue criticism by the minority. Delineating this is absolutely vital.
2. The current wording was actually to strong in declaring what is/is not a standard of significant minority. Such is a content decision and needs to be hashed out on talkpages so that editors reach consensus on the subject. To state this succinctly, the word "probably" is inserted.
3. Not all theories should be discussed. If a theory isn't notable or is something made up in school one day, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, for example. That needs to be made clear in the final sentence.
4. No subject should be "expounded upon" in an encyclopedia. Rather, if we are to take a neutral standpoint we should merely be discussing subjects.
5. The final sentence suffers from a severe lack of clarity as currently written.

• Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be treated excessively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. changed to Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis.

This is a simple word choice edit. It should be obvious to anyone why using the word "exclusively" makes it clearer to the reader of the guideline that we are trying to make sure that the topics which are discussed that have "elements" of science are not treated solely as science. This is a delicate sentence because "excessive" scientific treatment is generally a poor rationale for disputing an edit. What makes a treatment "excessive"? After all, one could argue that any criticism or critique is "excessive". However, an "exclusive" scientific treatment clearly oversteps the boundaries of this encyclopedia which encompasses many different subjects. For example, if we write an article about creation according to Genesis, using an exclusively scientific treatment is unacceptable. However, we should not be giving license to fringe advocates who think that any discussion of science in that topic is "excessive". While this may sound outlandish to many, believe me there are those people who believe that mainstream science is excessive in all that mainstream science is. To compromise with such a POV-pusher is to basically invite Wikipedia to become totally overrun by cranks.

• For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, and/or for its theological significance rather than as a cosmological theory. changed to For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory.

The horrible "and/or" convention should simply be dropped since logical union includes logical intersection.

• Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. changed to Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of acceptance for the idea in the relevant academic community.

This is another example of changing around awkward writing. In effect, the demonstrative possessive adjective "their" has an ambiguous antecedent. Likewise, "among the relevant academic community" is a style of writing which implies relation to rather than incorporation of "in the relevant academic community".

• If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. changed to If proper attribution of an idea's standing cannot be reliably sourced, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented.

Are you kidding me? I have to explain that repeating "in reliable sources" three different times is redundant? Oh well, it's redundant. Please, if you think it isn't redundant, who taught you how to write?

• "Ideas which have been rejected, which are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, which are only of historical interest, or which are primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such." changed to Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, are only of historical interest, or are primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such.

Read Strunk and White about restrictive relative adjectives and get off my back.

• Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. changed to Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.

Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:

1. Read Strunk and White about restrictive relative adjectives and get off my back.
2. The word "documented" implies reliability, something which Wikipedia does not have and does not really strive for. "Mentioned" is far better in light of how this encyclopedia operates and in terms of WP:V.

• Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. changed to Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer lengthy originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the mainstream sources that do the criticizing.

Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:

1. "By the same token" indicates that the sentence following is "in the same vein" as the previous sentence. In the current version that is simply not the case.
2. The first sentence discusses outright exclusion of text. It is only natural that the next sentence continues to discuss this in a contrasted way.
3. Wikipedia can and does include debunking when there are neutral and reliable sources which are reported to do so. Though the purpose of Wikipedia is not solely to debunk fringe ideas, Wikipedia does not exclude debunking as a general rule. As the wording currently reads one can imagine that all debunking should be removed from the encyclopedia (obviously this is not something to be encouraged).
4. What is important to exclude is original synthesis that debunks ideas. If you can find a source that debunks the ideas, using the source to recound the debunking of the idea is perfectly fine and indeed necessary for a neutral encyclopedia that does not use the sympathetic point of view.
5. We need to be clear how criticism of fringe theories is to be included in our encyclopedia. Currently we offer no text that explains this. I have offered a single sentence which refers back to the relevant policies and guidelines regarding what is worthy of inclusion.

• Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. changed to Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball.

Let's pipe!

• While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. changed to While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the available sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.

This is a word choice edit. In particular, simply saying that "sources must allow" implies Wikipedia telling sources what to do. Obviously we cannot do that. What we can do is tell Wikipedia editors what available sources must allow for (in effect, what the sources the Wikipedia editor avails himself or herself of must be allow in order to be useful or, indeed, cited).

I trust that this is sufficient explanation for why these changes should be made.

I will point out that the administrator who basically forced me to do this has not made any substantial contributions to this and has basically acted in a really obnoxious way assuming power and authority (referring to "sysops" who made reverts as though they are somehow uber-users when really they are just janitors who do dirty work). I see this administrator acting poorly, and I have come across such administrators in the past who made authoritative claims about established users without thoroughly researching the situations themselves.

I look forward to hearing about any complaints with these edits. Until such time, I assume we have consensus.

ScienceApologist 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

discussions about NOR and the use of primary sources does not belong to this guideline. Please discuss at WP:NOR talk page, where there is a vigorous debate on this issue. Guidelines are there to explain how policies are applied, and not to re-design policy itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, Jossi, I agree with you, but that it is not a rationale for reverting since we are simply explaining how policies are designed. If you disagree, you must say where exactly you see the problem. ScienceApologist 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal to particular attribution

I have noticed another problem with fringe articles as of late and that is an appeal to particular attribution instead of allowing summary style writing. For example, in intelligent design, many pro-fringe editors fume at:

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.

Such editors evince a dislike statements for that summarize critical views -- especially when they are found in the lead. They oppose simple exposition that a fringe theory is fringe/rejected/poorly considered and often advocate to eliminate or mitigate such reports. There are a number of tactics the pro-fringe will take in trying to get such statements eliminated or reworded. Here are the three most often used:

1. The statement isn't neutral because the opposing side isn't described or the statement is too broad in its critique.
2. The statement is original research because it is an unwarranted synthesis of the referenced sources.
3. The statement is problematically worded and instead attribution should be made to a critic directly (perhaps with a direct quote).

Each of these arguments in turn is fatuous. Neutrality doesn't require word-for-word balance per undue weight, synthesis is only a problem when conclusions are drawn: not when summarizing points, and finally particular attribution is often misleading in that it gives the appearance of a singular opposition rather than a generally considered perspective (of, for example, the scientific community). Each of these arguments are generally made in an attempt to thwart the basic expository writing needed to write a readable the encyclopedia. We should have a statement in here clarifying this problem.

ScienceApologist 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some clarification might be a good idea. For example, I'm currently dealing with an NPOV dispute on the "most historians" claim. We've got a situation at Franco-Mongol alliance (see here if you want a quickref of the history) where the vast majority of historians say "A", and then we have a few who say "B, C, and D." So I've got an individual who wants the Wikipedia article to start off in the lead with "B", and then a disclaimer of "Some historians say 'A'". When I point out that this is giving undue weight, he counters and says that they're all opinions of reputable historians and so should all be mentioned. When I point out that dozens of historians say "A", but "B, C, D" don't even agree with each other, he dismisses it and says that all should be mentioned. When I insist that B, C, and D are minority opinions, he retorts that I don't have a reliable source saying that they're minority opinions. It's very frustrating, as to every other editor looking at the situation, it's obvious that there's a "majority" view, but we don't have a source saying "majority view", so the edit wars continue.  :/ I'd really like some wording in WP:NPOV that allows for occasional "common sense" usage of the words "majority" or "most", even if there's not a specific source that says it. --Elonka 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "unequivocal" in that context isn't necessary, in my opinion. Intelligent Design is a FA--perhaps demonstating the wiki system is working fine in that article, the existing guidelines are sufficient. Not a good example maybe? Oftentimes these kinds of conflicts can be avoided to begin with if editors demonstrate more faith in the reader. Adding words to hammer home certain points, ie claiming a view is "unequivocal", words that aren't readily sourced, invites dissenting edits, and articles on controversial subjects have to deal with too much unproductive conflict already. The articles simply need to describe a subject, not sell readers a particular view of it. In other words, why aren't policies against applying Undue weight already sufficient? Professor marginalia 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is proposed because there are active conflicts where such arguments are being made. Undue weight is only one aspect of the solution because the cry of undue weight is often countered with the second or third argument listed above. ScienceApologist 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see this tactic played but it isn't limited just to editors who share the fringe views. But many of those disputes, though, are valid, and rewrites to satisfy the concerns improve the articles. Sometimes editors confuse "synthesis" with "synopsis". Well written and fairly representative "Synopses", of course, are laudable. "Synthesis" is never justifiable, even to marginalize fringe opinions. The NPOV issue gets crazy sometimes because some insist there be "criticism" of some sort in almost every article, no matter low one has to scrape to find any. Again, I think that's an undue weight issue. I think I've already read a few essays which explain well the third problem you described-I'll see if I can find them.Professor marginalia 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be a good way of putting it: "synthesis versus synopses". I would like to see text like that incorporated into this guideline. ScienceApologist 19:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Professor marginalia's view on hard-line words. Hard-line wording like "unequivocal" just begs for editors to produce dissenting edits, or line up their "experts" to refute it, especially when that word isn't at all necessary in the sentence except to drive home a point of view. The point of view is that the scientific community doesn't accept it, end of story. Adding "unequivocally" is hammering that point of view into the reader's head unnecessarily. It's completely sufficient to say "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science" without hard-line words. That's neutral wording in a nutshell, to say the consensus says it isn't science without saying "No, wait, you still don't get it. It's really, completely, totally, and unequivocally not science. You better not read this article and still come away thinking it is."

The essence of this proposal is in the words SA chose in presenting it: "expository writing needed to write a readable encyclopedia". "Expose" is a pretty strong word and (according to WP:WTA) "impl[ies] that what is reported is both true and previously unknown or hidden." The philosophy of science doesn't deal in truths. It deals in proximities to truth, where a statement such as ID isn't science rings true-er than a statement that it is science. But both statements are only a considered opinion, not facts. In the case of ID, it is the considered opinion of the scientific community that it isn't science, not that it is factually not science. In other words, it needs an attribution to the opinion-maker. Weightfully, the scientific community's opinion has greater value than some niche group, but it is still an opinion that needs attribution.

The other side of the "expose" coin is it implies that the truth is "previously unknown or hidden". In other words, we're out to change the reader's opinion of the subject. That's trying to convince the reader, not reporting. Intelligent Design doesn't need to be "exposed" as nonscience. It needs to be "reported" that it is the authoritative opinion of the scientific community that ID isn't science. People can, and often will, disagree with the consensus. It's not Wikipedia's job to convince them to accept it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think hardline wording is a different issue. Exposition, I point out to Neal, is simply a style of writing that is encouraged by various parts of the manual. What Neal is, perhaps unknowingly, referring to is the writing style of exposè which indeed is to be avoided and we already warn against in this very guideline. Please do not confuse the two writing styles.

So I object fairly completely to Neal's attempted characterization of this debate as a bit of a (perhaps unintentional) strawman. The real issue is whether synopses should not be avoided simply because there are fringe advocates who don't like what is being summarized.

As for "fact" versus "opinion", the fact of the attribution of an opinion is usually uncontroversial, but a synopsis of attributed opinions should not be resisted on the sole basis of it being a synopsis. One might argue that the synopsis is inaccurate, but simply arguing that synopses are wrong or somehow flawed is the problematic argument I am seeing made more and more at the talk pages of controversial articles. We could use a statement here addressing this.

ScienceApologist 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to sidetrack the conversation. I'm a fan of summarizing viewpoints and synopsis and have sometimes suffered what you're describing on both ends, when I try to summarize the mainstream and fringe views. I was just commenting on writing styles, and yes I was speaking about expository writing. To me it's interesting how often bias is wrapped up in the terminology. For example, in expository writing, the goal is actually to "expose". It starts with a thesis and then proceeds in backing that thesis up with supporting facts. Although this approach is common in newspapers and magazines, it's not necessarily the most neutral approach or the most encyclopedic. For example, for ID a magazine article might start with the thesis that ID isn't science and then proceed with an article full of supporting facts. An encyclopedia, by contrast, should instead define ID in terms of what it is, instead of what it is not. The bulk of our hypothetical magazine article would be spent describing why ID isn't science. The bulk of our encyclopedic article would be spent describing the idea behind ID, that it was an attempt to reframe creation science in a school-friendly way, explaining the scientific community's view (and the court's view), but not driving that point home as the thesis. One's expository, the other's purely informative. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are still sidetracking us into trying to divine the intent of authors rather than the points I'm trying to make. There are many different ways to approach how to get to neutral articles and that, frankly, is way beyond the scope of this guideline. The simple fact is that expository writing is not solely used in persuasive writing which is the thesis/essay technique of journalism and most academic papers you are describing in your hypothetical magazine article. Most people would say that encyclopedia are written as expositions though they are not meant to be persuasive.

This is all beside the point. What I'm interested in is not the intent of authors but in the arguments made by fringe advocates to exclude certain kinds of wording from articles; in particular synopsis style statements. That is the issue here.

ScienceApologist 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If this proposal is meant to craft a guideline applying to fringe advocates in particular, that needs to be rethought from the beginning. Of course the "intent of authors" is implicit from this perspective that fringe advocates are misusing policies to advance an agenda. And I don't see this idea of "expose" as a "sidetrack" point at all. As I read the discussions over the ID article's use of the term "unequivocal", I see at least one "unequivocal" supporter making no bones about why he or she approve the word, and it's to push home the point because by not hammering it home, by using a word like "clear" instead of "unequivocal", it wasn't hard hitting enough, that it would "just play into the PR strategy of those who try to market ID as science", which is uncomfortably close to "advocacy" as opposed to "information". After all, there's nothing wrong with using the word "clear" if that's all that's really implied by the word "unequivocal". That's just an example. So what are some of the proposed ideas you'd like to see expressed in the guideline? Professor marginalia 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because people have bad motives doesn't mean that the wording they are supporting is necessarily bad. While my impetus for proposing this addition is because of problematic advocacy I am seeing, it is not my intention to reposition this guideline to attack a particular agenda. Rather, I am pointing out that a number of the arguments presented in opposition to synopsis-statements are inappropriate and the way to address this issue is to confront it head-on in this guideline. I will craft a proposal for addendum shortly. ScienceApologist 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, all of the list of objections above are valid. It is a matter of the individual case. For example, in the case of Astrology, a scientific consensus against may be cited. In the case of EVP, science has not studied the matter. In both cases, these things should be said. In the case of EVP, however, editors wanted to state that EVP has been rejected.

Elonka's situation is clearly one of fringe POV-pushing. But I have experienced the opposite, that in the name of the majority statements are made which are OR, or which do not accurately reflect the situation. In EVP, we simply say that the phenomenon has "not been studied or accepted by mainstream science" (not direct quote).

I find that those who have a problem with the current article are usually those who wish to go beyond available sourcing. The current article clearly states the relative emphasis which should be given things. In the case of a properly written article, the reader does not need to be told what to think, but can be trusted to understand an ambiguous situation- as Professor marginalia says.

When ScienceApologist says there are active conflicts, the reason is POV-pushing either way- but the reason is not a lack of clarity in this article.

As long as a synopsis is clearly sourced, and the guideline does not allow people to interpret it in a way which allows synthesis, then that is a good idea. In the case of EVP, the change would not make any difference.

So basically I'm agreeing with Professor marginalia and Nealparr, and ScienceApologist to the extent that synopses are OK. But I am absolutely against any change which would allow attempting to convince the reader what to believe in any way. Synopsis are fine, but we have to write such a guideline very carefully, because it could be taken as a way to push the majority viewpoint.

I also think that Nealparr made an important point:

"An encyclopedia, by contrast, should instead define ID in terms of what it is, instead of what it is not. The bulk of our hypothetical magazine article would be spent describing why ID isn't science. The bulk of our encyclopedic article would be spent describing the idea behind ID,"

I've felt a lot of pressure to do the opposite, to write articles which are more about criticism of the subject, or about why the subject is all wrong, than they are about describing the subject itself. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I am trying to figure out what you mean by what you write above. Many of us feel you don't understand NPOV, and in fact your writings have even gone so far as to consider Wikipedia's NPOV policy as defective and you have tried to convince people to change it. I think a key to the problem may lie in your words immediately above this. You write:

• "... about describing the subject itself."

This all has to do with the purpose of Wikipedia. Our job here is not to "describe the subject itself." Our job is to describe all notable POV about the subject (which obviously involves describing the subject itself), which is quite a different and far more encompassing job than just describing the subject. -- Fyslee / talk 05:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right- only in your second paragraph. It's a matter of words. See my userpage FAQ and Paranormal primer essay for full details. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as a synopsis is clearly sourced, and the guideline does not allow people to interpret it in a way which allows synthesis, then that is a good idea. What makes a clearly sourced synopsis is not just an attributed synopsis statement in a reliable source. That's what needs to be emphasized. If we have a dozen reliable sources saying something isn't scientific, then there is nothing wrong with providing a synopsis of those sources rather than attributing a quote or paraphrasing each one. I must reassure the editors here that there is no room in any guideline or policy for proselytizing the reader or writing persuasive essays. That is right out. However, it is disingenuous for an encyclopedia to not properly characterize subjects which are bollocks as such. It may even be irresponsible to have an in-universe style of writing as pointed out in the section of Fringe about quotes from the Bigfoot Researchers Association. ScienceApologist 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, judgment is often required. Unfortunately no guideline can completely cure disagreements over wording, etc. The key is to focus on what the sources actually say as opposed to how absurd the article's subject appears to be. Britannica, for example, gives the Bigfoot science question exactly one sentence to the effect "most scientists do not think Bigfoot really exists". That's it. And Wikipedia can use it as a source to say the same thing, which is preferable to trying to assess whether or not six individual articles can accurately be described as representative of the whole universe of science. But articles at WP do sometimes belabor the point with example after example, working hard to emphasize a point that can be just as accurately said with a simple sentence. Bollocks articles should be deleted, not labeled such, because the idea is shared by virtually nobody, unnotable. But many of the so-called "fringe" topics are ideas that are widely shared, for example the belief in Bigfoot, thereby meaning it's not WP:BOLLOCKS. Professor marginalia 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Bollocks was simply used as an exaggeration for effect. ScienceApologist 23:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you are absolutely wrong to suggest that Wikipedia should label anything, no matter what it is, as bollocks. We should merely describe the opinions and reasons. Now, we also don't state that something is unscientific. Rather we state that many, or most, scientists, believe that the subject is unscientific. And we only do that if we can source the statement, as with Britannica and Bigfoot above. But if we can't source the statement, then we have to go with many, or some other word that doesn't really quantify. It's a hard problem. But the way you put it, you'd have us just state that "X is unscientific," rather than, say, "There is a scientific consensus that X is unscientific." You seem to believe that to be ingenuous, WP needs to go beyond the sources. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting me. I am saying that phrases like "there is a scientific consensus that X is unscientific" are often attacked and the attackers ask for its complete removal or ask that it be rewritten to say something like "XYZ organization states that X does not conform to the scientific method". ScienceApologist 23:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a matter of specific details. As I recall, in Astrology, there is a statement by a major scientific body stating the consensus. If what we have as sources for the statement do not live up to that level of representation of the scientific community, we should probably not use such phrasing. If I recall right certain people wanted to say that about parapsychology, without sourcing. Indeed, they wanted to have it be an "obvious pseudoscience," just like Time Cube per the ArbCom on Pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If I understand ScienceApologist, the point is that we should politely explain to those who would rather say "XYZ organization states..." that it is not proper for us to split hairs like that. (I'm assuming XYZ organization is equatable to a recognized authority on the subject, like NASA for space related topics?)

This is because other authorities, like the ESA, aren't expected to take the time to denounce pseudoscience already correctly labeled by the first authority. Am I close? Anynobody 08:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. ScienceApologist 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But if "NASA states warp speed is unscientific", why is it necessary to collapse that statement to "Science unequivocally states warp speed is unscientific"? I'll give you an example of how this could be misused. In List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, some editors were trying to say that a statement by the Russian Academy of Science could be used as a source stating that there is a consensus in science that parapsychology is unscientific, simply because it is from an academy of science. There are roughly 500 members of the RAoS, and only 30 people signed the statement. That doesn't represent a consensus of science, much less a consensus in their own academy. Under this proposed guideline, the opinion of one organization (or even a part of that organization), could be inflated through summary as representing all of science, mistakenly.

Often science actually doesn't care about fringe theories, much less forms a consensus against it. The NSF put it this way:

Although scientists are concerned about scientific illiteracy, including the public's gullibility regarding pseudoscience, few choose to say much about it. According to physicist Robert L. Park, most scientists would rather talk about their latest cutting-edge research, not the basic laws of thermodynamics.[10]

If scientists themselves aren't bothered with condemning fringe theories, why should Wikipedia? It actually is original research and synthesis to conflate the opinion of the few who do care into a statement that they all care. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Neal, you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say. I agree that people should wrangle over whether consensus exists and in what form. That's a content/editorial discussion. What people shouldn't do is dismiss synopsis statements outright simply because they are synopsis statements. If I understand you correctly, you actually are arguing that there isn't a consensus in the matter. Fine: that's a point that can be debated amongst the editors. However, just because you dispute what the synopsis is doesn't mean you object to synopses in principle. That's the issue that I'm trying to address here and it is very relevant to fringe articles because synopses are often needed to accurately and reliably describe controversy. ScienceApologist 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Any guideline that inadvertently invites more contested generalizations would create more conflusion, conflict and fact errors in WP instead of less. There is no point in adding another guideline in that case. Editors can agree that synopsis is okay in principle, but think that some statements exceed "synopsis" into exaggeration. Sometimes when editors are so close to a subject they are unconsciously "filling the gaps" with certain presuppositions in an inappropriate way. Though it is difficult to find them sometimes for more obscure subjects, good mainstream third party sources are safer for taking such generalizations. Those published sources, again a good example might be a general encyclopedia, should be used as a bridge reference whenever they're available. Many of the examples discussed so far do show that "synopsis" can overstep into "synthesis" or even inappropriate projections. Take parapsychology for an example of how to bridge the conflict: Britannica does not go so far as to say there is a consensus in the scientific community, though there is a description of some of the controversy in terms of scientific evidence. Clairvoyance is another example: Britannica says something to the effect that there is no evidence for it yet in the sciences. But it does not say that the consensus of scientists concur it is not science. It should give an editor pause to think that if they are trying to add conclusions that are not in the published literature, why aren't they there? Can it be a caution sign to editors if they are trying to take things too far with assumptions instead of references?Professor marginalia 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And herein lies the problem. You are basically encouraging us to bend-over-backwards to accommodate fringe viewpoints by claiming that even when a respected, reliable source reports a synopsis that is a negative conclusion they are suspect. No, they aren't suspect: they are reliable. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and NPOV does not mean we accommodate those outside the mainstream: indeed we are given explicit instructions to marginalize them. It is precisely the kind of argumentation I see being made in your statement above that needs to be resisted if we are to give any guidance to people who write an encyclopedia. ScienceApologist 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you get any of that from what I just said? Seriously. I believe I argued that generalizations are best to be sourced to mainstream refs, the opposite of what it sounds like I think you describe above. I'm not talking about bridge of science, non science. I'm talking of a bridge between specific facts (30 Russian scientists say) and generalized statements at WP (consensus of scientists)Professor marginalia 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, there are more than just "30 Russian scientists" who dispute the scientific nature of parapsychology, so this argument is something of a strawman. What I am a bit concerned about is the accommodationist phrasing that you seem to be advocating to the tune of "conclusions that are not in the published literature". My argument is that this kind of caution is overly-used to prevent synopses from being written. Very few scientists who work in fields directly relevant to creationism publish attacks on creationism. That doesn't mean that creationism cannot be described as pseudoscience in a synopsis. ScienceApologist 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A relevant point here is that our policies - even fundamental ones like NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR - are not ends in themselves. They are means to writing a good, encyclopedic article. Furthermore, "good encyclopedic article" is not an ontological category. That is, there is no absolute, objective ideal to which an encyclopedia article is compared when we judge its quality. Encyclopedia articles are judged by social norms. Thus, after applying our content policies, it is vital to look back and ask "Does this look like what would generally be accepted as a good encyclopedia article?" If the answer is yes, then any attempt to force it to comply to the letter of policies is idiotic rules-lawyering. If the answer is no then even if the policies have been applied to the letter, they have been applied wrong. Phil Sandifer 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

@ScienceApologist - As I mentioned above, I'm not opposed to summaries or synopsis. Everything I say isn't a misinterpretation of what your saying, nor is it strawman. I get what you're saying. If accurately summarized, all the existing guidelines and policies at Wikipedia already support summarizing statements. If you want a guideline reiterating that, I'm not opposed to it. I was only pointing out how such a guideline could be misused, specifically that in summarizing the summary must match the source(s). That's not strawman because I'm not saying it's all about that. It is an important part of the discussion, however. I feel that since Wikipedia guidelines already support summarization, it makes sense to talk about the drawbacks of specifically pointing that out in a fringe topics guideline. If it's already a guideline, and there's no need to put it here, how will putting it here be used?

If the example that you didn't call strawman is used, "NASA states..." versus "Science states..." I don't see a problem with that. If it's used to support the example you used when starting this discussion "unequivocal consensus in the scientific community..." I could see some problems coming about because of the hard-line wording.

In summary, so you don't call it strawman... nothing wrong with the general guideline that summarization is OK. That's already Wikipedia policy. There could be problems in how it's used, specifically because you're asking for it to be reiterated in a fringe topics guideline. Just saying it's OK without considering the side effects is not strawmaning it to be all about the side effects. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are always problems with how people use guidelines appropriately or inappropriately. I understand your concerns about the ramifications, but I think that there with careful wording these concerns can be addressed. ScienceApologist 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to be able to get away from proper attribution. Even when there is a well-documented general scientific consensus, Wikipedia, not being paper, can afford a few words which make it clear where the opinion is coming from. And in fact, we should note that in any case where the source is good enough that we might be tempted to state the consensus as pure face, giving attribution will actually be more convincing to the reader. At any rate, we at Wikipedia do indeed bend over backwards to represent the sources exactly as they are. ScienceApologist, why don't you propose specific wording here, and let us go over it? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who have argued that the word "unequivocal" in SA's original example is unnecessary "hardline wording," intended to persuade rather than to inform. In the general case, this is a good example of one pitfall of overstating the majority view.

Regarding Elonka's example, it should be possible in most cases for editors to come to a consensus on a statement like "most experts believe A," where A is a specific truth-claim (e.g., LHO acted alone in shooting JFK), by weighing the quantity and quality of RSs available. It's probably best for such a claim to be supported by at least several citations, if not another sentence or two giving quotes. It may also be appropriate to add, "However, expert Z believes B," in keeping with WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, but this should not negate the importance of clearly stating the majority view as the majority view. As Elonka points out, there is often not a good RS stating what the majority view is (in the physical sciences, Annual Reviews are good for this purpose, but they don't cover everything; I don't know about other fields). Thus, editors can, should, and must decide such issues based on consensus and common sense.

ScienceApologist's proposal, on the other hand, is more far-reaching. He wants to say "the general consensus among scientists is that A is bunk." My main concern about this is Professor marginalia's: Unless great care is taken, synopsis can turn into exaggeration. For example, SA's original example statement should be accompanied by at least a couple citations to authoritative sources using phraseology very similar to "ID is not science." If you can't find it (and I haven't looked to see whether you can or not), then you are synthesizing rather than summarizing. In short, individual sources need not be trotted out one after another if the consensus common-sense view is that the majority of experts agree with a certain statement, but be very careful not to put words in people's mouths.

A secondary concern is that different things can be called bunk for different reasons: Young-Earth Creationism for distorting facts and drawing fallacious inferences. Paranormal studies for problems with experimental methodology. DI-style Intelligent Design is "not science" based largely on philosophical definitions of what science is (e.g., methodological naturalism). Generalizations are always bad.  :) If you can state something more narrowly and precisely, you're not only more likely to be right, but also more likely to be helpful and informative to readers of all persuasions. --BlueMoonlet 03:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation science is not an obscure subject. Hasn't that topic has been well covered in copious published works, mainstream and technical authors alike. Can't a good source be found which directly describes that it as 'considered a pseudoscience by scientists'? If the sources found use the phrase, "not a science", instead then why not limit ourselves to that phraseology at WP? Since pseudoscience and "not a science" are not synonymous definitionally, WP editors would do better to attribute a generalization of that sort to a source, in my opinion, than to argue over definitions or exaggeration. In the case of creationism in the US, don't we have authoritative position statements readily found from scientific and professional educational organizations, and court decisions? Maybe I should look at the talk pages of that article as an example, to get a better picture of wars over wording and attribution. Professor marginalia 15:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, because of the high-profile nature of recent court cases in the US, both Creationism and Intelligent Design have been discussed to great lengths in the media. As such, it should be relatively easy to find documented consensus, surveys of polled scientists, etc. That's much harder to find on more obscure fringe topics that are either ignored by science, or not popular enough to elicit a response. On those topics, it's much harder to justify a blanket statement such as science feels this way or that.

Real quick, the distinction between non-science and pseudo-science is that the latter poses as science but really isn't. Non-science is, of course, not science, but it also doesn't pretend to be. Religion isn't science (non-science), but it doesn't pretend to be science (pseudoscience). ID and Creationism do, that's where they get the label pseudoscience. Examples of non-science topics that sometimes get the label pseudoscience, but shouldn't, are reincarnation, meditation, qi and other topics that are weighted toward being religious/spiritual topics and have little to do with science. In the same way that religious views don't belong in an article about biology (or have less weight), science views have less weight in an article about religious beliefs and ideas. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Back from a look at Creation science. No where near the quality of the ID article. I think the article would benefit with a little more self-restraint on the part of editors and more careful adherence to sources, myself. I think it's liberally seasoned with WP:OR#Synthesis. I think it's very screedlike, and in my own personal views I'm in complete disagreement with everything I know about creationism. The wikilink to Rationalization (psychology) in the introductory sentence screams for a source. The article doesn't even describe Creation science theory itself until the bottom half of the article.Professor marginalia 16:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR...

.... discussions should take place at that policy's talk page. There is no point to wrongly paraphrase WP:NOR, or dilute the policy wording: Guidelines cannot trump policies.

WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.

is the correct wording

On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources to aid in research. It is strongly encouraged to collect and organize information about fringe theories mostly from existing secondary sources which are more apt to aid in the development of neutral descriptions of the subject than sole reliance on primary sources about fringe theories.

this one is not. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And the reason should be obvious: that wording implies that sole reliance on primary sources about fringe theories may be permissible, when that is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "sole reliance on primary sources about fringe theories" is not permissible. But in fairness, I think that implication can be drawn from the version you restored as well. Nothing I see there precludes this possibility anyway. I agree that language in this guideline needs to conform strictly and carefully to the WP:NOR. Editors should slow down and not be in such a rush to edit it. I admit I'm not very familiar with this guideline, but in reading it I'm not even clear if this is a Guideline or a Proposed Guideline, because language in it refers to itself as a proposal.Professor marginalia 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed "We propose these guidelines..." language as it has been an accepted content guideline for some time. Hopefull my edit will be both non-controvercial and clarify things. On the larger issue... It is vital that guidelines should effectively say the same thing as Policy. Now, as I mentioned above, WP:PSTS (the section of WP:NOR which is the current Policy statement that governs primary sources) is currently the subject of serious debate. I would not say it is being challenged, but there is discussion on whether to change it and if so how. If the needs of this guideline lead people here feel that the rules on primary source usage need to change, the place to discuss these needs is at WP:NOR... then, when and if that Policy is changed, we can conform this page. It does not make any sense to edit what this guideline says on primary sources before consensus on PSTS is settled. Blueboar 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, understood. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long and unwieldy

This guideline is way too long, over-worded and convoluted. If editors want to make this guideline into something useful, a good pruning and simplification would be a worthy effort to contemplate. This would be a much better use of editor's time than to attempt to add a variation of wording, that in any case gets loss in the mess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to host/oversee a rewrite? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a rewrite is advisable/necessary. Before undertaking this, it would be a good idea to go through the uses that this guideline has seen and try to determine what parts of the guideline should be preserved due to being referred to and what parts are superfluous. I have seen enough references to many different aspects of this guideline to be of the opinion that simplification may not be possible. ScienceApologist 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Simplification of guidelines are always welcome. And no, I am not interested in engaging in a re-write. There are plenty of editors here that could do a better job as they are more intimate with the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SA that a rewrite is not urgent. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

The question that begs an answer, is why editors continue editing this article and making changes about which there is n consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that in order to evaluate whether consensus is achieved, we have to consider what kind of arguments are being made. I saw one objection to my edits above, made by you, and so I did no reinstate that edit. However, none of the other edits I made seem to be particularly controversial. If you are curious, please look here: [11]. If you see something objectionable (the rationale for the changes is explained above), please let us know. ScienceApologist 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what change your edits might produce in articles. I would like you to explain what your reasons are for the edits before inserting them, so we can first agree on the change we would like to see in the articles, and then on how to change the guideline to produce that change. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I explained them above! ScienceApologist 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the WP:PSTS language has been settled, maybe we can return to some of these outstanding issues. I disagree that this page receives enough continuous community attention to infer that, absent objections raised against an edit to the guideline, consensus is demonstrated. This guideline has been edited constantly just in the last few months alone. That is "not good". And if the "encamped" representation here is the same small handful of editors who have regular or ongoing edit conflicts with each other in "fringe topic" disputes, that's even more "not good". Edits in this guideline are "pushed" back and forth between editors like they're players scrumming over a ball.Professor marginalia 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Application of WP:Fringe to hoaxes and myths?

Would it be possible to add a section to WP:Fringe to clarify how you should apply it to a topic that is discussing something that exists as a hoax or a myth, but which does not represent a genuine fringe hypothesis?

For example, how you might apply WP:Fringe to an page that covers an urban myth about a location where a grisly murder is supposed to have happened, if the myth has no basis in science or history, but passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:Notability because of its place in popular culture (say a well known psychology journal covered it in an article on why people propagate myths even though they know that they are most likely not true).

At present WP:Fringe doesn't make clear how you would deal with such a topic. The basic approach would be to tackle the factual aspects of the myth, but does this mean that you treat the "existence of the myth" as being the factual aspect and then cover the contents of the myth, or does it mean that you treat "the contents of the myth" as being the factual aspect and then dump the entire page in the garbage because the contents themselves don't hold factual water?

Also

1. How would WP:Fringe apply to something where the mainstream view doesn't exist, or where it is so overwhelmed by the fringe view that the fringe is actually the mainstream in terms of numbers.
2. How does WP:Fringe apply when there is an "official line" on a topic that was reached by non-experts but is disputed by the vast bulk of experts. For example, a page about a government-big business collusion conspiracy in which the government non-experts says that drilling for oil in a certain area will not harm wildlife while the experts say that it will. Does the government count as the mainstream, or do the scientists count as mainstream, for the purposes of WP:Fringe?
3. How do you apply WP:Fringe to things where there are the mainstream doesn't agree. Such as with media violence where half of psychiatrists say that it effects children but the other half say that it doesn't?
4. What happens when something is considered to be fringe in one place but mainstream in another? For example sacrificial human killings are considered a fringe belief/practice in the US, but they are a basic fact of history in many other cultures.
5. What happens when all sides of the a topic are based entirely on hypothesis that have yet to be proven, but where one side is considered to be the mainstream because of either an arbitrary decision or because it was the hypothesis that was made first? For example in some of the more complex hypothesis in physics the equipment required to prove the hypothesis doesn't yet exist, therefore the mainstream and the non-mainstream are both based on hypothetical arguments for something that cannot be observed or proven via experimentation.
6. Should WP:Fringe even be applied to something that is notable but is totally detached from science and history, or which is simply crazy? for example, the belief in fairies. The belief and the stories in places such as Ireland are notable and verifiable, but the existence of fairies isn't?

- perfectblue 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Numbers are irrelevant to whether a subject is fringe or mainstream. Surely, most people in the world are not aware of the scientific understanding of the universe, and yet our article on the subject is heavily weighted toward the scientific understanding of the subject because it is determined that the most reliable and verfiable sources on the matter are those from the relevant academic field. What matters is the specific context of the article, the verifiability and reliability of the sources cited. If the article, for example, appeals to scientific methodology then the consensus of the scientific community defines the mainstream. If the article, for example, appeals to theology then the consensus of relevant theologists defines the mainstream. Where things get tricky is when one subject is relevant to multiple communities. Then it must be decided by consensus what weight to give to which community per the sources on the subject.
2. As above, it is subject to community framing. If the article is written about a political controversy then the "government experts" offer the position of the government which may or may not coincide with scientific consensus. If the article is written about scientific evidence then "government experts" may be judged to be unreliable. (See Lysenkoism for example.)
3. Where actual controversies exist, we document the controversies and weight the article appropriately relative to the sources available.
4. Taking a global perspective on an issue is always the default perspective of this encyclopedia. That's why we have groups devoted to tackling this issue.
5. The sourcing of the argument is what determines how good a hypothesis is and how our encyclopedia will treat it. Just because string theory is a hypothesis does not mean it stands on equal footing with time cube even though both arguably are "unproven".
6. All guidelines should apply to all cases subject to editorial consensus. This is not a policy, it is a guideline. The consensus of editors may be that the guideline doesn't apply. However, this guideline should not be dismissed lightly. The existence of fairies was a source of significant controversy in the nineteenth century, though has been less prominent today's world. We report on the controversy in a historical sense and can also report on the lack of a controversy on the subject today (presumably because one side of the controversy prevailed).

-ScienceApologist 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Yes, but how do you follow denote the mainstream view for an entry where it's more or less impossible to find WP:V or WP:RS for it? Suppose that an editor wrote a page about a fringe topic and was able to find plenty of WP:V for the fringe side, but minimal/no content for the mainstream side, or only mainstream content repeated in non-mainstream sources (for example a non-mainstream journal printing both sides of the argument). Do they use a non-mainstream source as a citation for the mainstream view, or do they simply write about the entry from a fringe perspective and risk somebody raising WP:Weight or WP:Fringe when they leave out the mainstream side on WP:V grounds?

2) Wouldn't that require a third part citation, or else be WP:OR?

3) Are their any guidelines. For example, when 2 professional groups of more or less equal standing disagree, do you cover one groups and then list the other as disagreeing, or do you cover both equally but in separate sections? Couldn't both approaches be considered POV as they both cover the same topic from different angles rather than integrating them?

4) OK in principle, but it doesn't always work like that. For example, Chinese medicine is considered mainstream in China, and there are serious scientists who research traditional remedies and certify the ones that work in the same way that drugs are certified in America, yet in America they are considered to be fringe. Equally, there are a number of alternative remedies that are considered mainstream in Europe and are even available under state health care provisions, but which are considered fringe in the US. In almost all cases, Wikipedia considers these to be fringe despite overseas mainstream acceptance.

5) But who determines the validity of the source. Look at Stephen Hawkings. In many cases the science simply doesn't exist to prove his hypothesis right or wrong through experimentation because we are not advanced enough, yet they are almost universally considered mainstream despite there being no imperial evidence? Are these hypothesis more valid than ones where circumstantial evidence or tenouse evidence exists to support them despite having no evidence to support them?

6) I may remind you that you said that, at a later date.

-perfectblue (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd add to that:

5) Generally when an idea is hypothetical, and may or may not be possible, you can gauge a consensus on how likely it is. The more likely a hypothesis, the more likely it is to be mainstream.

6) Adequate framing usually helps. Fairies aren't even a subject in science and history, so you look to other taxonomy for framing. Mythology works here, so you seek the mainstream ideas in mythology as it applies to fairies. "Fairies are woodland creatures prominently featured in European mythology" would be a mainstream statement. "Fairies are extraterrestrials" would be a fringe statement (an actual fringe statement made by some folklorists). Same with Bigfoot. "Bigfoot is a primate featured in North American folklore" vs. "Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial" (again, an actual statement made by some folklorists). The first statements, though both mythological and folkloric, are generally agreed upon (mainstream) where the last statements don't have wide support (fringe). Mainstream and fringe isn't just about science, it's about consensus in the various classifications. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"How Likely"? Isn't that WP:OR? I'm afraid that I just can't see that cutting ice. For example, it's more likely that a UFO seen on an American radar during the cold war would be a Russia spy plane than an alien flying saucer, but that doesn't make it a mainstream hypothesis, and without empirical evidence, or even credible eye witnesses, to back it up it's still an unproven fringe hypothesis.

What about the whole bigfoot - Midtarsal-break debate? A lot of it originated from mainstream scientists using existing mainstream knowledge about primates, but I would hesitate to call it mainstream. It's barely even mainstream cryptozoology. - perfectblue (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One addendum: Fairies aren't even a subject in science and history, so you look to other taxonomy for framing. -- This isn't quite right. The Cottingley Fairies are of relevance both to science and history. ScienceApologist 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but only in the sense that photography is related to science and it doesn't have much to do with the actual subject. That's a good example of how science isn't always top dog. If you look at the fairy article, it's a footnote, and the article itself is weighted towards mythology and folklore. It doesn't even bare mentioning that science doesn't cover the topic. Which is why I was surprised a few months ago when I saw elves and fairies in the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you think the "actual subject" is. The fact is that the existential question of the physical reality of fairies and elves is a question that can only be answered through the processes and methodologies of science. Inasmuch as an article deals with such a subject, science is automatically "top dog" as it is whenever phenomenology and observation come into play. If the article is asking about the cultural, literary, or theological relevance of a subject then science is irrelevant to the discussion. ScienceApologist 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. In your wording you superimposed existential question of the physical reality with phenomenology and observation and said it could only be answered through science. Science purposefully refuses to answer certain questions, namely the unanswerable ones, because it is by nature incapable of doing so. Some guy sees a fairy by the side of the road and anecdotally reports it. Science can't say one way or the other if that guy actually saw a fairy. It can't absolutely rule out the possibility that a three-inch high human-like creature with wings exists in nature, that the guy saw it if it does exist, and doesn't even try to do so. It considers that an ultimately unanswerable question and categorically dismisses it as irrelevant, because it is more likely that fairies do not exist (no empirical evidence of them). The existential question of the physical reality of fairies actually cannot be answered by science unless science happens to find one. Science can only demonstrate the existential reality of things it has evidence for, it can't rule out that it may have missed something, somewhere. It can only say that fairies have not been found in nature, not that they don't exist. The existential reality of fairies is unanswerable by science, and the top dog position goes to mythology.

In the Cottingley Fairies article, the topic isn't actually fairies, it's fairy photographs, a different thing altogether. On that topic it isn't a question of whether fairies exist, it's a question of whether photographs of real fairies exist. Top dog position there goes to photography, namely how photos can be easily manipulated, and not mythology. But again, it's not because science has a say on the existence of fairies. It's because they have a say on the existence of fairy photos. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing ontology with methodology. The methodology of a guy seeing a fairy by the side of the road is suspect because of the ontological nature of his claim (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). However, the ontological nature of his claim cannot be decided since the question "Did that guy see a fairy?" was not tested with proper methodology and cannot be falsified by future tests. The question is unanswerable because of methodology, not because of ontology. However, that doesn't mean that science has nothing to say on the ontological question of the existence of the fairy. While "absolutely ruling out" a hypothesis is not something that science properly does since induction is subject to the black swan paradox, there are a set of named observed phenomena that become statistically more and more exclusive as we collect more evidence for the existence of those observable phenomena and continue to have no evidence for the existence of other claimed observable phenomena. Bayesian statistics takes care of our certainties and we're left with the bare predictive nature of science contradicting the outlandish hypotheses for which we have no evidence. However, taking your claim of the limitations of science to its logical conclusion would have us believe that science never makes any ontological claims whatsoever and therefore cannot answer any questions about reality! This is obviously so anti-science a POV that it necessarily leads to either solipsism or wholesale dismissal of any scientific statement: an untenable approach for writing an encyclopedia that's meant to serve as a reference.

Ultimately, using the fact as you have that science can never "disprove the existence" serves as a frontal attack on the very methodological naturalism upon which science operates. If you eliminate the ability to distinguish between likely observable phenomena and unlikely observable phenomena as a starting point then indeed every and all hypotheses must be entertained without distinction, and there can be no decisions as to what science ever says because you can always cast enough existential doubt to force the hand of the inductive fallacy. This means that one must include in every reported observation the omphalos hypothesis, the possibility of the zoo hypothesis, or the collusion of elves which decided to conspire to give a systematic result when none should have happened had it not been for them. In fact, there is an infinite number of possible ways to construct a conspiracy that explains away skepticism. What you've said, basically, is that since "nothing is ever proved in science" and since all things that are not proved cannot be contradicted by science, therefore nothing can be contradicted by science. If you can see why this argument fails then you understand why I'm arguing against your denigration of scientific supremacy in questions of observable phenomena (such as the question of the physical existence of fairies).

If you think that the Cottingley Fairies article has nothing to do with fairies then you have imposed a rather singular perspective on how phenomenology can or cannot be described in this encyclopedia. However, the question of whether there exists any scientific evidence for the physical existence of fairies is a question that can and should be answered by this encyclopedia in the appropriate context.

ScienceApologist 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That rather lengthy response is definitely an apology for science. Fortunately I didn't say half the things you said I said (something about a conspiracy against skepticism or science or something), so I can set aside the strawman argument and respond simply that I'm arguing against your case that science has supremacy even in articles that are mythological in subject matter. Science does not because it is about mythology, where the mythology has a greater weight. So go take your case up in the religious articles, because your argument that science has supremacy against mythology would have the same validity against the existence of angels, and they'll tell you the same thing. It's overshadowed by the subject being a religious matter and weighted towards that. You said as much yourself above: "If the article, for example, appeals to theology then the consensus of relevant theologists defines the mainstream." Apparently science doesn't have supremacy there. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Science has supremacy whenever the question is asked: "Does thus and such physically exist?" Indeed, in many cases, articles about religion and mythology do not necessarily have content which asks this question. However, whenever such articles do venture into such questions, science automatically takes precedent. Whether it is "overshadowed" or not is irrelevant: the question of the physical existence of anything is a scientific question. ScienceApologist 22:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't in the existence of God article. There the front-runner is philosophical questions, not scientific ones. The questions of physical existence are framed by heavier questions that push science to the background and necessarily examine the philosophical framing of the question first. Define God. Define existence. Define physical. Etc. Again, this is because science considers some things unanswerable. Before answering the question of whether God physically exists, the question must go through the philosophical ringer. In other words, the weight is given to philosophy, not physical science per se, even when the question is a physical question. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The primary question in that article is not about the physical reality of the deity since there is an entire tradition of the noetic realm which is acorporeal. The question of physical existence is actually not generally considered of relevance to deistic questions. The reason the question is given a philosophical weight is because the question isn't solely about the "physical existence" of the deity but rather hinges on more metaphysical questions of what existence itself means. ScienceApologist 15:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I do think you are essentially correct. Science is heavily weighted on topics of physical existence. I'm only talking about how it's not always so black and white. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, whenever the question of an observable phenomenon that is caused by an object with physical significance is asked, science is the default academic subject. ScienceApologist 15:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What happens the effects of a phenomenon on the populace are culturally or psychologically observable, but the cause is either not scientifically observable or is attribute able to something that is not observable?

-perfectblue (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If a phenomenon is observable its cause is also observable as long as you take methodological naturalism seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)