Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HatlessAtlas (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 24 July 2008 (→Concise definition needed: thanks MC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:29, 24 July 2008 by HatlessAtlas (talk | contribs) (→Concise definition needed: thanks MC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The end

Let me summarize:

Particular attribution as a section has been on the table for a year.
The current version was written mostly by myself and Nealparr. That's about as broad as we can get in authorship.
There are those who think that particular attribution prohibition will encourage WP:SYNTH. Generally, these people tend to be editors who have edited articles in fringe subjects that do not take WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOT, etc. seriously. Alternatively, there are some who seem to be confused by the idea that WP:NPOV is not the same thing as WP:BALANCE.
At some point we need to end the discussion. I do not see any new arguments being made. I think the WP:SYNTH issue is one that is addressed head-on in the particular attribution section through discussing how to avoid particular attribution in a responsible way. If you see a contradiction it is because you are reading between the lines in a way that is unwarranted.

I suggest archiving the entire discussion. It's moribund.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the issues:

1. I found that this has been discussed since October, and there were similar objections to it then as there are now.

2. These two editors do often have differing views. However, their two similar views are not a broad consensus in terms of a policy issue.

3. SA stated,"There are those who think that particular attribution prohibition will encourage WP:SYNTH." Response: Absolutely.

SA stated, "Generally, these people tend to be editors who have edited articles in fringe subjects that do not take WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NOT, etc. seriously." Response: This is a classic example of stating an opinion in the guise of a fact in order to disparage a viewpoint. This is precisely what should not happen in articles and why this discussion is important.

SA stated, "Alternatively, there are some who seem to be confused by the idea that WP:NPOV is not the same thing as WP:BALANCE." Response: I believe this misrepresents the arguments. As I follow them, most of the disagreement has to do with, WP:NPOV. "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", and WP:OR, not turning expert opinion into fact by editorial fiat.

4. Dispute resolution does not suggest that if a solution to the dispute is stalled then one side declares victory. Outside opinion has been sought at noticeboards, There was an RFC according to Elonka? I was not aware of it. If the RFC was inconclusive, then I believe the next step in the Dispute resolution process is mediation and I think that is where the dispute should go next. Ward20 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC was conclusive. Read about it in the archives. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Refreshed my memory, not conclusive . IMO the next step should be mediation. Ward20 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that those who commented from the outside were pretty clear in their endorsement of the particular attribution section. I'm not sure that mediation without some indication of a prolonged controversy (beyond those who are perennially stuck to this subject} makes any sense. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is over 400K. I have temporarily protected it to allow for archiving. Please standby, it should be editable again within the hour. --El on ka 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. I also tweaked the header a bit. The RfC was borderline, as technically it's still active at WP:RFC/POL, but today's the last day, and it hadn't gotten any responses in awhile, so I went ahead and archived that too. This leaves the page at still over 80K (and some browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K), but at least things are more manageable now, especially when dealing with edit conflicts! I'm still looking at some of the user conduct issues that brought my attention to this page in the first place. I strongly encourage all editors to be very civil from this point forward, as well as to consider refactoring any previous comments which might be considered uncivil or personal attacks. Thanks, --El on ka 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove all the Anon-IP messages since it is a Davkal sock? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding facts and opinions

Regarding facts and opinions, this change doesn't clearly explain that there's a difference and give you the "if" disclaimer proscribed by WP:ASF. That's why I said the "if" is critical to being NPOV compliant. --Nealparr 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Facts are not opinions, opinions are not facts. We need no "if" because the two sets are disjoint. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We need the "if" because NPOV has the "if". If NPOV has the "if", obviously many people don't know the difference between when a statement is fact or just someone's opinion. Yes, they two are separate things, but two separate things often confused. This is a guideline. We're supposed to be helping people by informing them of best practices. If the best practice is to separate clearly, like NPOV says, then it's "best" to do that here. --Nealparr 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no "if" as you are describing it in WP:ASF. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a distinction between something solely someone's opinion and fact. The "if" is "if not solely so and so's opinion". --Nealparr 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Neal. Can you provide a direct quote from WP:ASF? I don't know what you're talking about. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to be more clear: In WP:ASF, it says "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." If here we're going to say here that this is a situation that doesn't require attribution, to be compatible with that statement, we have to be very clear and distinguish between fact and opinion and clearly say "we're not talking about opinions". I'm open to other wording that does that, but it's really needed considering the amount of confusion people seem to have with this (should be straight-forward) section. My wording clearly said we're not talking about opinions, and that's what I've been basing my support of it on. --Nealparr 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording we currently have does that. It says it point-blank. The problem with your wording is that it states a conditional when there the inverse is an empty set. It's like saying "If the dog is not a cat then treat the dog like a dog." There are no dogs that are cats so the conditional is superfluous and actually misleading in itself! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into it. You guys are giving me a headache. I'll just assume my vote to close on my wording is vetoed by you and them since everyone but me seems to think it needs to say something else for whatever reason. They're saying it needs more lawyer-like wording. You're saying it needs less. I'm stepping out of it before I do something really bad to my monitor. --Nealparr 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm really confused as to what the controversy actually is, but I changed the wording to make it as clear as possible that we are talking in the last paragraph about using facts rather than opinions. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the change, but the issue they're talking about is that when people see a guideline that mentions facts, which is totally proscribed by policy, they get paranoid that someone's going to assert pseudoscience as fact. The guideline doesn't need to say "Don't assert pseudoscience as fact" because it's absurd to think it would need to list all the things you're not supposed to assert as fact. Still, you could make it really simple by publically promising not to use it to assert pseudoscience as fact, and I'm sure the issue would be resolved. --Nealparr 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What something is categorized as is an opinion, certainly, since there is no solution to the demarcation problem. When something has pseudoscientific attributes, we can point them out. For example, stating something like "there is no scientific evidence for paranormal activity" would be a fact that certainly should not have particular attribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Everything that happens in nature is ... natural and normal. Even paranormal psychic activity. We just don't know the explanation... Lakinekaki (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you're allowed to believe that. Good luck finding sources that agree that we don't know the explanation for the overwhelming lack of evidence for paranormal psychic activity. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Twisting other peoples words. You seem to want to be good at it, but sadly you are not. Lakinekaki (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to develop that statement a little more so one understands that by "no scientific evidence" you really mean "no evidence that has ever been accepted as valid by the scientific community" (because that would be a non-seriously disputed statement), but yes, you are essentially correct. --Nealparr 23:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I suspect that in SA's view of the world there is not distinction between "no scientific evidence" and "no evidence that has ever been accepted as valid by the scientific community". in all of the conversations I've had with him where the issue has come up, he has equated a lack of scientific evidence with determinate falsehood. this is why, I suspect, he can so confidently say that 'facts are facts and opinions are opinions', because there really seems to be no middle ground for him. I don't know what to say about that, but... --Ludwigs2 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Get ready for an influx

Hopefully, people will agree that the version that Neal and SA have hammered out is a good one. I haven't commented much because I don't think that much needs to be changed, frankly. I wanted to drop a notice that the IP address that may or may not be a Davkal sock has dropped an inflammatory note on a wikiproject noticeboard regarding these proceedings. Antelan 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

no agreement yet with your first point, sorry, though it will be interesting to see how the rhetoric on this plays out on the project page. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible elegant approach to handling and defining fringe theory articles

I don't think I'm going to be able to handle all mentions of fringe theories in articles, but for articles about fringe theories themselves, I would like to humbly submit my thoughts on how we might be able to help handle neutrality and criticism weight in articles about fringe theories.

Specifically, I see a lot of heated discussion about "criticisms" sections in the articles on fringe theories. Generally the debates appear to be a deadlock between those citing WP:Undue against the criticisms, and those challenging that the criticisms are notable and merit inclusion. (For some reason that is unfathomable to my humble understanding it seems that these arguments are often divided among proponent/opponent lines...). I would like to propose three related suggestions for how to balance the need to fairly present the theory with the need also to present the theory in relation to mainstream scientific consensus. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories versus non-mainstream scientific theories

First off, I would submit that scientific debate and research, conducted within the scope of peer-reviewed publications and within the mainstream scientific community should, by definition, not be fringe. Cold fusion is an example I think falls into this category. This is research being conducted by qualified (in many cases respected) scientists, and the results are published in respected and peer reviewed publications. Such research should be considered minority, controversial, and mainstream, rather than fringe. I would like to add a paragraph reflecting this to the guideline, but comments first. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the RfC on this topic, most consider cold fusion fringe. It doesn't matter how rigorous the science is or where the debate takes place. It's fringe because it departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories. Such is the case with cold fusion. There's no theoretical framework in orthodox science that supports it. Granted, it may not be as bad off as some of the really bizarre fringe theories out there, but it really is fringe. The researchers involved acknowledge that it departs significantly from mainstream science. --Nealparr 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Up front disclosure of theory status as an alternative to long criticisms sections

Fringe theories can become burdened by an issue of weight and merit of criticism versus content. Specifically, if there is more scientific criticism of a theory than there is published information of the theory, arguments may arise over how much weight it appropriately gives to the theories claims versus appropriate weight to criticisms, and whether not including those theories represents promotion of such theories. For any theories whose scientific validity can be seriously questioned, I would propose putting a clear and neutral statement towards the end of the header that makes clear what the relationship between the theory and the mainstream scientific community is. This would keep the reader informed of the status of the theory, while avoiding any article-structure arguments about promoting a theory. In the main article body, criticisms can be summed up in a "key criticisms" paragraph, and a sub article can be created if necessary to address the criticisms fairly. I have presented a few example sentences. Any thoughts? HatlessAtless (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Unresearched: (I recall seeing a National Enquirer article once that stated oil was found on the moon...)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because very little scientific research on the subject has been conducted or published in peer reviewed journals.

2) Unproofed: ((WTC conspiracy research has been published, but the MSC hasn't recognized any of it as conclusive)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted significant evidence of the theories' claims has not been published.

3) Actively Disproofed: (Free energy machines keep getting disproven)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted, the evidence presented appears to run counter to the theories' claims.

4) Contested: (Cold Fusion research publications are all over the map)

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted meaningful evidence both in support of and counter to the theories' claims appears to have been presented.

5) Case-By-Case: (Cryptozoology spot on with the giant squid, but the chimera not so much)

This discipline or field of study as a whole has a mixed reaction from the mainstream scientific community in part because the study examines a number of independent cases, having had differing levels of success depending on each case.

For any theories whose scientific validity can be seriously questioned, I would propose putting a clear and neutral statement towards the end of the header that makes clear what the relationship between the theory and the mainstream scientific community is.

And how do you figure out the mainstream within each branch of each subject of science? Or non science? That in itself would often be a research (WP:NOR).

This would keep the reader informed of the status of the theory, while avoiding any article-structure arguments about promoting a theory.

Interesting. So you would rather describe what people think about, for example, an apple, than properties of an apple.

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because very little scientific research on the subject has been conducted or published in peer reviewed journals.

References please! Give some references for this statement.

The theory has not gained mainstream scientific recognition or adherence because while research on the subject has been conducted significant evidence of the theories' claims has not been published.

Published where? Mainstream corporate media?

Appears? If evidence counters claims, than there must be reference for it.

Uh... What?

Reference?

Lakinekaki (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. Let me respond point by point:

And how do you figure out the mainstream within each branch of each subject of science? Or non science? That in itself would often be a research (WP:NOR). It would, but tertiary sources such as textbooks make excellent work of summing up majority or mainstream thought on a given topic. The policy you quoted, WP:NOR provides an excellent breakdown of sources, and WP:V, which are two of the core content policies, provide plenty of guidance for defining mainstream thought on a topic.

Interesting. So you would rather describe what people think about, for example, an apple, than properties of an apple. You present this as an either/or choice. Take a look at WP:NOTPAPER; we can fully describe an apple while still making a statement that most people think an apple is different from an orange (while providing a reference of course).

Each of the 5 characterizations is presented as a suggestion; off the cuff food for thought, as possible examples describing the relationship of a fringe theory to the mainstream. In each of the 5 cases you criticize, the editor making the claim would have to provide an appropriate tertiary or secondary source to back up the assertion (as well as word the assertion correctly) of the relationship between the fringe view and the mainstream.

As I used to argue before on this page, WP:Fringe is totally useless 'guideline' that only further complicates and confuses good editorial guidelines, and brings nothing beneficial to WP policies: N, NPOV, NOR. ps. and it was brought overnight from an essay to a guideline status without a wide consensus. As Jimbo Wales has stated so abundantly in his formulation and vision for wikipedia, this is not a place that is friendly to fringe theories. A guideline for how to deal with them appropriately is important. If you don't like the existing guideline, help me improve it. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So would a textbook from here be acceptable source for defining mainstream views?

In regards to improving this article page, is there any particular problem it is trying to solve that other better WP policies are unable to solve?

Lakinekaki (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki, I think you're missing the point. the problem with a lot of Fringe pages is that they become battlegrounds between editors who want to push the virtues and possibilities of some particular theory, and other editors who want to push the flaws and stupidities. I think what Hatless is suggesting is that a well-designed classification system (if one can be designed and implemented without violating OR) would obviate a lot of those battles. me, I actually envisioned a 'Fringe Science' infobox, that would say up front things like 'there is no active research on this topic', 'this topic has been refuted by such and such', 'this topic is an untestable belief system', 'this topic has occasional verifiable successes', etc. As long as these were all properly sourced, it could solve a lot of the nastier conflicts in the article. I'm not saying hatless' categories are perfect, but there's a thought here that's worth considering. me, I think I might break it down this way

research status: refuted, no current research, current non-scientific research, current scientific research by advocates
theory status: non-refutable belief system, historical theory, pseudoscientific theory, scientific speculation
cultural diffusion: small group of adherents, slight recognition (perhaps as part of a larger field), broadly recognized

--Ludwigs2 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

they become battlegrounds between editors who want to push the virtues and possibilities of some particular theory, and other editors who want to push the flaws and stupidities

if there are references, editors can put either. if there are no references, editors can put neither. that is WP:V. so what is WP:Fringe for? Lakinekaki (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

as far as suggested categorization (refuted, non-refutable belief system, small group of adherents, ...) if there are references, than that's o.k. if that's some editor's interpretation, than it is OR (WP:NOR). again, what is WP:Fringe for? Lakinekaki (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So would a textbook from here be acceptable source for defining mainstream views? In an appropriate article and with correct attribution, yes.

An infobox might be interesting. I think the trick is not so much to create a "classification system" but I think that a simple (sourced) statement about the relationship between the theory and mainstream science would be a useful up-front clarification for a reader. I think though, that over time commonalities in the phrasing of the statuses will organize the fringe theories all on their own. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, textbooks are tricky as RSs.To show the consensus, they have to be a/current--remember that it takes several years to write a textbook, so it is always at least two years out of date even when just published b/standard and widely accepted c/quoted in context. An explicit statement to the effect that such and such is the consensus but that some other thing is also suggested is particularly useful as a quotation. d/ Representative: there are in most fields more than one textbook, that come to different conclusions about such things. In general, I'd suggest a recent review varticle from a leading authoritative journal is best--also in context. That';s why we use Cochrane Collaboration so much on medical topics. DGG (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki - if there are references, editors can put either. if there are no references, editors can put neither. - this assumes that editors are willing and capable of approaching the topic in a fair and open-minded way. my experience on fringe topics, however, is that this is the exception rather than the rule. editors on fringe topics (on all sides, mind you) tend to be highly opinionated and aggressive, and seem to get more so where reliable sourcing becomes thinner. WP:FRINGE is supposed to set some guidelines to keep things from flying out of hand in these difficult conditions. or at least that's my take on it, anyway... --Ludwigs2 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that editors on fringe topics ("all sides") is not correct. RS for Fringe theories are lacking, because they are fringe theories. OrangeMarlin 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

my comment referred to the opinionated and aggressive attitudes of editors on all sides, not to their sourcing. that is an observable fact, OM, not intended as a criticism of anyone. --Ludwigs2 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs here. A fringe theory is defined as one with limited to no coverage in reliable sources. However, we should be careful to note that this definition is not commutative; we may not define a theory as fringe and then claim it has little or no coverage in reliable sources and use that as an excuse to downgrade, denigrate, or disregard reliable sources for such a theory. This is of particular importance when talking about alternative theoretical formulations as defined by the ArbCom as opposed to true fringe theories. The minute someone provides meaningful secondary source coverage of a fringe theory, it may still be fringe, but it becomes a different discussion from one that is simply not believed. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Expanding on DGG's point about textbooks, they tend to work much better as convenient sources of fact than for anything contentious. If a textbook makes a statement that people in the field would consider possibly contentious or flawed, it probably should not be used. Here, for instance, I cited a textbook for a well-known physics theorem. Any comparable text would also contain such a proof, and the fact of the theorem is never going to change. If either or both of these conditions do not obtain, I would be leery of citing a textbook, as they often oversimplify for pedagogical reasons. If you are writing outside of your area of expertise and would like to know if a textbook is "standard", WP:RS/N may be of help, and there is some hope that the reputation of an institution is reflected in the quality of the textbooks used by its professors. For matter where recent comprehensive reviews exist, though, they should be preferred. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My underlying point where I brought up textbooks was that textbooks often contain broad compilations of references and make statements about the status of mainstream thought on their subject matter. I assumed that examining the quality of sources and using the best one went without saying. We have plenty of guidance (the discussions of sources, prestige of institutions, etc is carried on ad nauseum on the approptiate guideline and policy pages). I hardly meant that we should cite textbooks indiscriminately, but more that a high-quality and up to date textbook would likely be one place (of many) to look for information on the current line of reasoning for mainstream thought. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, sorry if my reply seemed a little cranky. I was distracted from the actual point by a personal pet peeve against the conflation of 'printed in a textbook' with 'true'. Probably WP:BEANS applies. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all nice and well in theory, but in practice it is little 'more interesting'. There are probably hundreds of textbooks on any particular subject, and it would be interesting to see why some would select one over the other.

And regarding 'printed in a textbook vs true' thing, WP is not about truth but verifiability, so there comes the problem again -problem of selecting sources. Lakinekaki (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I have to agree. textbooks are baby-talk; they are intended to make broad, simplified, largely inarguable (if not particularly precise) statements on a topic. even Misplaced Pages considers them tertiary sources of limited usefulness. but isn't this discussion starting to stray from topic? --Ludwigs2 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

:) topic was about categorization of (fringe) theories, and supporting such categorization with verifiable sources, and figuring out what is mainstream take on the topic, and finding the mainstream take in textbook sources, and then finding and selecting textbook sources, and then I guess its all somehow related ;-) Lakinekaki (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Im going to be integrating this concept here over the next few days and then I'll post it for discussion. A note on the textbook utility is that as a tertiary source, it actually is particularly useful (among other secondary and tertiary sources) for describing mainstream thought. As an integrator of a large number of sources, textbooks are often one place where one can find an explicit and encyclopedic statement of the current mainstream thought on a topic, which is the best and most explicit statement we'd need to make a proper assertion of a theory in terms of its mainstream status. Remember, proper and careful selection of sources goes without saying, and using a lousy source is bad. We already know this. Once my edits differ from the current version siginificantly we can fire up the draft talk page and discuss the changed version there. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just a quick comment on textbooks: Collegiate textbooks used at the graduate level from good universities are not the same thing as a grade school or high-school primer text. I have a book from 1993 on high-speed digital design. It is still one of the foremost texts in its field, and it and its follow on books are still in use as of 2008 as first-line textbooks in graduate electronics design. (its the handbook of black magic on my user page). Real academic graduate level textbooks are a far cry from grade school and highschool primers. Primers are not academic textbooks, I agree (and therefore suspect as sources), but real graduate-level no-BS textbooks are first-rate academic sources, and are usually excellent at talking about the state of research in a field, to within a pretty reasonable margin. If you are encountering baby-talk in a textbook, it is not, in my mind, a rigorous textbook; it is a primer text, and not a suitable source for wikipedia. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

how can a random anonymous user know

how can a random anonymous user know if the idea he/she heard about today in the supermarket is fringe? after googling it and finding some webpages on the topic, editor added a sentence to relevant wikipedia article. how can that editor know if that idea is fringe? to know whether idea is fringe, one actually needs to have quite good knowledge on the subject. and not only how it is thought in the country, but also what may be thought in some other countries. he/she also needs to have access to scientific journals. and access to many of them, as there are thousands, so editor should read at least a few major ones. or maybe coverage in the news is the answer. but than, did the news reporter satisfy all of the above? and finally, if all above is fulfilled, than that editor certainly has to be an expert on the subject. so is this becoming an elitist encyclopedia? do users like ScienceApologist have this extensive knowledge on the subject on which they claim some idea is fringe? furthermore, are users like ScienceApologist experts in all these diverse articles they are placing WP:Fringe label on other editor's edits?

i think that it is plain absurd to believe such a thing is possible. users like ScienceApologist place label 'fringe' on ideas for quite different reasons. they 'initially don't like them, and labeling ideas 'fringe' makes it easier to delete them without having to actually argue reasonably. they place extra load on the other editor to prove idea is not fringe. but is another editor an expert on the subject? is he/she able to prove it? 'Really' exceptional claims already require extensive citations. why adding this extra burden of 'fringe'? what does it mean? how can one prove it, in light of above example? why exceptional sources are not enough? i will tell you why: exceptional sources can be found much easier than can be 'proved' that idea they cite is not fringe.

i think this 'guideline' is destructive for wikipedia and propose revert to 'essay' status, as it used to be.

Lakinekaki (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I redacted a few personal attacks from the above. Please consider talk page etiquette. - Eldereft (cont.) 11:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you deleting an example of ScienceApologist, user who is well known to other editors here. He is a very good example of what I illustrated above. I placed now above specific examples of his more recent WP:Fringe labeling. Examples include: Solar cycle, Chiropractic, Astral Projection, Unified field theory, Nephilim, Michael_(archangel), Garden of Eden, Parapsyhology, Dendera light, Applied kinesiology. Is SA really such a polymath, a notable expert in all these fields who can just label an idea fringe without bothering to explain the labeling? Lakinekaki (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Our hope is to have articles that are written by people who have "quite good knowledge on the subject". That makes our encyclopedia better. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki, here is the idea: contributors to Misplaced Pages do all of these things (find reliable sources, verify the information, parse out the appropriate amount of weight to be given to each viewpoint) so that people who know nothing about the subject can learn. If you know nothing at all about the subject, it will naturally be more difficult to write an article on it. This doesn't mean that you can't or that you shouldn't, by any means, but it means that you should not be surprised or personally offended if someone who is more familiar with the subject modifies your contributions. The fact that it is difficult for neophytes to understand appropriate weighting of viewpoints is not an argument against this guideline, but is instead one of the best arguments that I have heard for WP:AGF on the part of experienced contributors and new contributors alike. Antelan 15:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My example showed how users can misuse this WP:Fringe much more than any other WP policy or guideline that deal with similar matter. AGF is not enough, one also needs to justify placement or deletion of sentences. By citing 'fringe', editors often avoid to do so. And I was not talking about neophytes, but (may be very experienced) editors who contribute to topics they don't KNOW much about. There is a HUGE difference.Lakinekaki (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Within that topic, you would be a neophyte; e.g, being a longstanding contributor to British literature would not preclude one from being a neophyte at physical chemistry. When it comes to subject-matter knowledge, experience is not transitive. And I certainly agree that justification should always be given for contested changes. Antelan 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

look, I have to agree with Lakinekaki here, at least to an extent. it's not wikipedia's job to decide what is and isn't valid science; it's only our job to point out what experts in the field say about it. now while I can see how a little 'Free Market competition of ideas' between editors might eventually approach neutrality on the subject, the kind of 'shoot first and ask questions never' approach that ScienceApologist (and a few others) takes is reprehensible. these are not attempts to achieve a balanced and neutral perspective in articles; these are efforts to impose the worst perspective possible on topics that SA happens to disrespect (and believe me, I've argued with him enough to know that he's no expert at science). is that what we want wikipedia to be? --Ludwigs2 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's left to just a few people like SA to mark patently ridiculous claims as fringe or pseudoscience is embarrassing. He may not be diplomatic, but we need more people doing what he's doing. If we were all more responsible as contributors and pulled our weight in this area, maybe SA wouldn't have run so completely out of patience with people pushing nonsense as Truth and not understanding the difference. kwami (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

look, I could argue with you about what SA does (and I think the result of that would be that I agree with you about 80%). but the way he does it is out of line. I wouldn't want to live in a city without police, but I also wouldn't want to live in a city where cops are free to shoot suspects on sight. if he's out of patience then he should take a nice, long vacation, recover his cool, and come back; wikipedia will still be here. however, I can't respect the protracted efforts he puts in to assassinate any idea (along with the sources associated with it) just because he doesn't like it, and doesn't have the patience to try and communicate his objections reasonably. --Ludwigs2 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate venue for you (I am specifically referring to you, Ludwigs2 and Lakinekaki) to be complaining about the actions of a particular editor. Please, if you have a problem with him, take it to his talk page. Discussion here should be kept along general principles or particular articles, not particular editors. Antelan 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with this guideline which is written is such a way that it enables and fosters 'fringe' labeling behavior (examples I gave above). Do you want me to show here how other editors do it to, besides ScienceApologist? I thought his example would be enough. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. If you're truly arguing for a representation in line with respected scientific thought, it should be trivially easy to cite reputable sources in support. Without this guideline, Misplaced Pages would be overrun with in-universe writeups of every idea that someone felt motivated enough to describe on a website somewhere. If an idea is truly "fringe" (or, better, "not accepted by mainstream science"), then what's wrong with "labeling" it as such? A reader deserves to know at least that much about it. What specific change to this guideline would you like to see? MastCell 20:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Antelan, but the only way to talk about problems with 'general principles' is to talk about the way specific editors use those principles. it's not my fault that SA has made himself a prominent example of how fringe theories and the guidelines can be abused, and I have nothing against him personally for doing it (trust me, I would be the first in line to shake his hand if he decided to stop). but as they say in the newspaper business, it's not libel if it's true. if he doesn't want us to discuss his behavior, then he shouldn't present us with behaviors that we need to discuss.

MastCell - that's pure hyperbole; please don't use straw man arguments. and if the problem were only a question of labeling, it wouldn't be much of a problem. the actions presented above go well beyond 'labeling'. --Ludwigs2 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Labelling" was Lakinekaki's formulation of the problem. I'm not trying to use hyperbole; I honestly don't understand what concrete changes are being proposed here. The only thing I can take away from this thread so far is that people don't like ScienceApologist. But I already knew that, and there are a few dozen other forums where people are probably complaining about him right now. I'd like to know what changes to this guideline are being proposed. MastCell 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to 'labeling' of fringe stuff in articles as such. I object to editors like SA labeling in edit summaries the content they delete as 'fringe' without explaining it further or giving any citations or reasonable arguments.

I proposed reverting the status of this 'guideline' to the status of an 'essay'. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you object to this policy, I'd suggest bringing the idea to the village pump for community input, and making a link to it here when you've done so. You will probably need to provide a rationale for your proposal, and I will be unimpressed if your rationale is simply "I don't like when SA uses this policy." Antelan 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, it sounds like your problem is specifically with ScienceApologist. If the relevant proposal is to downgrade this guideline to an essay, then I strongly object, though you are of course welcome to solicit additional input. MastCell 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also a waste of time for an established user to have to point out every reliable source that establishes a view as fringe anytime a new editor (to the topic) tries to add these fringe views to an article. Anytime the WP:REDFLAG is raised by an edit from a new user, their edit should not stand simply because they are new. They need to verify that their information is relevant and not fringe like any other user by using the talk page, particularly on controversial subjects. This is not just a problem encountered by random anonymous users. Jason Patton (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Concise definition needed

All, I've been working on my reconstruction of this guideline, and I noticed that we're missing a concise, meaningful definition of a fringe theory. I'm particularly disappointed in the statement "fringe theories are those that depart significantly from the mainstream view" as there are fringe theories that are similar to mainstream thought, and there are mainstream "alternative theoretical formulations" as defined by the arbcom that depart from the mainstream view but are most certainly not fringe.

Suggestions please HatlessAtless (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since ArbCom does not make content guidelines, their opinions on this matter are not binding and, frankly, irrelevant. Antelan 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have reverted your edits (which just consisted of adding skeletal outlines of sections you're suggesting). This is best done in userspace, since this is an active guideline. Antelan 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest something along the lines of: "Fringe theories are those which are not supported by current mainstream academic thought, as expressed in reliable sources. Fringe theories also include those explicitly classed as such, or as pseudoscience or scientifically implausible, by such mainstream sources." MastCell 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. I thought I was in userspace at the time. I'll be more careful in the future. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MC, I like that definition. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)