Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Archive 1: 20 January to 6 October 2006

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?

[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)

[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)