Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This page is for discussion of the wording of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline, not for discussion of specific theories. To discuss problems with specific theories, articles, and users, please go to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, thank you.

Archives
January to October 2006 October 2006 to November 2007 November 2007 to April 2008 April to June 2008 June 2008 July 2008-1 July 2008-2 July 2008-3 July to October 2008 November 2008-1 November 2008-2

Archives
Previous requests for comment Does this guideline have consensus? (April 2007) RfC on particular attribution section (June 2008) Is there enough argument to downgrade this guideline to the status of an essay? (July 2008) Is the label "fringe" inherently pejorative? (July 2008)

Contents 1 Booth Escaped 2 Notability versus acceptance 3 Dealing with advocates of fringe theories 4 user pages used as fringe articles 5 Differentiating a fringe theory from a non-fringe view

[edit] Booth Escaped

(discussion moved to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Booth_Escaped

[edit] Notability versus acceptance

I see a problem with the approach that this section takes towards the labeling of material as a pseudoscience. It states: "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." There is a serious problem with this, because it implies a level of centralized direct, literal speech that simply has no mechanism within the scientific community. Put another way, yhe scientific community generally does not take the time to literally label every fringe theory a pseudoscience in a specific announcement. However, the scientific community does have a way of expressing whether something is even being considered as a having the possibility of being scientific, which is publication in mainstream academic journals. In a nutshell, not every article in a mainstream journal is correct or represents accepted science, but it does represent something of interest that the scientific community believes may be of scientific value. If a 'theory' is not new and if it is well known and has never been the subject of a significant body of publication in mainstream journals, lack of mainstream academic publication is the way the overall scientific community states that something is not considered science. In other words, if there is a theory which has many proponents outside of the scientific mainstream, a lack of mainstream publication on the topic implies that every relevant mainstream journal has rejected the theory at the most basic level: it is not even worth of serious scientific consideration. If the scientific community does not consider it to be scientific and if its proponents claim it to be, it is by definition a pseudoscience. I thus suggest that we clarify the criterion above.

It aught to state something to the effect that "In most cases the lack of a significant body of publication in mainstream scientific journals on the subject of a well-known fringe theory is sufficient evidence of lack of scientific acceptance for the theory to be labeled a pseudoscience. In this case the scientific journal databases used to establish this fact should be cited. However, if the theory is especially new, or if it has simply not come to the attention of the scientific community for other reasons, this evidence may not be sufficient. Finally, publication in mainstream journals does not necessarily demonstrate acceptable of a theory; rather the lack of publication demonstrates a lack of acceptance."

The wording above is clunky and poor; but I think we need something along these lines. Right now, any fringe theory that is too ridiculous or minor to even be commented upon from within the scientific community is effectively immune from the pseudoscience designation. In other words, the present policy allows only the least extreme pseudosciences to be labeled pseudoscience and protects the most extreme. Locke9k (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If a reliable source can not be found to say a subject is pseudoscience then Wikipedia editors should not take it upon themselves to determine it is pseudoscience. See WP:V. Full stop. Ward20 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And note that Locke9k is currently insisting upon labeling Cryptozoology as a pseudoscience based upon his own personal beliefs despite the fat that a pretty reliable source says merely that it sometimes can be pseudoscience and sometimes can be useful science depending upon how it is practiced. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion isn't relevant to this page, and as you will see if you return to that discussion and read my responses, I have shown that you picked one quote out of an entire chapter source in a way that took it out of context and did not fairly represent their overall report on the topic. Locke9k (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If a fringe theory is too ridiculous or minor to have anyone call it a pseudoscience yet (or some term not the same but similar, which can be used that way in the article) then it's undoubtedly too ridiculous or too minor to have a Wikipedia article (or be mentioned in one) in the first place, per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with advocates of fringe theories

Is this correct? The following is a comment of mine copied from here:

You say you are "not an advocate", but your writing says otherwise. That you have a POV on the subject, even an advocate's POV, is itself not a problem. We all have POV. It's when it causes you to perform original research synthesis violations, and without reliable sources, that the problem becomes evident. I have no doubt that you are trying to improve the article, but this isn't the way to do it. This is a fringe subject that is covered by our fringe theories guideline:

• In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

• Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

That's why articles like this are treated differently than articles about proven ideas. In articles like this, mainstream sources (like Quackwatch) are given preeminence over fringe sources, and mainstream POV is also given preeminence over fringe POV. NPOV requires that all significant POV are presented, but fringe POV, being unsupported by scientific evidence, take a backseat to mainstream POV. Proven and unproven ideas are not given equal weight. Promoters of fringe POV should be glad that their ideas are even allowed to be presented here. It happens because Wikipedia's goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge and experience, but it must be done using verifiable and RS. If it isn't documented in such sources, and is only presented in fringe sources, then it gets very little, if any, coverage here. That's the way it works here. If you want to change that, then take your concerns and questions to the Fringe theories Noticeboard. Good luck in your future here. There's alot to learn, and learning to edit here according to our policies and guidelines is an education that will benefit you in many ways.

-- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was OK until you got to the last paragraph, which sounds like ScienceApologist's failed proposal for "Scientific Point of View" (SPOV) and "Mainstream", which were attempts to warp NPOV to give precedence to anti-fringe sources over fringe sources. It's better to stick with NPOV, where all viewpoints can be reported, and there doesn't need to be a cencensus as to whether an idea is fringe or not, or whether it is proven or not. An article on a fringe topic should report on the topic, both from the point of view of its supporters and from the point of view of its detractors. Just because Quackwatch is a detractor of an idea doesn't mean they get automatic priority to frame the article, or that the topic should be presented as fringe or unproven; of course, it usually should also not be presented as mainstream or proven; just report all viewpoints, with attribution. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that NPOV still rules. Interestingly, even within our V & RS policies, mainstream views will usually dominate, since fringe subjects are often poorly sourced. As far as QW goes, of course it won't always be the best source. If there are better ones, we should use them, and since QW is usually about alternative medicine subjects, the "medical and scientific facts" part is governed by MEDRS, while the controversies part will often benefit with sourcing to QW or the sources it uses. BTW, have you followed along in the latest developments regarding QW as a RS? Here are a couple links:

• RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery: The consensus is that it may be used as a source under the same rules and precautions that govern the use of any other RS. It is an obviously notable source that is highly regarded by the mainstream (no criticisms) and villified by the fringe/alternative side, which is to be expected -- it exposes their unscientific practices, scams, and other illegal activities.

• Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal: The amendment removed the false charge against me of having used "unreliable" sources (QW), and it vindicated QW by removing the description of it as being "unreliable". Justice was finally done after two years!

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] user pages used as fringe articles

What about turning one's user page into a Wikipedia article that's been deleted from mainspace, per consensus that it's crackpot? I'm thinking of User:Iberomesornix. After this article was rejected, the editor recreated it on his user page and attempted to link to it from mainspace; just now another (?) editor used it as a source for adding some of the content back into mainspace.[1] Would I be out of line in deleting the user page?

I asked at Wikipedia talk:User page, but there hasn't been much response. As for the fringiness (besides the socks, personal attacks, the paranoia, and the fact that these accounts have claimed to be the "persecuted" authors of the crackpot hypothesis they're pushing), a prominent epigrapher who originally championed the idea that the Iberian script is found on the Canaries has with further discoveries changed his mind;[2] and the Wikipedia editor(s) tie this in to a second fringe idea, that the Iberian language was Basque, which for evidence they include known Latin borrowings in Basque (like BAKE "peace", from Latin pace,) apparently unaware of this elementary error.

So, is this an appropriate use of one's user page? kwami (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say this usage goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of several points at WP:UP#NOT. In particular, wp not a free web hosting service for material deemed unfit to be included in the encyclopaedia, and irrelevant to any other valid wp purpose. I reckon it would stand a reasonable chance of being terminated if put through WP:MFD. A few of the current MfD noms seem in a similar vein. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Using user space to recreate a deleted article is not permitted, unless it is created in a substantially different form as a step toward writing a real mainspace article. You can inform the editor of this, and if you don't get a cooperative response, you can bring up the issue at WP:ANI. This is disruptive editing, and MfD is not the right place to deal with that. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I asked at ANI. kwami (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiating a fringe theory from a non-fringe view

This article does not give sufficient guidance on how to differentiate between a fringe theory and a non-fringe view, such as a mainstream view. I suggest that the article be modified so that more guidance is provided. The process of differentiation needs to be made more objective and less subjective so that individual editors cannot proclaim a view as being fringe in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The current system inadvertently allows individual editors to proclaim a view as being fringe without them having to provide justification, which gives them an undue amount of influence in preventing that view from being included in Wikipedia or otherwise getting sufficient coverage in Wikipedia. --Atomic blunder (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples of where this has occurred might help us (or at lest me) understand your point. I've usually found the opposite to be the case. Cheers, Verbal chat 20:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it a bit unusual that a brand new editor immediately comes to a policy page with changes to make, and hope this is simple coincidence, and not a blocked or banned user returning. I would also like examples wherein editors have unfairly proclaimed a non-fringe idea to be fringe unfairly. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If I provided examples, I would be doing so arbitrarily since there is not sufficient guidance in the article. --Atomic blunder (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So be arbitrary. I agree that an example would help. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not provide an example. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since most editors seem to understand the difference between a fringe theory and a mainstream view, without at least one example of where they don't, I don't think we need to change anything.Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the difference between a fringe theory and a minority view (that is not a fringe theory). There is less of a distinction there and therefore could be a source of confusion. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at one level the differences are simple... a mainstream view is one held by the mainstream... a minority view is one that is accepted by the mainstream but held by a minority... and a Fringe view is something not accepted mainstream. I realize that this is essentially defining something by its opposite, and not all that helpful. The problem is that what is Fringe is determined by Mainstream acceptance, and that will often be objected to by those who's views are rejected (few fringe advocates will think their theory should be considered fringe.) Also, what is and is not Fringe is very subject specific. You can not draw parallels between why one theory is Fringe and another isn't.

This is why this guideline concentrates on whether something is notable, rather than whether it is Fringe. We assume that if you are reading this guideline, the theory you are thinking about is probably considered at least boarderline Fringe. We shift the question from, "is it fringe?" to "can we discuss it even if it is Fringe?" And that question is determined by notability... ie whether the mainstream has taken note of the theory... not agreed with it, mind you... just noted it in a serious manner. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation:

"a mainstream view is one held by the mainstream... a minority view is one that is accepted by the mainstream but held by a minority... and a Fringe view is something not accepted mainstream."

is not included in the article, nor is an alternate explanation. Why don't you put it in? Also, I assume a minority view according to your explanation would receive more space in the article than a notable fringe theory. If so, that is another reason for clarifying the difference between the two in the article. I would think that a better discussion in the article would help to alleviate problems with fringe issues. --Atomic blunder (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the entire point of this guideline is that it does not really matter what one's definition of a Fringe theory is... no matter what the theory is, if reliable sources beyond the adherants of the theory itself have discussed it (even to disparage or debunk it), then it is appropriate to for us to have an article about it (or to discuss it as part of another related article), if reliable sources have not taken note of it, then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See my first post of this section. I suppose one could argue that the converse of my argument is true as well. That is just one more reason to modify the article. I have nothing further. It is clear that fringe issues in Wikipedia are a mess and will apparently continue to be so. Nobody wants to change anything. --Atomic blunder (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. If the treatment of a topic depends on someone's assessment of whether it is fringe or not, then we've got a problem. It's better to stick to NPOV, and present all viewpoints on all topics with reasonable balance, fringe or otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Atomic... what needs changing? You complain that someone can arbitrarily declare something Fringe... so what? If you can establish that there are reliable sources that discuss it (and disparaging or debunking counts towards this), then you can have an article on it... even if it is Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything is perfect. Don't change anything. --Atomic blunder (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

According to above views, (supposedly) non-fringe views should have reliable and well cited sources. Ironically, the lead of Fringe theories article doesn't seem to have that. 25+ years generated 4 citations for the cited view. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All of our policies and guidelines interact, and we can not ignore one when looking at another. That views (Whether Fringe or Non-finge) needs to be reliable sourced is a statement that is made in multiple other policys (see: WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research) and guidelines (See: WP:Reliable sources). I don't think we need to repeat ourselves in the lede of this guideline (indeed over repetition sometimes leads to conflicts of intrepretation).

I think there is some confusion as to what this guideline is about. It is not about keeping fringe theories out of Wikipedia. It is not about determining if something is fringe or not... it is about when and how to discus topics that someone (anyone) already deems to be fringe. The core point of this guideline is to say that it does not matter whether the topic is fringe or not... what matters is how notable the topic is. We determine notability by reference to reliable sources that are independant of the subject (see: WP:Notability). In other words, has the topic has been discussed by people who are not advocates of the theory? If the answer is "yes" then we can discuss it (giving it a weight equal to the weight it is given in the sources). If the answer is "no" then we shouldn't discuss it.

Let me repeat something... this guildeline does not ban the discussion of fringe theories... in fact it explicitly says we CAN. What it does do is outline the circumstances under which we discuss them, and how we discuss them. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And ironically it is not discussed properly in the case of fringe theory article lead. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)