Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Claim that is incompatible with policy

if u r reading this, i see you...

Mainstream?

you too

"Think" before editing mainspace!

Great--today we have more whack-a-word games played out on policy/guideline mainspace instead of talk pages. What does this even mean? "Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications"? I'm serious. An idea is defined as mainstream because it's plausible? This is a useless definition. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest to replace the word "mainstream?" ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If t'were up to me, throw away "mainstream" because it doesn't help to use terms that need to be defined case by case depending on its context. Also throw away the term "plausible", same reason. In some cases, a subject's "implausibility" is exactly why it's especially worth mentioning at WP.("No, this isn't a fish story, virgin birth has been confirmed-lots of them"). I want to hunt down some of the language used in sturdy discussions I've seen here and there regarding judging the proper framing of a given subject. Also how to judge the noteworthiness of variously sourced claims found about a given subject, as well as the appropriate weight to give them. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit collision)

Heads up. :) Professor marginalia has misread the sentence (justifiably).

• He missed that "mainstream" was relating to "major publications" (and not to "idea")
• He missed that "plausible" was an adjective of "idea" (and not of "mainstream" ... "major publications")

The misinterpretation is understandable. The sentence's grammar is flaky, if not outright incorrect.

The sentence should also not be attempting to qualify an adjective of the previous sentence (in the previous para!), which is anyway tangential.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to use mainstream or plausible to have a guideline of fringe theories. We have NPOV, V, and NOR, and a policy that discussed fringe theories needs to be framed within the spirits of these three policies. It can be done, I am sure of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the page now, after my edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good edits! Stays on topic and uses consistent language. Now do the RightThing^TM and de-muddle NOR too. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"the media"

Current wording :Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed within in the media or in respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. Proposed wording: Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed within mainstream media or in respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. Alternatives: reliable media, serious media, conventional media , news media ??? but not just media. DGG (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

bah, I wanted to suggest "mass media," but that doesn't work.

w:mainstream is evidently problematic too.

but since "respected" is already being used, why not put it before the "media", instead of after the "or"? "Peer-reviewed academic publications" kinda already implies "respected" anyway.

or, "reputable," "reputed," "representative," "with substantial following," "institutionalized," "unimpeachable," "esteemed"?

ah, hell. To a fringie, a fringie source is all of those things.

-- Fullstop (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid "mainstream" as it is a minefield. Let's stick with simple wording that will not be challenged:

Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed in the media, reputable publications, or in peer-reviewed academic publications.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

right. As I said, a fringie is going to interpret everything per his world view anyway. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Shorter and easy to understand. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I say drop "media" altogether. Conspiracy theories are often discussed in the media, but are fringe anyway. Paranormal topics, totally fringe, and yet every Halloween every newspaper has a ghost story in it. A UFO sighting, fringe, still makes it in the paper. All sorts of crazy health-related pseudoscience gets covered in the "media". It's not necessary. The sentence would read just fine as:

Fringe theories here refers to ideas which are not accepted or not being discussed in reputable publications, or in peer-reviewed academic publications.

I don't think the word really adds anything. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Think "guideline," not "enforcement." :)

That is not to say you don't have a point, but isn't what you observe is also true for "reputable publications"? Also, an April Fool's spoof on UFO sightings is intended to be a gag when it appears in reputable publications, but is intended to be taken seriously when it appears in "UFO Monthly."

As always, intent (context) reigns supreme: A magazine-style TV story on Roswell hype (as recently seen on Discovery) is a story about the hype, not a story about UFOs. Consequently, it would be legitimate for WP to have an article on the hype, but not on the UFOs.

Questionable article topics can always be nuked by redirect, AFD and CSD. Thats enforcement. :)

The insertion of pseudo-scientific nonsense into existing articles is far more pernicious, and far more difficult to protect again. There we can only trust that collective common sense will prevail.

-- Fullstop 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just spoof coverage that appears in the general media, and it's not just coverage of the hype. Theories that aren't accepted in mainsteam science gets coverage in general media as serious topics all the time. Mainstream media doesn't care if the theory is correct, per se, just that it generates ratings. The Face on Mars pic in this guideline often appears in mainstream media. The Oprah show, a mainstream media show, recently had psychic mediums as guests, had parapsychologist Dean Radin as an expert, and did another show around that time about The Secret and Law of Attraction, all fringe topics treated seriously on a mainstream media show. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of the word "media" is to allow articles on fringe theories that have gained a degree of notability. The theory may be absolutely nutty, but if it has been discussed in a serious manner by multiple press sources (even to disparage the theory), it is notable enough to be discussed in Wikipedia. UFO sightings are good examples... the theory that aliens from outer space have visited the earth is certainly fringey... but it is certainly a notable theory. There are thousands of people who believe it. Thus, it is a theory that deserves an article. The crazy health related stuff is similar... if a pseudo-scientific cure has gained enough notariety that it has been the primary topic of multiple news articles (as opposed to passing references), then it is notable enough for us to discuss it. Of course, if the medical community says that this "cure" is absolute hogwash, we can (and should) discuss that opinion as well. Blueboar 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't parse that sentence. Surely this guideline is about theories that reached the notability threshold, otherwise the guideline would be superfluous so that it should be deleted. But for me that is not clear enough from the definition. Harald88 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream" revisited

i do not revise things

Policy puts the line at notability and not at significance

I see that somehow the misleading term "significant" reappeared in the text, even in the intro. That is another misguidance concerning Wikipedia policy. I now replaced its bold first occurrence by the correct term that it substituted: the requirement for inclusion in Wikipdia is notability and not significance. In fact the banner at the top of the page should be adapted until this guideline is compatible with policy. A guideline with such major incompatibilities that are under discussion cannot be claimed to be "generally accepted". Harald88 10:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem... From the lead of WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable (highlights as per original text):

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline and not a policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Harald88, I placed that in there. It's from the first line of WP:NPOV. If you read the sentence here as a whole, it qualifies significance as something that has met notability requirements. In other words, if notable, then significant. If we put the wording in the NPOV policy to the side for a moment, and just focus on what you're saying that Wikipedia "sets the line at notability", the sentence is still compatible because it sets the line for "significance" at notability.

It's bold because in the NPOV policy it's bold. I would assume that it's bold there because they want to emphasize that insignificant topics aren't covered at Wikipedia.

The reason why it's "generally accepted" is because the wording comes directly from the NPOV policy, which is generally accepted. I can only speak to the changes I made being generally accepted because changes I put in guidelines are either agreed upon on the talk page first or are copied from other policies and guidelines. I don't know anything about changes made by others. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat uncomfortable with the wording in the lead. NPOV does not speak of notability. If you have a significant viewpoint that has been described in sources that are reliable, then it implies notability. Significant - > As per descriptions in WP:V#Sources is all what is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's nitpicking. There's nothing wrong with using the word "notablility" and there's nothing wrong with using the word "significant". There was nothing wrong with the use of "mainstream" earlier. I think this back and forth on what words to use is really just personal preference, because the meaning isn't substantially different either way. I thought it was important to add a useful definition of what a "fringe theory" is, and that's in there now, so this other stuff you guys can work out without me. See ya. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I would argue that we need consistency between guidelines and policies. NPOV speaks of significance, and I do not see the need to introduce another concept in this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I did add "with representation in proportion to its prominence", however, because this too is in the WP:NPOV policy and is directly related to WP:FRINGE. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is also needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Significance and notability are the same thing:

"This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

But because we have a whole guideline on notability, I suggest we use that word. Then it will be easier to understand FRINGE, and we won't have people saying "well, it doesn't seem very significant to me." I'm going to override jossi's revert and put that change in, just so you guys can look it over and I won't lose the edit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what a circular reference is ? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Significance is not subjective as it defined in WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it being circular was a good thing. It makes it impossible to get out of the definitions, which is what people try to do. But anyway, since the two words are being used interchangeably (which is stupid policy-writing- I think NPOV should be changed), we should make it clear in the article they mean the same thing (unless I'm wrong they do?). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, the core policy, was written based on Jimbo's vision for Wikipedia, so it uses his terminology. Jimbo uses the word "significant" in his communications (linked from WP:WEIGHT). Like I said, it's all the same really, but I wouldn't want to see NPOV change too much from the Creator's vision, even if the alternate word is similar. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. But then we really should change Notability. I mean, it is very stupid to have two policy words for the same thing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is very clear that notability applies to the subject of an article, not the content. The content of an article does not have to meet WP:N, and that has been the case from the beginning. Jimbo knew what he was doing. DGG (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"..., with representation in proportion to its prominence."

Sorry for butting in, but there is something wrong with this clause, and I didn't want to fix it without being sure what it was.

Perhaps its the "its", which should be "their" if referring to the preceding "views".

And, if this is an allusion to WP:WEIGHT, is "predominance" (or "eminence"?) instead of "prominence" intended?

-- Fullstop 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "prominence" comes from "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."[1] "Their" is correct; I fixed it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"For sale" - just extra words?

In the section on self-promotion there is the phrase: "Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as duplicitously offering self-published books for sale under the guise of "references", " I immediately wanted to edit out the words "for sale" as they do not seem to be needed. Aren't all self-published books "for sale." Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but given the commotion above, I thought I'd better check before removing. Smallbones 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of what this sentence is trying to prevent: A statement is made in an article about a fringe theory and cited to a website that sells the book in which the fringe theory is discussed. This is a false reference... The citation is essentially linking to an advertizing site who's purpose is to sell the book, and not to the book itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Parity of sources" section

This section seems a bit mixed up. It discusses "certain obscure fringe theories" but then uses creation science as an example, which is hardly obscure (at least in the U.S.). I think the point is that we can't expect peer-reviewed refutation for ideas that scientists dismiss out of hand as absurd, but it's not expressed very well. Anyone want to try a rewrite of that bit? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What holds true in the U.S. is not the end-all definition of what is a fringe theory. In the Middle-East, belief in djinn are quite common. Furthermore, you have to note what kind of fringe theory it is. In America, creationism is not a fringe theory among theologians. It is, however, a fringe theory among biologists. Zenwhat (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem that we seek to fix here (IMHO) is not with things like creation science. That is a sufficiently well known idea that plenty of mainstream scientists have written solid works to refute it. We can therefore present evidence on both sides of the debate and proceed in a normal manner - just as we would in a discussion of Republicanism and Democratism in US politics. The problem is when some nut-job claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine.

Our nut job typically writes huge volumes of text - he gets newspapers to publish rave articles about it - he files patents - he writes about it in the various nut-job journals and maybe gets a few sound-bites on local TV shows. He maybe even shows his rigged demo to some retired 80 year old NASA scientist who mentions that he's mystified by how it works ("NASA Scientists cannot explain amazing properties of machine!"...I have an actual example of this in one of our articles by the way!). There is (on the face of it) a ton of references to back up the idea that his machine works.

But mainstream science takes one look at it and says "Pha! This clearly violates the first Law of Thermodynamics. End of debate." - nothing whatever is published saying that the machine is bogus because there is no need - Journals don't publish that kind of thing.

So what do we do? If we don't have some kind of guideline, proponents of this perpetual motion machine will come along and write an article, stuffing it full of dozens of references saying that the machine works - some from NBC News, others from Time Magazine. We don't have one single reference saying that the machine is CLEARLY a pile of junk.

Over time, Wikipedia gains more and more of these articles - and comes out expressing an overall world-view saying that all of these kinds of machines and other kookie ideas are 100% true. Our reputation as a serious encyclopedia would (justifiably) take a nose-dive in the face of our very own WP:V and WP:NPOV policies. Would any school teacher want their pupils reading Wikipedia when there are hundreds and hundreds of articles saying that "gyroscopic particles" or "magnicules" allow the First Law Of Thermodynamics to be violated? I certainly hope not!

Worse still, if I try to fight this tide of crap by editing one of these articles to say "This machine claims to make energy from nothing and that is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics" - I'll certainly be accused of violating WP:NOR - and because I don't have a reference that says that this machine violates the first law, I'll get dinged for WP:V also.

The problem with all of this is the assumption that 'neutrality' is defined as taking all opinions equally (ie mainstream science gets the same degree of weight as some nut-job). We ought to be treating "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" as our touchstone here - it's FAR more relevant to science articles than WP:NPOV or WP:V or WP:NOR as a practical guide to writing encyclopedia articles. The further some theory is from mainstream science - the more evidence should be required. The DEFAULT position of the encyclopedia in such articles should be that of the mainstream. Hence, before the author of the article can claim that the machine makes more energy than it takes in - they should be required to come up with some SPECTACULARLY solid evidence. MULTIPLE peer reviewed articles - the experiment should have been duplicated in a major university lab - there should be articles written by major experts in the field saying that they believe the results and are mystified as to how it breaks thermodynamics. There ought to be discussion of how science was rocked to it's core by this invention. Since none of those things are likely to have been the case - the statement that this machine actually works should be inadmissible. All we should ever say about extraordinary claims with flimsy evidence is that "The Inventor claims that the machine does such-and-such"...which is a fact we can back up with newspaper articles, web sites by the inventor and pop.sci TV shows.

Theories that are relatively close to 'mainstream' science - but not universally accepted (dark matter, string theory, that kind of thing) are less extraordinary claims - and require less extraordinary evidence because they are less extraordinary claims. (But ironically - and tellingly - these are the very claims for which peer-reviewed evidence is easy to find!)

SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no presumption that neutrality means taking all opinions equally--see WP:Undue But there are so many other presumptions at root in these conflicts that are flat out wrong. The first idea that editors need to drop here is that is their responsibility, or the responsibility of this encyclopedia, to take the position that anything is TRUE. We are not to mis-attribute views, but that is not the same as holding any view up as true. We cannot mis-attribute views by giving them undue weight, or miscast them in the articles, etc. But we cannot newly create claims here either, so wikipedians, sorry but we don't get to roll up our sleeves to see the job get done all by ourselves in making claims about what is or is not true simply because we think it is true, and because we think it must be said because it is important that readers not get "the wrong idea". We are not to take it upon ourselves to do this if its impossible to attribute that claim of "truth" to references properly. Many articles I've looked at lately where these conflicts flare up I find becoming a tedious read, so heavily weighted with sanctimony that readers can only groan having to suffer their way through all the preacherseditors ministering the "gospel of truth" around here. And I'm talking both ways here--we have the so-called "fringies" banging their drums and speaking from scripts, but we have what I'm going to call the "skeptipedians" who think for some reason it's vital to the future of the free world to go around posting "pseudoscience" warnings on as many articles as they can find like they're sworn deputies from TAM or something.[2] Jeeze, it is not the job of the encyclopedia to reprogram people's thinking, it's simply to tell the story. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is cool saying to put on a bumpersticker (be sure to pick one up for $2.99 at TAM 6). But it has no place in editing wikipedia because we aren't judging evidence! We simply research published references and write it up. The fringe policy started out as a way to "weed out" content that isn't noteworthy, not because it isn't "true" but because nobody in the real world knows of or cares at all about it except the basement scientist or conspiracy theorist who cooked it up and rushed to the wiki to publicize it. Then it grew to help deal with situations such as an editor using somebody like Dr. Dino as a source in an article about austalopithecines. Lately though it looks like editors want to take this further to implement as policy a rule that all articles be vetted and approved by the "Department of the Magisterium of Skeptics Society". Do we really need the overkill here? Aren't we at a point where we can invest in some measure of confidence, both in the readers and fellow editors, that these disputes can be dealt with best simply focusing on good editing practice instead of what we think people need to told is true, or what we think people need to believe? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't something be fringe if "and only if" it is fringe within its own community? For example, for something to be a fringe astronomical hypothesis it would have to be supported by a fringe of astronomers. It wouldn't matter if 99.99% of dentists supported it.

Therefore creationism could (for the sake of argument) be a fringe belief in a scientific context if a fringe of scientists supported it, but a majority view if the majority of people support it. Where this leaves us, I'm not quite certain, but it does have some interesting implications. - perfectblue (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

no, I think that's backwards. a community of believers will never consider their own ideas as 'fringe' - if they consider the difference between their beliefs and others at all, they will tend to think that the rest of the world is clueless or deluded. fringe clearly implies a judgement with respect to 'conventional norms' made by people who hold and defend conventional norms. to adjust your example, creationism would never be considered fringe by creationists; the only people who might see it that way are people who ascribe to current mainstream understandings of the evolution of life and the geological history of the earth. --Ludwigs2 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Claims concerning mainstream opinion do not have to be WP:V in guidelines?

Would someone point to why guidelines do not have to follow other policy? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." In other words, policy applies to articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Obscured meaning

"In an article written on a well-known topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant" seems suggestive that WP:FRINGE only applies to articles on well-known topics.

As such, the original "If an article written on a well-known topic, fringe theories that may seem relevant" is more correct and far more clear.

The conditional if allows for the possibility that articles not on well-known topics can still be POV forks, can still be patent nonsense, and should still be deleted. Zenwhat (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for justifying the revert. I think the problem I have/had is that it is a run-on sentence that's fairly hard to parse, so I tried taking out the conditional aspect to simplify it. I've now inverted the second clause putting the "if" and "then" aspects closer together, leaving the sentence object at the end. The meaning is the same, but it's hopefully easier to read. Personally, I had to read the original sentence a number of times before I could understand what it was trying to say. -Verdatum (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It can also mean that in some topics there is no mainstream opinion to be considered, or the mainstream opinion is not sufficiently covered for it to be any more advanced than the fringe view. For example in very young topic or a hypothetical topic there may be no empirical evidence or answers either way. - perfectblue (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources

After a day of looking at sources for various articles, I came across a general consensus among editors across many disciplines: independent sources are the best for establishing notability and prominence of a fringe theory. I wrote a trial paragraph in the guideline to this effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources used to establish notability tend to be TV shows and newspaper articles where some news reporter on a slow news day picks up the story ("Local man with no college education invents car that runs on water"). These can be quite notable sources - but they don't really mean much because the reporter merely goes to the inventor and writes down all of the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo he's told. This doesn't truly constitute an independent source any more than the inventor's web site does. If we were able to exclude such references as being just a reporting of the original inventors words - then many such fringe theories could be placed in a much more reasonable perspective. SteveBaker (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is RS and notable and the inventor has a significant view that is different than mainstream, that may be written as a NPOV, inventor X said Y as reported by Z. If you want to exclude RS references on the basis of an editor deciding what is OR or fringe in an article, what is to prevent an editor from using the argument, ie, expert G said global warming (is or is not) man made because of foo, is original research or fringe and therefore the RS reference should not be used? Ward20 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:RS and WP:V already give guidelines on what weight to give to what types of sources.Ward20 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that newspaper reports, TV shows or anything of the sort should be used to reference global warming articles. They should be referenced from well respected, peer reviewed journals. In the case of global warming, there is absolutely no problem in doing that. The very definition of fringe theories is that they are not. Consider the following two statements:

1. Joe Schmoe claims he has invented a car that runs on water.
2. Joe Schmoe has invented a car that runs on water.

Either statement could be shown to be notable by virtue of a newspaper or TV pop.sci show talking about Joe and his amazing car. If it's reported in a newspaper then we may assume that the story has notoriety.

But only the first statement can reasonably be verified by those sources since they do not apply any reasonable degree of scientific rigor to the stories they present. A reporter for a newspaper is perfectly able to say "Joe Schmoe showed me his car - and he says it runs on water" - and if it's a reputable newspaper, we should take that as fact.

In order to back up the second statement, we need some more solid evidence than a newspaper reporter is able to provide. At this point, we need something like a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a respected journal (like 'Nature' for example) before we should be able to put that statement into the encyclopedia.

This additional rigor is required in the case of theories that go against formerly established mainstream science (including things like global warming...at least in it's early years) because in general, scientists do not feel moved to write peer-reviewed articles saying that they are NOT true. A typical mainstream physicist will simply say "I know Mr Schmoe's car can't work because I trust the first law of thermodynamics more than I do Mr Schmoe." - and will certainly not attempt to write a formal peer-reviewed paper on the subject because doing so does not advance our knowledge of such matters. In the absence of negative references - we must be extra especially careful to find fully peer-reviewed positive accounts or the encyclopedia will end up with a strong bias towards saying things that are not true.

Cold fusion is a classic example of this. It turns out (according to the mainstream) that cold fusion doesn't work. However, when the phenomenon was first put forward, it seemed likely that it might well be an amazing and interesting new effect. Papers (peer reviewed, in respectable journals) were put forth on both sides of the debate - and Wikipedia (at the time) might well have statements like "Cold fusions produces excess neutrons" - and be able to satisfactorarily reference it with an article in a journal we could all respect. Of course, eventually, the weight of evidence did swing the other way - but we could write a NPOV article based on widely available, solidly referenced material.

Global warming had a similar start to Cold fusion. Initially, it wasn't clear whether it was true or not - then lots of papers (good, solid, peer-reviewed stuff) was written - and gradually, mainstream opinion in scientific circles came to the position that it IS true. So either outcome is possible when scientific debate is engaged.

But most of the crazy theories that we'd currently label "fringe" are not like that. They've NEVER been considered reasonable enough to pass the "peer-reviewed" milestone - and they are sufficiently contrary to the mainstream that nobody even bothers to try to prove them false. They are "obviously" false in ways that neither Cold Fusion, nor Global Warming were - even at the very outset.

So while fringe theories may well be notable (as demonstrated through reliable newspapers and TV shows SAYING they are notable) - we should not say (or even imply) that they are true. All we can say is that the inventor considers them to be true but mainstream science does not...until such time as there is peer-reviewed evidence on one side or the other and we can say something more definite.

I'd also mention Patents. Patents are frequently held up by fringe theorists as proof that a machine works - when in reality, the patent offices in the USA and Europe (at least) do not even attempt to show that in the vast majority of cases. Hence all a patent really shows is that the inventor went on record as CLAIMING that his machine works - and certainly not that it actually DOES work (statement (1) versus statement (2), above).

SteveBaker (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything you say makes perfect sense, but what that is being discussed can not be addressed comprehensively by A note about publication attributions. and Sourcing and attribution? It seems to me those sections address the issue and are rigorous ways of assuring the proper weight is given to a POV that may be significantly different than the mainstream view. Ward20 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources must be appropriate for the issue. for example, a user cold hypothetically try to use tabloids to build a case for notability for something that has no notability in science, or they could equally attempt to build a case for notability by citing scientific journal entries for something that the general public has never heard of. Sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes it isn't.

For example, it would be appropriate to use newspaper entries to build a case for the notability of a local urban legend involving a genetic experiment that went wrong, even though serious scientific sources would never in a million year cover it. However, it would not be appropriate to try to build a case for the notability of a real genetic experiment using local newspapers because only scientific journals would accurately reflect the views within the scientific community. - perfectblue (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Tabloids are discussing a fringe theory (beyond passing refferences), then this demonstrates that there is a mainstream recognition of the fringe theory. The theory meets the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia that is discussed in this policy. There may be other threasholds that apply... but this one is met. Once this is determined, this policy no longer is a consideration... how we discuss it, how to phrase the discussion, how much weight to give the theory in the discussion... all that is still to be determined. We have other policies and guidelines that we turn to for those determinations.

This policy relates to whether a fringe theory is worthy of discussion in the first place ... it does not concern itself with how we discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to qualify howyu said it -- while tabloid discussion of a scientific theory would not a mainstream discussion, but show merely popular interest, in the case of an urban legend as yo uare discussing, tabloids are the mainstream source. This is probably what you meant? DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular interest is a form of "mainstream", even for scientific topics. If the tabloids are discussing a Fringe scientific theory in a serious manner, then that shows that the theory has reached a level of recognition in the "Mainstream"... it passes the threashold for inclusion in this policy. That said, I do think we need to define "tabloid" here. The National Enquirer is a "tabloid"... but so is the New York Post. However, the NYP is more serious in its coverage that the NE. I could see making a distinction between the two. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

yep, for science one is merely unsuitable while the other is absolutely impossible. DGG (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This "mainstream" business is one of the worst things in WP. It either promotes conventional science above any other POV, when interpreted to mean "mainstream science," or it promotes public opinion, or majority opinion in a particular field. Thus, in a case like EVP, it comes out to either bash the subject, or to totally marginalize the mainstream sci POV, since either science is the "mainstream," and mainstream sci hates EVP, or the majority of those who know of the subject are the "mainstream," and they believe it is spirits. Or, you have no mainstream POV, because most people probably don't know about it except as fiction. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You either misunderstand what the guideline is saying, or are complaining in the wrong place. This guideline does not say that we should promote conventional science or the Fringe... it simply says is that a Fringe Theory has to have been discussed by the mainstream. It does not matter whether the mainstream dismisses the theory or supports it... all that is required is that it has been discussed by the mainstream. In other words, it has to have achieved a minimum level of recognition... an aspect of notability. A theory can be fully in the Fringe and still pass muster with this guideline... as long as someone in the mainstream has discussed the theory beyond a passing reference.

In the case of EVP... because it has been discussed in a serious manner by numerous TV shows and news papers, it has achieved that minimum level of mainstream recognition. Thus, according to this guideline, we should have an article on it, and possibly even discuss it in other, related articles. How we discuss it; what we say about it; and how much weight to give it... these are all questions that are determined by other policies and guidelines, not this one.Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability and reliability

My recent edit [3] was mainly an attempt to decouple reliable sourcing from notability. The way the guideline was written, it didn't matter how many unreliable sources discussed the matter- reliable ones were necessary for notability. I don't think this is so. It may be true that often when a thing is notable it is discussed in reliable sources. However, a thing may be quite notable if it has been discussed by mainstream sources, but has not been picked up by reliable ones- that is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't think we should say this, because I think it is quite possible that a thing would be notable but not covered to any extent in any reliable as opposed to mainstream source. I just don't see how we can necessarily expect that a reliable source will pick things up when they are notable. For example, Psionics is notable since it is used extensively in games, but I'll bet there aren't really any reliable sources for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but please do a considerate revert, as not all my changes focused on this issue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree... The need for reliable sources is a central part of several core policy statements (repeated in WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV)... we can not simply drop this requirement because a topic is fringe. I do understand your wish to differentiate between mainstream and reliable, and that to show that a fringe theory has achieved a level of notability we should focus on mainstream. But Policy supercedes guidelines... we can not remove the need for those mainstream sources to also be reliable sources. Both are needed. Blueboar (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're completely right, I was being careless. Bad way to go out, but what the hey (:. I very much think FRINGE needs to be re-written for clarity. Frankly, it nees a wikilawyer to understand it, and all the info should be right here and clearly explained. I was totally distracted while editing, and thus got things the opposite of what I should have. I came back to revert myself, but you got to it first. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Marin, please slow down a bit. Some of your edits may indeed improve the guideline, but because you make so many changes all at once, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and decide which edits are beneficial and which are objectionable. The only option is to revert your entire edit chain and return the guidline to what is familiar. Let's go through your suggested edits (here on the talk page) one at a time, so we can think about them and discuss our concerns. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Redflag needed a mention

WP:REDFLAG is a guideline that has direct relevance to this guideline. I included it in the note about publication. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This wording is slightly different and possibly broader than in WP:REDFLAG. There should not be different wording in a guideline from that already in policy. If the wording needs to be tweaked it should be done in WP:VERIFY. Ward20 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I might try to tweak it a bit more, but good edit! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Started discussion here on this topic, tagged as dubious. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant. The tag you placed was inappropriate. See Template:Dubious for more on when that tag is appropriate. Resolve your dispute with WP:REDFLAG over there and then come back here. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear: Template:Dubious is meant for articles where a statement's fact is disputed. This template is to be used in article space, not on guidelines nor policies. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then go make it say that. It doesn't. You have this wrong, and should not be edit warring, as always. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The template is explicitly about articles. It says so in all the documentation. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ithin SA is right, but according to Wikipedia:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace there is a suitable tag, which is {{Disputedtag|section=yes}. Rather than adding it immediately, I'm making what may be some generally acceptable changes in the section. DGG (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your changes, DGG. I think that tag is at least appropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks about the tag. I agree with the changes. Don't really see why the disputed tag was such a fuss, tho. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-negotiable

For all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content WP:NPOV is non-negotiable per WP:NPOV and meta:Foundation issues. Ward20 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for fixing that. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That wording should be put back. You could consider looking in on the discussion above, quite relevant. Either I'm missing something, or REDFLAG needs adjusting. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are conflating issues. Ward20 replaced "non-negotiable" for "core" in the appropriate place. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have that backward [4]. But I was wrong in the edit summary when I said you reverted it [5]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In American English the phrase "replacing A for B" means "removing B and putting A in its place". One might also say, "replacing A with B" which means "removing A and putting B in its place". ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. You're right there, also (: Please discuss changes to this article before putting them in, and get consensus with other editors. Making a change and then edit warring to keep it in is against Wikipedia policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I've removed other than your removal (which you did without discussion) was the inappropriate templates you have placed on this guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When you edit a page, and your edit is reverted, then go and discuss it instead of inserting it again. If you don't achieve consensus for your edit, don't insert it again. That's the way it works. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tutorial. Thankfully, since there is consensus, we don't need to worry about your posturing. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

in practice at WP, there are in my view core policies, but nothing is non-negotiable. The people here can change the purpose and intent of WP in any way they choose if there were sufficient consensus--Not that they are going to change NPOV. Core is a strong enough word. DGG (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Content needs discussing

I was not involved with arbitration committee inclusion in here, but generally I do not think that the arbitration committee rulings deserve to be in guidelines or in policy. They are the opinions of a singular group of Wikipedia editors and are not binding in the same sense as consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted here below:

Arbitration Committee rulings

In December of 2006 and again in July 2007, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines concerning the presentation of topics which are fringe, questionable, or pseudoscientific. The two cases are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. The rulings set forth the following guidance:

Ruling on pseudoscience

• 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.
• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such.
• 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.

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

• Appropriate sources Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Ruling on the paranormal

Appropriate handling of epistemological status It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy.

Adequate framing Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Editorial judgment regarding reliability Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise. Exceptional claims should be supported by strong sources. Sensationalist sources, when used at all, should not be the sole sources for an article. Topics for which no reliable source can be found are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Generally considered pseudoscience Theories which have a following, such as various manifestations of the paranormal, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may, with adequate sourcing, properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Status of parapsychology Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.

Cultural artifacts "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.

Subjects without referents Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier.

Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

Three layer cake with frosting In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

---

ArbCom is the last and final authority except maybe Jimbo. That is to say, ArbComs are not the same as consensus, but consensus is formed around them. They are thus highly necessary and relevant. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? What policy says that "ArbCom is the last and final authority"? Where does it say that consensus is formed around "ArbComs"? Who agrees with you? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution. They are the final word (except Jimbo) on matters of user conduct. They have traditionally avoided matters of content, on the rationale that this is an editorial and community concern. I don't they would position themselves as the final word on matters of content, notability, and so forth, and this is a notability/content guideline. That doesn't mean that related ArbCom decisions are irrelevant - just that they should not be enshrined as something they're not. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no wish to enshrine their decision. However, they are the final word till they speak again. Thus, rather than enshrining them, we must include them till that time. Because that's the way it is till that time. We can either remove all the ArbCom stuff on fringe, or we can include both ArbComs. But we can't include only one. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is Cornerstone, Fundamental principle

Description of NPOV corrected/updated to "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia", for symmetry with current lead in to WP:NPOV as reached in discussion on WT:NPOV.

Spotted this change reverted once, I guess they missed the discussion. Please check NPOV talk before updating either page. Saves a lot of time. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is the discussion indicated above, I don't see a clear consensus, but note "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable" was removed from the first sentence of NPOV within the last few weeks. I accept the logic in harmonizing the articles in this mannor. My main concern is that NPOV guidelines for significant non-mainstream views (fringe or any other view) not allow support unfair and biased editing. Any edits I make will try to be directed toward that goal. Ward20 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, well, it's kinda unfair. Try convincing people that no, wait a second, NPOV is not a fundamental wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of wikipedia. <Grin> Not gonna happen ;-) Are you trying to tell me that that doesn't have clear consensus now? O:-)

Basically Wikipedia_talk:NPOV#The_Wrong_Version was a short continuation, after which it looks like everyone agreed.

I'm of the old fashioned nerves-of-steel I-got-no-ego-to-lose-anyhow "Put it up under live fire and if no one reverts even then, it's gotta have consensus" brigade. It worked out. :-) Hence the short and sweet talk page discussion, typical of that style.

For the record: are you stating that you will edit a guideline page to push your personal point of view, regardless of what would actually be descriptive of consensus? Just checking! O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we were talking about exactly the same issues. I only had some reservations about removing "non-negotiable", as apparently did others, but that's what collaborative writing is about, right?

As I indicated, the wording was removed and it's logical that the same wording should be harmonized between articles. Be assured the wording and principle of NPOV being a fundamental wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of wikipedia has my complete support. meta:Foundation issues was also referenced in my discussions on NPOV.

It was not my intention, "that you I will edit a guideline page to push your my personal point of view, regardless of what would actually be descriptive of consensus?" Rather, I wished to inform on the talk page a basis for my edits, "My main concern is that NPOV guidelines for significant non-mainstream views (fringe or any other view) not support unfair and biased editing, and edits I make will try to be directed toward that goal." Is that a problem? For the record, pushing any point of view is something I try to avoid, and if consensus were to change to support unfair and biased editing, I would just not participate on Wikipedia. Ward20 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to particular attribution

Wording

Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. Describing critiques of a fringe theory should not be done in a way that implies more acceptance for the fringe theory than there actually is.

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertedly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject. As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view.

Disputed wording

ScienceApologist's wording, disputed by Nealparr:

To that end, using a wording that implies particular attribution (e.g. Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable.) in place of a common knowledge critique (e.g. This idea has not received acceptance within the scientific community.) may be problematic.

---

Nealparr's wording, disputed by ScienceApologist:

If Dr. X's viewpoint is worded as a "specific example" of the viewpoint, we avoid the problem of "particular attribution" and the implication that the criticism is a minor view. See Wikipedia:Npov#Attributing and substantiating biased statements, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and the essay Describing points of view for "specific example" wording examples.

Discussion

I have finally incorporated a wording that takes into account all the comments that were made in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 2#Appeal to particular attribution. I was surprised when this issue came up again at Talk:Parapsychology. "Mass attribution" was being heralded as problematic. It may be that mass attribution is problematic in some cases. However, it needs to be made clear here that particular attribution of critiques can in some cases be problematic due to the parochial nature of fringe theories. I can find dozens of websites that support certain fringe theories and only a handful that dispute them. This does not mean that only a handful of people dispute the fringe theories and we should not be implying as much at Wikipedia. Intelligent design's lead is used as an example of this. Please discuss my bold inclusion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The particular wording you chose may not be compatible with Wikipedia:Npov#A simple formulation (specifically the part about "mass attribution" and being clear on the size of the body holding the view), Wikipedia:Npov#Let the facts speak for themselves, and Wikipedia:Npov#Attributing and substantiating biased statements, which of course are core policy. I posted the wording here so that editors can determine if it's compatible, make changes as necessary, you know, discuss it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If the opinion is indeed general, it should have sources which say so. In the example you give, Intelligent design has been spoken on by the scientific community. You therefore don't need the passage, because mass attrubution can be sourced. In the example you give at Parapsychology, you are trying to basically assert that science educators hold an opinion in general, based on one source, the California Board of Education. But in fact, though you might say it is "generally not taught in basic science classes" which would not be in dispute, what you are trying to assert is in deep dispute. First, because educational standards vary greatly over the world. Second, there are parapsychology departments or else parapsychology is taught or studied at some universities, so the opinion is not universal. Third, because it is more than likely that BOAs have generally never given parapsychology a thought- and the fact that I don't know may mean Wikipedia has no source to assert. So, while mass attribution is not a problem especially in uncontroversial areas of Wikipedia, and especially in leads, what you are proposing would gloss over disputes in fringe articles. Looks to me like you can't source your sounds-like-a-generalization at Parapsychology, and you're trying to modify FRINGE to help. I have no idea in that specific case why you think it is so important to talk about science educators, except you are one. Read the essay you talk about, Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It applies to your edits, and would generally seem to militate against mass attrubution. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the issue I have with it is that I don't believe that it is 1) compatible with core policy, nor 2) an accurate description of what happens when one "Attributes through specific example" (rather than "Appeal to a particular attribution"). Granted, especially in an edit dispute, it may appear that one is implying that the opinion is marginalized by giving a specific example, but that's not actually what's going on (and core policy reflects this). What is actually happening is that one is giving a statement authority, if done properly that is (and again, core policy shows how to do it properly). By way of example, let's take the separate issue of the parapsychology article that led to this clause being added. In that article it said "science educators at the California State Board of Education have called the subject pseudoscience". One may (especially in an edit dispute) see that attribution to a specific example as saying only the California State Board of Education calls it pseudoscience, but that's not what the statement says; it doesn't say "only". It's only perceived as saying that by biased editors involved in a dispute. Rather, the statement is actually saying "According to the California State Board of Education, parapsychology is pseudoscience". The implication there is that it is pseudoscience, because presumably the CSBoE is an authority on the matter, unbiased, neutral, and an opinion you can trust as such. That's essentially what the core policy addresses -- lending a statement it's due authority.

The example provided in this clause, Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable, never occurs, because it is an unverifiable fact. How do we know he's the only one? It's not problematic because it is an appeal to a particular attribution. It's problematic because it is an unverifiable attribution. If we drop the "only" from the statement it is still not fully parsed, because if compatible with core policy it would read "Dr. X, a neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health, says this idea is untenable." That's a correct formatting of the statement, according to policy, because it reflects Dr. X's authority in making the statement. In other words, Dr. X's authority is exceptionally trustworthy, so the reader should consider his opinion as fact. That's how it actually works. There is no appeal to a particular attribution when all the other policy and guidelines are properly used. There's no "only" involved, and the source's weight is properly conveyed by giving his credentials. It's the same thing newspapers and magazines do, demonstrate the source's authority in making the statement.

I support inclusion of the clause if heavily reworded to reflect the actual problem and a guided solution, rather than the perceived problem and a solution that uses examples that never occur. The actual problem that occurs when an "appeal to a particular attribution" takes place is that the particular attribution is not fully described to show their authority on the matter, thus marginalizing the statement and upsetting the weight the statement is supposed to carry. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's worse than that, Neal. The appeal to authority is actually in part the issue. We appeal to authority at Wikipedia because of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. However, that does not mean that our writing should engage in appeal to authority. You are getting the meta-issues of how to judge quality of sourcing confused with the actual issues of how to write plainly. That's the point that this paragraph is getting at and it is the point that you somehow missed. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We can come back to the principles in a moment, but what do you think of the specific problems I pointed out in it? You have to at least agree that the Dr. X example is bad. If someone posts an "only" statement, it's already going to be edited on verification basis. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the example bad? It is simply a suggestion of contrasts. Verifiability is ultimately what we are talking about here. If it is verifiable that a subject is fringe, it is not verifiable that only Dr. X disputes it. That's the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the example is that it doesn't imply anything, it clearly states that Dr. X is the only one who feels that way. You're saying that the problem with an appeal to a particular attribution is the implication that Dr. X is the only one who feels that way. Maybe if the example said the following, it would be a better example:

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that "only" Dr. X shares this view inadvertedly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject. As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view. If Dr. X's viewpoint is worded as a "specific example" of the viewpoint, we avoid the problem of "particular attribution" and the implication that the criticism is a minor view. See also [blah, blah blah] for specific example wording guidelines.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it! But I will say, Neal that there could easily be cases where saying "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is perfectly verifiable. Even if it is verifiable, if Dr. X is a PhD physicist and the fringe idea he is disputing is a perpetual motion machine, it is improper for Wikipedia to have wording to the effect that only Dr. X thinks this particular perpetual motion machine is impossible. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to honestly make the statement that "only" one person says anything, but I'm glad we agree on the wording. The second part of the wording that I disagree with is the other example, the one that asserts that "common knowledge" wording is preferable. I believe that actually conflicts with the WP:CK guideline that says common knowledge is often not as common as one thinks it is. I believe it conflicts, but even if it doesn't, common knowledge claims are handled on a case by case basis and shouldn't be used in a guideline as a carte blanche "good idea" to defer to. The "good idea" to defer to is the simple formula spelled out in the NPOV policy, which calls for specific examples. Since that's what the above wording calls for as well, with a note that when using specific examples one shouldn't make it appear that the example is the only case, the problematic phrase can be dropped entirely. In short: it is conflicting and unnecessary. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, Neal, honesty is not the issue. Verifiability has nothing to do with honesty other than honesty to the sources. One can, in principle, verify whether someone is the only person to make a certain kind of statement. I also think you are reading a lot into the common knowledge aspect of wording. The fact is that there are tiny little common knowledge leaps-of-faith made all the time at this encyclopedia. There was a discussion of this at WT:NOR not too long ago. We aren't beholden to a simplistic view of interpretation for sources. We can make editorial judgements and write prose that sticks to the spirit though not the letter of sources. If we weren't allowed to do this, we'd have no way of summarizing anything, for example. That's the sense in which this point is made. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

SA, you can't say honesty is not an issue beyond honesty to the sources when talking about a guideline that describes what to do when there aren't any sources to back up what you want to say, because that's what this clause is about -- an absence of sources. We can't knowingly post dishonest information, especially if we don't have to or just for the sake of driving home our assumption that a critical point of view is more widespread than the sources available on it. We certainly can't advise to do that in a guideline. And you can't appeal to a guideline that says common knowledge is not really common when trying to assert that something is common knowledge. You can make editorial judgements all you want, and everyone does, but Wikipedia says that free reign stops once the material is disputed, at which point you have to back up your claims with sources. This clause is, again, about an absence of sources. What you do when there is an absence of sources is not say it's common knowledge. You describe the viewpoint and provide specific examples that give the statement its due authority. That's entirely honest, and a good faith way of dealing with what you feel is common knowledge or what everyone should know. Obviously if it's being disputed, it's not common knowledge to the person doing the disputing, if they themselves are being honest. And most of them are. Not all advocates of fringe theories are snake-oil salesmen (bad faith). They just don't know any better (good faith). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we aren't talking about an absence of sources at all! We're talking about recharacterizing mainstream sources as peculiar rather than a la mode. You seem to be stuck deep in this fantasy world that someone is trying to criticize a subject without any sources. That's not the issue. The issue is when someone takes a source and tries to claim that what it says is only the opinion of the author when that's not the design/intention of the source. Advocates of fringe theoreis aren't necessarily hawking their wares, but they are fundamentally advocates and as such will clambor to portray their ideas in the best possible light while mitigating criticism to the greatest extent. This is the point of this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

@ScienceApologist. I reread the wording that I suggested, that you're now disputing, and I'm not exactly sure why you're disputing it. It's almost verbatim from the NPOV policy, whereas your wording is a shift away from the NPOV policy. If I didn't paraphrase it correctly, please point out where I made the mistake and offer different wording compatible with the NPOV policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is it is overly prescriptive. There are other ways to deal with the issue than using examples. Sometimes using an example can be a problem. (E.g. who do you choose for your example and why?) ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That part's easy, the most authoritative. The subject-matter expert. List several even. These are all established Wikipedia practices. Eg. "Scientists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained in parapsychology". That's a very clear sentence and carries more weight than "Scientists(weasel) are critical of both the methodology... etc." To reach Featured Article status (like parapsychology) such wording is even required. When we applied for FA status, that was what the reviewer told us to do, provide specific examples. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

FA-reviewers are not the be-all and end-all of editorial policy, nor do they speak for Wikipedia in total. The point is that your final two sentences are too demanding: they claim that you have to give an example in the text though reasonable people may conclude that this isn't necessary. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way: The two sentences of mine that you consider to be too demanding are what's expected of Featured Article review, which is itself a demanding process. If you'd like to just leave off my two sentences, that's not a big deal for a guideline. I won't object. However, your examples are problematic too, for all the reasons I listed above. Split the difference and leave them both out. Add just the agreed upon wording which is entirely compatible with policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'm fine with leaving out my examples in favor of the wording that is not disputed above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have lost track, which particular example are you in favor of? Thanks. Never mind, I see the one that was added. Ward20 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy break

I agree with Neal's points. The Dr X example seems a verification issue. The regional POV example is a good one because it illustrates that attributing to a certain group eliminates the problem that most editors edit from the perspective of their own language sources which may be skewed from the rest of the world.

Edits must attribute who believes what, WP:V requires it:

• When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion....
• It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

I also agree that some guidance could be useful when RS are scarce. I believe it can be added to the existing Reporting on the levels of acceptance section and keep it simple, perhaps, "Many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics and there may only be a small number of reliable sources that discuss them, care should be taken to attempt to fairly represent the mainstream opinion of a fringe claim." Ward20 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is when people try to make particular attribution of an opinion that is general. A designation of an idea as "fringe" automatically makes the opinion that the subject is fringe general. Otherwise we would be stuck unable to write anything. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me I am wrong, but what I believe you are implying in the last few posts above is that, a lack of mainstream consideration or acceptance "fringe" implies mainstream rejection that can be asserted due to common knowledge. Is this your position? The first three paragraphs of Reporting on the levels of acceptance do not seem to agree.

By the way, I note the header above this section says Notability versus correctness. Possibly a better title would be Notability versus acceptance. Discussion on that wording before I change it? Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, SA not trying to give you a hard time. Just trying to establish common ground in order to work out an improvement to the problem. Ward20 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You're slightly off in characterizing my concerns. I'm saying that when a fringe subject is discussed, there is a tendency for certain advocates to try to mitigate criticism by replacing an attribution of the criticism to a general group (so-called "mass attribution") with an attribution to the particular names/institutions associated with the sources. In other words, they try to avoid summary statements in place of particular statements in order to make it seem like only a few people dispute the subject when in fact every person who is a reliable independent source disputes it. More often than not, however, the implications of the actual wording in the sources are toward general attribution and so including the wording the fringe advocate would like is effectively misrepresenting the source. When the source is reliable (say, a professor or a statement of education standards) we can just take the statement as plainly verifiable and should not attempt to frame it as the opinion of only a limited few. That's the major problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for mischaracterizing your concerns. I still agree with Neal that many of the situations being discussed fall into a case by case basis with no one size fits all solution. If sources are being misrepresented, correct the misrepresention, when every person who is a reliable independent source disputes something; cite them. I have a problem with taking one professor's POV and using it to frame the opinion of many. Even the perpetual motion case is not clear cut. A PhD physicist can make a mistake (highly unlikely though) and not evaluate a process properly to account for all energy inputs and outputs so the process may not actually be a perpetual motion device. Identification of all inputs and outputs is difficult sometimes. Ward20 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not as simple as "correct the misrepresentation" when the misrepresentation is being done through particular attribution which is technically correct. The issue is that misrepresentation of a source can be done by appealing to particular attribution in the way that the current wording explains. The issue you have of "one professor's POV" is a hallmark POV-pushing argument by people advocating for the kid-glove handling of fringe theories. Such arguments are used to marginalize what is often the best sources we have on a topic. "Science can be wrong, experts can be wrong, you don't know everything" are all very tired and irrelevant points. If Professor X says a particular fringe theory is contradicted by material reality, science, etc then it should be plainly stated in the article "Particular fringe theory is contradicted by material reality, science, etc" without the bogus caveat (implied or explicitly stated) "This is only Professor X's opinion, child, so keep in mind that it's not the end of the story". Amateurs A, B, and C may very well dispute Professor X. That does not mean that we should characterize Professor X's statement as merely his "POV" since Professor X might not have the "opinion of the many" properly framed. It is, in fact, the most reliable statement we have on the subject and we should simply state it in the article with proper citation. We are ultimately called to make an editorial judgement because Professor X is deemed more credible, more reliable, and more representative of mainstream understanding. That's a good source and one that does not need particular attribution. If we allow the appeal to particular attribution of Professor X, we mischaracterize not only the Professor but also the state of the dispute which is between inherent unequals. You are making highly argumentative claims about the unreliability of experts which flies in the face of WP:V and WP:RS. Those who can be reliably judged to be the experts in a field are verifiably the best sources we have for information at Wikipedia. They should be the ones providing content. Whether they are wrong or right is irrelevant. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(<----Back out) It was not my intent to make highly argumentative claims about the unreliability of experts. WP reports opinions of experts (and I agree they can be right or wrong) from RS to show acceptance of every type of content. But we try to attribute opinions to specific groups or individuals. If opinions are wrong, WP is simply reporting who said what published by a reliable source. When the information is wrong and verifiable.... well it happens.

If WP takes the opinion of an individual expert and says it represents the mainstream or majority view without a source saying that, IMO that is not verifiable and would be original research and endorsing a POV. If the opinion turns out to be wrong WP has actively promoted faulty information. It seems to be a core principle that is not acceptable. I do not see a consensus here that WP should go against a core principle, and can understand if other talk pages also disagree with OR. If that makes me in agreement, on this particular point, with others you say have an agenda there is not much I can do about it when I believe no original research has consensus at WP. Ward20 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is, sometimes attributing to individuals or groups is inappropriate. You wouldn't say, "According to the American Physical Society a force is a push or a pull." Similiarly you wouldn't say, "According to Carl Sagan, astrology is not scientific." The problem with particular attribution is that people use it to obfuscate clear consensus facts about the fringe-status and dispute of the fringe topic. By definition the fringe topic is an opinion that is contrary to the mainstream so attributing the mainstream to a particular individual or group essentially misrepresents the fringe topic's status. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Very cogent observations. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem with extrapolating a general point from a single example occurs when different single examples contradict one another. For example, if one professor says "P" and one extrapolates the general point "P" from this, one will be faced with the contradiction P and not-P if there is another professor who says "not-P" and one extrapolates the general point not-P from that. Proper attribution ensures no such contradictions occur. That is, P and not-P is a contradiction, whereas "some say P while others say not-P" is not.

Please note that the solution here is not simply to portray one half of the contradiction and leave it at that.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to "P and ~P" being in contradiction: this is true, but in the particular case being discussed, there is no "P" - there is only "~P". There is no source that indicates that any educational boards disagree with California's on this topic. Antelan^talk 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see the full claim. If you have access to the source could you cite it here and then I will endeavor to find a "P". At the moment it is unclear what the "not-P" is.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As ScienceApologist noted at the beginning of this thread, the full issue is available at Talk:Parapsychology for your viewing pleasure. Please respond to the question I asked you on your user page. Antelan^talk 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see the actual quotation anywhere on that page.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's here. Thanks, Antelan^talk 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the quotation that provides the "not-P". I can't find it.Queue Pea Are (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Case example (separate issue from the proposal itself)

The separate issue from whether the above is incompatible or not with core policy is the specific disagreement on Talk:Parapsychology -- which wording was more compatible with Wikipedia:

• "...science educators have called the subject pseudoscience in their academic standards literature."

vs.

• "...science educators at the California State Board of Education have called the subject pseudoscience in their academic standards literature."

The source being, of course, an academic standards book published by the California State Board of Education: Science Framework for California Public Schools. California State Board of Education. [6] They say "science educators must be careful to separate science from pseudoscience and to explain the criteria for distinction" and include "parapsychology", "the study of unidentified flying objects", and "astrology" as examples where such a separation may be justified. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Those are both fine. The second is maybe a bit better, since it specifies which group of science educators has made this determination so the reader doesn't have to click on the footnote to find out. The first is also acceptable so long as it's footnoted. Is this really the level of dispute at the parapsychology page? MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'd like to see an essay written about minutia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The second is acceptable, and has been generally accepted as consensus on the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The second is not acceptable for a lead. There is no consensus for it on the talk page that I can see. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From a total outsider's perspective here, I tend to agree that the second one is better. Attribution is very important when something is declared a "pseudoscience". The first one is bit deceptive and made me think that either all science educators or at least most have declared it to be a pseudoscience. Another option might be to include some vague quantifying term such as "some science educators have called..." but I would still prefer direct attribution as will the second example above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112, you are hardly a "total outsider" here as you yourself have run afoul of the very problem I'm describing here. The fact is that most science educators, when they even bother to discuss the subject call it pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ScienceApologist, but I don't consider my position here to be a "problem" which I have "run afoul" of. I have never edited on Parapsychology to the best of my knowledge, so yes, I consider myself a total outsider here. You say that most science educators, when they even bother to discuss the subject call it pseudoscience. If you have attribution for such a statement perhaps you could just say that. Can you attribute that to a reliable source? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that we have plenty of reliable sources from science educators describing the subject as pseudoscience. However, this "plenty" is on the order of five and they are not exactly dramatic statements because parapsychology has not been as politically active as, say, creationism. Nevertheless, the statements are made by perfectly reliable sources. Also, Levine2112, you should be aware that FRINGE applies to alternative medicine articles just as much as to parapsychology. So that does make you an interested party and not an outsider. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you truly have reliable sources supporting that "several" science educators describe the subject as pseudoscience, then you could even say that with proper attribution. But we can't account for something not being called and out-and-out pseudoscience just because it doesn't have large media exposure (unless we have a reliable source which does account for this). Yes, Fringe applies to some alternative medicine articles. And I have edited some alternative medicine articles before. What's your point there? NPOV applies to all articles right. Does that mean I am never an outsider in an NPOV dispute? Not even on article which I never edited before? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We are asking a question of policy here, Levine2112, not a particular dispute. If you want to claim outsider status, go to Talk:Parapsychology. The statement: "But we can't account for something not being called and out-and-out pseudoscience just because it doesn't have large media exposure (unless we have a reliable source which does account for this)." is almost indecipherable to me. I think it's hopelessly weaseled to say that your opinion on whether something is pseudoscientific is just as good as anyone else's. My point is that it isn't. Stephen Barret's opinion that a certain alternative medicine is quackery is better than your opinion that it isn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try to decipher my quote because I believe it to be at the heart of the matter here, and I feel that your initial interpretation is one of misunderstanding based on a lack of good faith in myself. So here goes: "But we can't account for something not being called and out-and-out pseudoscience just because it doesn't have large media exposure (unless we have a reliable source which does account for this)." Essentially, this is in response to your position that when there are only a few critics or educators or learned scholars calling something "pseudo" (-science, -history, etc.) that they must be speaking for a silent majority who wouldn't bother to discuss the subject because it doesn't get much media play, but deep in their hearts they agree 100% with the vocal critics. This, in some cases, may be true. And then again, in some cases, it may not. If there aren't many people discussing it, then we can't be sure. And if we are not sure, we can't make an assumption either way. All we can do is report on what is verifiable. That may be that we can only state, "According to Dr. X, foo is pseudoscience." Or if we have Drs. X, Y, and Z, we might say, "Several critics have called foo' a pseudoscience." Or if Dr. X represents the opinions of some notable group, we might say, "According to the American Skeptics Society, foo is a pseudoscience." And finally, if it is attributable to some source which makes this claim, we might be able to say, "Though foo is only considered a pseudoscience by a few people, the American Skeptical Society attributes this to a lack of coverage of foo in the media." And yes, me being but a humble layperson of very little public notoriety, Dr. Barrett's opinion is certainly more reliable of a source than my own in terms of Wikipedia policy. However, his opinion alone, or even that of his Quackwatch network, is not reliable enough to declare something an out-and-out pseudoscience. Make sense now? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. And it's a ludicrous claim. Editors are allowed to make judgement calls based on reliablility, verifiability, etc. See the section below this one for more. You are trying to see who is "speakin" for whom. This is irrelevant to the question of how to describe topics. For example, if Dr. X says something like "there is no evidence that chiropractic care aids in cancer remission" it is not necessary to attribute that reliably sourced and verifiable fact to Dr. X as though it is solely his opinion and not representative of general consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is necessary to attribute. Also, without sources saying so, how do we know that Dr. X's opinion is representative of general consensus? If we are only relying on editors' judgments then we will be doomed to argue endless about POV issues with editorial judgment. Further, I disagree that there is a consensus to add this to the policy as of yet. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question is one that has to be made as an editorial point-of-order and is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We aren't here to decide what is and isn't general consensus. That has to be done when determining that something is a fringe theory or not (other parts of this guideline describe this). Your disagreement is noted, but since you haven't specifically disagreed to any part of the suggested wording, I reverted your removal in good faith. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think that if the new wording is going to be used to justify broadening the specific authority of a source to a mainstream authority it is OR, and does not agree with the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section which states, "Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." To me, that indicates the specific authority of a source should be included with the reporting of the criticisms. New material about levels of acceptance should be in that section anyway. The fact that the new material is going into a different section does not make any sense. Ward20 (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The "authority" of the source is relevant to the reliability of the source. If you have an issue with how reliability is judged, please argue at WP:RS. What you are missing is that after the determination of the reliability of the sources is made per the section you quote, fringe POV-pushers have historically maintained a desire to continue to marginalize the source by appealing to particular attribution. This is why we have a separate section: to make it clear that this kind of behavior is problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair depiction. Who you call "fringe POV-pushers" may actually be pushing for NPOV. For if just one independent critic is calling something fringe, it would be an NPOV violation to such a thing fringe in its Wikipedia article. Rather, if the criticism is mentioned at all, it should be attributed to the critic (if the criticism cannot be shown to be representative of anything but the critic's view). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And if "ifs and ands" were pots and pans there'd be no need for tinkers. What is your point? So what if the goal or intention of the individual is to support NPOV. If their editorial actions push away from NPOV in favor of promoting fringe POVs then they are fringe POV-pushers. You are missing the major point: fringe POV-pushers believe that there is only a small number of critics disputing their particular bag of hokum. They are wrong and it is easy to show that they are wrong if we allow reliable sources to speak for themselves. As soon as we start making commentary on the number and type of reliable sources (attacking the messenger, as it is done with Robert Carroll and Stephen Barrett) then we begin to pander to the minority in defiance of WP:WEIGHT, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(<----Back out)Reply to SA. Even though you say fringe POV-pushers have misused a source it is no reason to advocate OR to combat it. I did not say I had an issue with how reliability is judged, so that was unfair. I am not missing anything, I understand your argument and I reject it. Any issues with reporting on acceptance should be in that section not a new section. I don't know that there is much more to say because it seems we are now just repeating the same issues. Ward20 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is advocating original research. I'm advocating removing particular attribution when it is used inappropriately to try to imply or explicitly state marginalization of the mainstream idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you seek opinions if the opinions that you validate is only used to reinforce your pre-existing thoughts upon the subject? seicer | talk | contribs 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you follow me from place to place? If you're going to ask me loaded questions, maybe you should do it in more appropriate venues like my talk page, for instance. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a parody of wiki process. We have consensus at Parapsychology, a consensus clearly based on WP standards and one user in dissent. Nothing more. That same user managed to get the BOA thing in there in the first place, without any real discussion of whether it's notable. That was a compromise. Why all this discussion? It's not up to us to defend our positions. It's up to the user who wants to include something to convince us they're right. Stop being defensive, and start requiring good reasons, sourcing, attribution and editing behavior. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Martin, it seems like some interesting issues and viewpoints have been discussed. There has been a meeting of the minds on a few points, and you never know when someone will come up with a real jewel that can be used to solve an issue. Ward20 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true, yes. Doubt there is a problem with current policy, but anyway... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses

• The CBE may be taken as an acceptable proxy for the general view of educators, barring conflicting sources from other major educators' groups that have taken an alternative stance. If you think there are major educators' groups that disagree, sources would be helpful. I don't think there is controvery here; there is certainly no need for us to manufacture any or to pretend like the CBE's stance is the exception rather than the rule. Antelan^talk 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I told SA on the parapsychology talk page, it's not like every science educator shares that view ("mass attribution"). For example, Coventry University (accredited and reputable) offers a Master of Science course in transpersonal psychology and parapsychology.[7][8] As the parapsychology article indicates, the UK has a more tolerant view of the topic than perhaps the US has. What would you say to Martinphi's contention that using a California source has geographic issues? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, since California has a stereotypical reputation, in the US, for welcoming and embracing trends and beliefs which other parts of the country might consider out there. But that's neither here nor there. :) MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

During my undergrad years at Edinburgh university I learned that we had what was effectively a "parapsychology" department. Apparently it was set up in order for the university to benefit from the will of a wealthy proponent of psi. The department itself had absolutely no credibility with the rest of the faculty. I can't say that Coventry has a similar situation, but I would be surprised if the faculty of that university had a particularly pro-psi belief. Just a point to bear in mind that UK universities have a lot of historical whimsies. Jefffire (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As you go up the heirarchy of administration, attitudes toward parapsychology grow more negative. I have little doubt that in general parapsychology is held in low esteem, at least within the opinions which would be outwardly expressed of higher faculty- if they gave it a thought. That isn't the issue. That's OR on my part. The issue is what you can say and have it be within our policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another example

To keep this discussion generalized and avoid getting into specifics about the Parapsychology article... let's look at another example, from a different field: History. Here is a typical situation:

In recent years there has been a lot of pseudo-historical "speculative history" written about the fate of the Medieval Knights Templar after they were arrested by Philip the Fair and supressed by the Church... that they survived in some form (the usual tale is that they fled to Scotland, just in time to assist Robert the Bruce at Bannochburn). This core theory then spins off additional theories about what happened to them after that... how they discovered America, years before Columbus... how they evolved into the Freemasons, or the Illuminati, or the Priory of Sion, etc. ... Theories also spin backwards in time... how the Knights must have discovered some important secret in the ruins of the Solomon's Temple to warrent their fame, influence and prosperity: perhaps it was a vast treasure... perhaps it was some sort of secret writings containing "proof" that Jesus did not die on the Cross, or that he had children, or containing the wisdom of the ancient Egyptions, etc. etc. A good example of all this is the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"... the book that inspired Dan Brown's purely fictional "The DaVinci Code".

Now, because so much has been written, these theories are notable enough that we can not simply exclude them from Wikipedia. They may be Fringe, but they are notable Fringe. The problem comes when attempting to write accurate articles about them. These theories and speculations are routinely dismissed by historians as being entertaining but fundamentally flawed pseudo-history... even pure fiction. However, because the theories are considered so absurd, few serious historians have ever bothered to even comment on them. There is a distinct lack of "counter argument" or refutation. This makes it difficult to include the majority view of historians when writing articles about these theories. Fans of the theories ask for verification that the theory is dismissed, and there is very little out there that can be cited (and, as SA points out above, the POV pushers will argue that the few refutations that do exist mearly represent the opinion of the historians in question and are not proof of a general dismissal by the majority.)

The point of my example is that Fringe theories are often met with bemused silence by the majority of scholars in any field of study... be it the humanities or the hard sciences. Few scholars bother to publish refutations of fringe theories. So what are we to do? How do we represent the majority view, when the only evidence of that view is silence? Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good non-science example of the core problem that ScienceApologist is hitting on. Sorry I don't have a solution yet. Antelan^talk 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

well, there isn't silence on that general example. It's enough to find something that can be said to represent the scholarly consensus. The problem comes only with the really minor works that nobody bothers about refuting. Here, we may have to go to a scholarly consensus about the subject as a whole, not the book specifically. And this applies to parapsychology as well. DGG (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. There is a problem for SA here, in that the general scholarly consensus -or at least the consensus among the major critics like Randi and Hyman- is that parapsychology is science, not pseudoscience. Not to bust your careful generalization (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place to start debating contested details of specific examples. If you want to try to see if people agree with your view, you could bring that to the Parapsychology talk page, for example.Antelan^talk 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'll read above, you'll see we moved the discussion on the parapsychology talk page here. My point was that what DGG says would have the opposite effect of what some editors on this page would like. Personally, I think current policy is fine. The thing is that scholarly view is a) not usually majority and b) different from the skeptical view and c) in a few cases not expressed at all, in which cas people often want to portray the skeptical view as the scholarly view. My point with parapsychology is that even the skeptical view is less skeptical than some here would like. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that your opinion is not uncontested, and this isn't the place to be starting up an argument about the claims you've been asserting. Antelan^talk 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep this section about the "other example", not parapsychology. If we're going to write a guideline to address this that sticks, it will need to be applied to a number of topics. @Blueboar, what do you think of the wording examples above? Do you think it will help address the problem? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Martin, you are using what I said out of context in a number of ways:

1. The problem was about the presentation of evidence when there is little or no discussion among scientists, not over the general status of a subject
2. I disagree with your statement of the scholarly consensus on the irrelevant matter you raised --at most it's a failed attempt to try to make something into a science
3. most important, I think it lame to argue over labeling, and a debate on this is about as useless as we can possibly get.
   

DGG (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if I'm understanding right: you feel that one scholarly source can be generalized, even if sources addressing the subject from mainstream scholars are not avaliable. In other words, A claims fringe THEORY, and there is mainstream scholar B who says it isn't so. So, we say that "the mainstream view of THEORY is that it is not correct." and source to B. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution to this dispute is common sense. If an article on a fringe topic is written neutrally and accurately, then it will be clear to a reader of average sophistication that it's a fringe topic. If it's not clear from the article that a topic is fringey or non-mainstream, then the article is not neutral or accurate. To go back to favorite example, if a reader comes away from the article on AIDS reappraisal thinking, "Boy, there's a real scientific debate about whether HIV causes AIDS!", then the article is inaccurate and non-neutral. That doesn't mean that we need to beat people over the head or assign a "mainstream" view where none exists. When people resort to "the mainstream view is X", it's often because the article is written from an overly credulous or sympathetic POV and does not make the real status of the subject clear. This is an art, not a science (if I may). MastCell ^Talk 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the proposed text

Sentence by sentence:

• Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories.
  • Absolutely. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them.
  • How would we know that "almost no one supports them"? This is an assumption which can be skewed by editorial POV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Levine, that's the definition of a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Surely. But my point is that if there is only one independent critic, then how are we suppose to know that the theory is fringe. There's an assumption being made which would compromise WP:NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • You're reading too much into the example and adding content that isn't there. There is no indication that there is only one independent critic.ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • If I am reading too much into the example, then know that other will too. We need to make it clear, because the way I am reading into this is completely valid. One critic doth not make a subject fringe. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • It's not our job to guess at the subtext and innuendo readers will force into wording. If you have an alternative wording you can propose to avoid your misconceptions, let us know. But as I've clearly explained that guideline is not saying what you are believing it implies, then I have no choice but to wait for you to offer a counterproposal. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim.
  • Why not? If we can only attribute criticism to one independent source unrepresentative of the community at large, then how can we to assume that this one source is representative of the community at large? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • See above, Levine. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic.
  • On the same token, if there are only a few sources actively disputing a theory, then perhaps the theory is not fringe after all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not the issue being addressed by this part of the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that issue should be addressed then. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It is addressed, elsewhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Where? Please quote. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Read the guideline yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Describing critiques of a fringe theory should not be done in a way that implies more acceptance for the fringe theory than there actually is.
  • On the other hand, describing one source's critique should not necessarily be done so that it misleads the reader into thinking that this one critique is representative of the the community at large. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The point is that if a source is representative of the community at large because it is reliable and says so, it shouldn't be taken to be a singular opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure, if the the source is truly representative of the community at large. But we should clarify that in this policy - that the source must truly be representative of the community at large. Otherwise, if it is a singular opinions, then that must be attributed as such. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The source is truly representative because it is reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Just because a source is reliable, does not mean that it is truly representative of the community at large. It may only mean that it is a reliable source of the critic's opinion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The definition of a reliable source is that what the source is saying we can take to be reliable. So if a source says, "This machine violates the second law of thermodynamics" then we can say, "This machine violates the second law of thermodyanmics" and cite our sources. It's that simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertantly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable".
  • Why not? If the only source we have of the the criticism is Dr. X, then how do we know that Dr. X's viewpoint is representative of the community at large? (Also, "inadvertantly" is spelled wrong. It is "inadvertently".) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We know it because Dr. X is a reliable source and said so. The spelling is corrected in the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If Dr. X is only a singular opinion and not representative of the community at large, then we must attribute this as such. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The point is that this isn't a singular opinion. You are making exactly the bad arguments that this part of the guideline is explaining. Read it again. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Then the policy should make it clear that this isn't regarding singular opinions but rather opinions representative of the whole community. Otherwise, Dr. X is only speaking for Dr. X, regardless of his/her reliability. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • It is clear. That's what the wording is about. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject.
  • Why is it likely? We can not make this assumption without violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Because it is a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • How do we know it is fringe then? We would be making an unsafe assumption. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Not relevant to this discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I believe that this strikes at the core relevance of this policy. If there aren't very many if but one source calling something fringe, then how are we to rightfully call it so? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • That's an issue for demarcating fringe: this occurs elsewhere in the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view.
  • Certainly. But this goes two ways. If the critic is representative of a large body or the community at large (and this can be documented), then there isn't a problem. However, if there is just one independent critic, we shouldn't represent the critic's view to be representative of more than that what it verifiable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If the critic is a reliable source for the topic she is commenting on, then the critic's statement can be taken to be a verifiable and reliable source for a statement properly framing the article's subject in light of the general topic, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Disagree. The critic's opinion needs to be shown to be representative of the community at large before we make any such assumption. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • By virtue of the fact that this critic is a reliable source who is explaining a topic, this makes your argument about determination of the representative nature of the critic's remarks irrelevant and exactly why this wording needs to go through. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Just because the critic is a reliable source of his/her own opinion does not make that same critic a reliable source of the opinions of the community at large. This needs to carefully explained. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • • No, that's an editorial judgment the authors must come to. We are not equipped to explain when one source is representative or when another source is representative. Researchers for the articles have to do this. In other words, your point is not something on which we can guide editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If Dr X's statements are indeed "Well sourced" - then we may assume one of three things about these sources. Either:

1. The source backs up the fact that he holds this theory - but not that what he said was in any way demonstrably true. This might be true of (for example) an interview with Dr X in a reliable newspaper article - or an article on Dr X's website or that of some unqualified layman supporter.
2. The source backs up not just the fact that he said it but because the source is a trusted, peer-reviewed journal - that Dr X's views are not 'fringe theories' - they are at least sufficiently reputable for his peers to accept the article.
3. There is not only Dr X's peer reviewed article - but multiple positive references to it in other peer reviewed articles by other people in Dr X's field.

In the first case, Dr X may still be a nut job and his theory is very likely 'fringe'. In the second case, he may be in a small minority - but he's not a nut job, but a moderately well respected scientist who merely has an alternative theory. The latter is something we should at least mention in our article (although without giving Dr X undue weight if there are few qualified people agreeing with him). In the third case, his views may still not be the "accepted view" but they are so strongly supported that our article should give a balanced view of Dr X's theory and that of the mainstream.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who screwed it up and why?

The rationale behind WP:FRINGE is supposedly "Therefore other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims."

This screws up the idea behind FRINGE, and by that definition nothing is ever fringe. ID for example has plenty of "well-known", "reliable" (to someone who believes it) and "verifiable" sources. Much esoterica does too, and summarizing the cruft would not make WP a "primary source." (by any definition). Moreover this page is not for carrying on that asinine "primary source" debate for frchrissakes! These clowns are no better than the blockheads who are convinced that their sources on XYZ is "reliable"; its all just another shade of the notion that their mission/idea/position is TheRightOne^TM The pox on them and their pathetically tiny minds.

So, would someone please wikitrout the behind of whoever put that cruft in there and fix the page accordingly. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Burden of proof

As I understand it, a claim like "X is not supported by organized science" is pretty much outlawed, because the need to cite sources requires skeptics to prove a negative. If a scientist criticized X, that can be proven, but if no scientist bothers to discuss X, that can't be proven. Outlawing "X is not supported by organized science" makes it difficult to explain that a subject is not scientific. And that difficulty, in turn, helps explain why there is a tolerance of, um, extreme countermeasures. So has any thought been given to changing however many rules we have to change in order to reverse the burden of proof, so that believers have to show that their subject is supported by organized science instead of vice versa? Art LaPella (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the case at all. You can say "X is not supported by organized science". In fact, something very similiar is in parapsychology ("To date, no evidence has been accepted by the scientific community as establishing the existence of the paranormal."). Similar wording exists in many fringe topic articles, and it's usually easy to source. I haven't seen any editors seriously argue that you can't say "X is not supported by organized science".

The reason it's not controversial is because one must prove a positive to state the opposite. If one were to want to say "Organized science supports X", they would need to find a reliable source backing that up, from organized science. The burden of proof rests with them. What editors seem to have a problem with is when someone wants to say "No one supports X", either directly or by implication, especially when they have sources that say something else. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If something is merely not written about - then perhaps we should say nothing. The difficult ones for me are when (for example) a particular gizmo is clearly in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (I'm thinking of Perpetual motion machines) - and it is indeed the case that nobody has written "This gizmo is in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics". This is the tough one. It's not just that it hasn't been written about - it's that it's so blindingly obvious that it can't work that no scientist will take a second look at it - much less write about it in a peer-reviewed journal. Yet anyone with half a brain and a science education can look at the inputs and outputs of the machine and see that it's in violation of the 1st law. The difficulty is that if you explain in the article the reasons why it's in violation of the 1st law, that's Original Research - but if you just boldly assert that it's in violation of the 1st law, then you have an unsourced statement that you'll never find a reference for. What I've been doing is the latter and simply tagging it with a reference to the laws of thermodynamics - but I feel that's doing our readers a disservice when a simple explanation of WHY it violates those laws would make things much clearer. SteveBaker (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be something to be said for deleting many perpetual motion machines. Presumably, the only ones that are notable are the ones that have been criticized. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am, by nature, an inclusionist. It bothers me that someone, seeing a claim by some fraudster to be able to produce free energy, might look to Wikipedia to discover whether this claim is true. If we don't have an article - then they are at the mercy of a clever sales pitch. We have the unique opportunity to be the first place to contain all of human knowledge - which includes clear descriptions of why each even mildly notable perpetual motion machine doesn't work. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The major problem is when the only sources out there are the couple fringe sources promoting it. We certainly can't use just them to make an article. I suppose that one of us could figure out what's wrong with the machine and publish it in an equally reputable or better source - parity of sources, after all - but then we're back to SA's point =) Also, we can,of course, use general sources. "This machine, like all perpetual motiion schemes, violates the fist law of thermodynamics" For examples of this being done, see Arsenicum album Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Not supported" is different from "rejected," and is also different from bland and bald statements of fact based on specific narrow sources. In fact, "not supported" and "not investigated" and "not accepted" are fine. It's when you get into "rejected" that you really have to have sources. That's because "rejected" is a positive claim, while "not accepted" or "not investigated" is often a) not controversial and b) anyone who wants to say differently can easily get a source if they are right. The same applies to "no evidence." That's a positive claim which needs a source. Also, any statement about the "scientific community" needs a source if it makes a "postive" claim, by which word I mean a claim for which the burden of evidence is rightly on the the person making the claim. "The scientific community rejects the efficacy of arsenicum album" needs a very good source, while "The pharmocological and medical community has not accepted the efficacy of arsenicum album" does not. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom cases are not case law

I have removed this text: It is Wikipedia's convention that arbitration committee rulings are considered precedent and carry the weight of policy. Those editing articles dealing with fringe theories and pseudoscience are bound by these precedents. That is incorrect. ArbCom cases are not policy, but application of policy in a specific set of circumstances to address a specific editing behavior. ArbCom does not define, set, change r otherwise propose changes to policy, let alone set precedents for policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution

Also deleted that section that is very much in contradiction with existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what's wrong with it, because I picked through it piece by piece, discussed it heavily with the contributor who added it, removed the parts that were contradictory, and what was added was only the condensed compatible version. I don't feel there is anything contradictory with existing policies in the condensed version. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The removal seems to be a bit pointy. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It violates WP:NPOV. All what you need in this regard is WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. Describing critiques of a fringe theory should not be done in a way that implies more acceptance for the fringe theory than there actually is.

No one can add the WP:SYN by stating that "only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim". If there are people that dispute it, we describe these without making further assumptions of consensus of sources or lack therrof.

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" may be impossible to verify and is an obvious case of "particular attribution", however, we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertantly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". It is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's criticism of a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject. As such, the statement may be misleading on how many people actually share that view.

We cannot say in an article that Person X is the "only" source for claim Z. We can only say that Person X claims Z. (unless, of course, the statement that person X is the only source for claim Z is reported in a reputable source, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, Jossi, either you don't understand the guideline because you have a problem reading it or you are deliberately obfuscating for the sake of obstructionism. Neither of your points are valid. You are assuming that we are directing an editor to say "only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim" or "Person X is the only source for claim Z" when in fact we are saying that editors should not do that. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading it Jossi (I reread it several times myself). It is actually stating that we can't do that and why. It's saying no one can add the SYN that "only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim" and that we shouldn't say "Person X is the 'only' source for claim Z". Those were actually the reasons for adding it in the first place, I disputed certain wording, and that was the condensed version resulting from the dispute. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If people are misreading it, then it's obviously unclear. I've had a go at a tweak for clarity. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with a clarification, after all, guidelines are there to provide these type of clarifications. The problem is that the explanation in that section was not reflecting policy, and it needs to be framed as such. E.g. based on the wording of existing policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree here with jossi and Shoemaker. Shoemaker, thanks for the clarity tweak. jossi, the suggestion you have to frame it within the wording of existing policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN will most likely solve the issues I enumerated above. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is actually fairly new, having been added in the last week or two, so I think we should expect it to be rewrote and rehashed a fair bit. As for my opinions on the section itself, per Jossi's suggestions: I pretty much agree, though I'd add in a dash of WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience to help delineate why fringe theories need extra care. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the alternative to "Dr. X says this idea is untenable"." ? If the alternative is "this idea is untenable," we should just drop this section- and in fact state that one must use attribution. As someone who knows how this kind of thing is dealt with on the ground, I can tell you that the alternative mentioned is actually how it is done, and it's very bad. Want diffs? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Boldly rearranged paragraph so redundant sentence can be removed. I believe it is more readable and stronger this way but I could be wrong. Ward20 (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for second paragraph:

Suppose source X states, "Scientist Dr. Y says Z is untenable". A statement such as "Dr. Y is the only scientist who says Z is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". In order to present a neutral view, it may be stated, "Source X states, scientist Dr. Y says Z is untenable." In this way the reader may decide for themselves the authority Dr. Y's view represents based upon the reputation of source X.
Ward20 (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that's certainly a lot closer to NPOV than what we have now. Good job. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that if Dr Y really is the only guy who says this then we may be guilty of giving him undue weight if we don't qualify his statement as being in some way and extreme minority position. I agree we can't say that he's the only scientist to say this - there is no way to know that, yet alone produce sources that prove it. SteveBaker (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused. Dr. Y is a scientist published in a RS that criticizes fringe theory Z as wrong. Other scientists have not published criticism of fringe theory Z in RS for what ever reason.

So are you saying, "if Dr Y really is the only guy who says this then we may be guilty of giving him undue weight if we don't qualify his statement as being in some way an extreme minority position."? Ward20 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. SteveBaker (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That will never be the case. Wikipedia doesn't consider self-published sources to be reliable, so Dr. Y will never be the only one who says something, by proxy the publisher is saying it too at the very least. Wikipedia also doesn't consider singular opinions to be notable, so Dr. Y's opinion will never make it into Wikipedia unless it is shared by others. This is kind of getting off point. The point is not to make widespread opinion look small by attributing to a particular attribution, not the other way around. Tiny, unnotable opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Ward20 has a good idea here. Not sure how well it would work in leads where you want to keep the word count down. But basically, this idea is about right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps SB has a very valid point. There appears to be consensus concerning SA's issue about abusing a scientist's view through particular attribution. However, there seems to still be loggerheads about NPOV; not making widespread opinion look small, or a singular opinion look mainstream, when addressing fringe issues. I keep referring back to the Reporting on the levels of acceptance section, and in particular, "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 originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the 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 sources that do the criticizing." This is a complex issue and all the information we are trying to convey is spelled out in Wikipedia Neutral point of view and its tutorial.

What if we say:

Suppose a reliable source states, "Scientist Dr. X says fringe theory Y is untenable". A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". For guidance on how to present criticism from a neutral point of view, refer to: Wikipedia Neutral point of view and its tutorial.
Ward20 (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Undent.... Well that would certainly work fine. But I think the whole point of putting it in the article was that people like, ah, me were insisting that we say stuff like "Scientist Dr. X says fringe theory Y is untenable" instead of "fringe theory Y is untenable". I've never seen someone try to say something like "Dr. X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable." Perhaps it happens. But since we've just decided that NPOV and ATT require that we say directly where we get controversial information, I'm not sure anyone wants to leave the whole section in the article at all. I thought that the idea to say what publication Dr X wrote in was good. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But that is the entire problem. WP:NPOV says (quoting from Jimbo himself):

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

...but that is precisely NOT the case for fringe scientific theories. Suppose John Q. Nutjob claims to have invented a car that runs on water...the majority scientific viewpoint is that this is bullshit because it's a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics and not even worth considering. Now - per Jimbo in WP:NPOV - how easy is that to substantiate with a reference? Well, I'm sorry Jimbo but it's completely impossible. Not one serious scientist is going to write a paper in a peer-reviewed journal saying that water fuelled cars are impossible. But we're still OK if the nutjob doesn't get much publicity - if his claim is non-notable, we just delete the Wikipedia article and we're done. But what if his crazy claim gets reported on a mainstream TV show or published in a mainstream newspaper (think Stanley Meyer) - and if that story takes off as an Internet meme (as virtually every "Car that runs on water" does) - then we have J.Q.Nutjob's claim (which is definitely notable and sourced) versus...what?...nothing. Then - enter onto the stage an established scientist who backs up these crazy claims in print. Now what?

Somewhere we need to say that this thing can't possibly work because thermodynamics says so. How do we do that?

Incidentally: This is business of an established scientist backing a crazy theory is certainly not a theoretical possibility: Dr. Rustum Roy is an established scientist, working at Cornell University with a long history of really solid science (and a biography on Wikipedia). He is also a strong and vocal supporter of John Kanzius's fringe theories about the combustion of water and also believes that homeopathic preparations change the structure of water. So what happened? Is there some truth to Kanzius' bizarro theories? Nope. Sadly, Dr. Roy is now 85 years old - since retirement as a working chemist 20 years ago, he's "lost it" - he's taken up bizarre eastern religions and started working on magnetic whole body healing and all sorts of other bullshit pseudo-science. I've spoken to one of his ex-colleagues (via email) and he believes that Dr Roy is no longer to be considered a creditable source as he's suffering Altzheimer-like symptoms. Sadly, Dr Roy's credentials as "A Scientist at Cornell" and "An established chemist with a strong reputation" are trotted out at every Kanzius press briefing - and journalists too often swallow things like that without checking them.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some mainstream source will have dealt with it, or it would not be notable. So you have a scientist who backs it up. Well, here is what you can do. First, you say that the claims have not been accepted by the mainstream. That's established because no mainstream journal has published the research. Now, if it's really that notable, there will be at least some refutation. And it will say the basics for you. However, if it is you who are saying "pseudoscience," while reliable sources say otherwise, then you'd have a problem. As with your example [9]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. But here is my problem: User:Martinphi says:

First, you say that the claims have not been accepted by the mainstream. That's established because no mainstream journal has published the research.

But User:Ward20 says:

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution"..

So how can I say (and produce references for) the fact that "no mainstream journal has published the research"? None of us have read ALL of the mainstream journals going back (say) 5 to 10 years. That's exactly the same problem as saying that "Dr X is the only scientist who says Y is untenable" when I don't know what every scientist has said.

Hence Ward20's assertion that I can't say that no other scientist said it is in direct contradiction to Martinphi's assertion that I CAN say that no journal said it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, there are several solutions in this sort of case:

1. Go up a level: If we have one or more RS saying that all schemes of type Y are nonsense because of fundamental scientific principle Z, then we can say that "Like all Y, these claims violate fundamental scientific principle Z, and thus cannot work unless centuries of work on Z are wrong.
2. Go up a level then back down: Go up a level for general discussion, then use Dr X's specific discussion to fill things in. This changes it from "Dr. X says that Y is untenable because of A, B, C and D" to, "Like all claims of type Z, Y is untenable under mainstream science, because of A, B, and E.[1][2][3] Dr. X investigated Y specifically, and found that it has problems C and D as well.[4]"
3. Parity of sources: While reported in a few newspapers, the main information about claim X comes from the author's website. Hence we may use such resources as ScienceBlogs, James Randi, Quackwatch, and other, similar high-end skeptical sites to discuss claim X. Indeed, even publication in most fringe journals, such as the so-called Evidence-based Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (which publishes some downright bizarre stuff), probably rank below many good-quality websites.
4. Secondary expansion on sources: High-quality RS X dismisses these claims, but doesn't go into much detail. Source Y is still reliable, but not on the level of X (say the aforementioned ScienceBlogs and James Randi.) We can use Y to expand on discussion in X.
5. Check for problems with source: Claim X about pseudoscience Y is published in Z. Z is described by sources A, B, and C as merely a platform to allow advocates of Y to have an uncritical say. Z is hence a questionable source, and falls under the restrictions of WP:SELFPUB (I know, it sounds like it's about self-published sources. It's actually about Self-published and questionable sources.)
6. Stubify: WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience are clear: Minority views must be presented as minority views, and the majority views as the majority. If insufficient sources exist to discuss X under these guidelines, then X should be cut down to whatever size allows it to be presented in an NPOV manner using the sources available, not allowed to expand indefinitely using unchallenged fringe sources. Even if that means trimming it down to a stub or fairly short article for now, it is a breach of policy to let minority views be presented uncritically as the majority, so that may be the only way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with Shoemaker's response is that as soon as you start treating blogs by people with no scientific background (e.g. James Randi) as more scientific that peer-reviewed journals published by one of the world's foremost academic publishers (e.g. the OUP) then you undermine the whole notion of RS to such an extent that it creates a kind of free-for-all.Queue Pea Are (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On 1. we have the problem of it being original research most of the time. On a perpetual motion machine, the machine will almost never be described as such except by critics, but will claim a new source of energy, for which specific fefutation will be required.

On 3. We already do that. If attributed, it's fine. But we don't rank them below the alternative sources you speak of- no justification, as both are highly partisan sources, and only Occam's razor to distinguish between them.

On 4. that is the definition of WP:SYNTH

On 5. We already question sources. Fine. But we don't shrink away from using the best sources in the field, properly attributed. For example, a personal or organizational website on a fringe claim.

On 6. Boy, does we have ourselves a problem: Guess what? The skeptical view is very very often in the extreme minority. Wanna go there? Or would you rather keep ignoring the "majority/minority" clause when talking about fringe theories?

On the whole, this doesn't seem to present a solution. And the problem is not with current policy, but with simply a failure to trust the reader to look at the context and digest the mainstream scientific sources and the critical sources. We don't ever actually need more than we have.

To SteveBaker, I think it is generally a non-controversial statement to say that a thing is not considered accepted by mainstream science. We don't need a source for that, because it is the default: if it weren't so, there would be sources to say it is accepted. So "not accepted" is non-controversial unless accepted can be sourced. Even if we can't determine if a mainstream journal has published, we can at least say this, and that should be enough. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1 may sometimes be, but certainly is not always OR. An article on a specific homeopathic remedy is still covered by the mainstream view on homeopathy's tenets. 4 is not at all synth if source Y is also talking about the same subject: My intended point was that if we have sources showing that the mainstream view is that the concept is bunk, but don't go into much detail, then we don't need to worry as much about parity of sources in order to bring in more detail. As for 6, WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience define majority and minority as being in respect to the mainstream fields of research they belong to. As well, to quote the recent arbcom case on Pseudoscience: "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." and "What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." Hence, yes, I do want to go there, as it's highly relevant. 6 is certainly not an ideal solution, but it may be necessary in some cases where fringe theory proponents have created excessively detailed sets of pages on their fringe theory, more than any mainstream source will cover. If there's 63 wikipedia pages on minor fringe theory C, it will be difficult, and often impossible, to find mainstream sources that go into similar detail, and the coverage of the theory has far outgrown what Wikipedia can cover while staying within policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

of course it's generally non-controversial, but we are dealing with the problems when it's otherwise. For a similar example, there's an article where I want to make the statement that: "There are no completed level II trials for this therapy, and the only reported level I trial is thus-and-so". Now, I am personally capable of doing the research for this and probably accepted as a expert for such searches (I've done them for my University's Human Research committee). But I have not inserted this statement because it would represent original research. Similarly I think I am qualified to say there are no mainstream papers on a particular subject--I've been giving that as an expert opinion to researchers for many years. I would have no hesitation saying this at an Afd, & I certainly have done so many times by now. But I do not know how to say it in a Wikipedia article. DGG (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the NPOV FAQ is the only place where there is a direct link between science and "mainstream." It has not been accepted as policy. If you feel that this is the case, then you need to have a policy discussion about it: policy should directly state that "when discussing claims of reality the term 'majority view' is used to mean the scientific consensus in the relevant respected mainstream scientific field." As it is, "mainstream" however flawed a means of sorting out WP, does not mean any such thing.

REDFLAG needs help as well: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." That's in conflict with the Notability guide. We should take out hundreds of articles by that standard. Also, I don't see any equation of "mainstream" and "mainstream science".

Further, the Pseudoscience ArbCom was talking about pseudoscience as it appears in mainstream scientific articles. See the locus. This context cannot be excluded. For an ArbCom talking about fringe articles, the nearest thing is the Paranormal ArbCom.

Not sure what you mean by this: "coverage of the theory has far outgrown what Wikipedia can cover while staying within policy."

If you mean that some of the pages should be deleted, delete them. If you mean WP can't adequately cover it while staying within existing policy, that might have something to it. So, go change policy, and then come back here and change Fringe. That would be fine, it's just a longer haul than you were probably expecting.

1. It's true what you say, but it's not OR because the source is talking about the subject, which is Homeopathic remedies in general, and the subject is one of those.

4. Right. Would have to be very clear. I basically thought you meant what I've seen people want to do: Fringe theory A states B, and skeptical source C says "not B," and textbook D says a lot of stuff about the general subject area of A but is not talking about A , so we go and augment C with D to criticize B (for example, you might have a textbook on chemistry used as a source for refuting in a Homeopathy article). That's SYNTH. Sounded like what you were saying. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, the NPOV/FAQ has been accepted as policy. That's why it has a policy label slapped on top of it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a recent development. I remember quoting it and having it called "fishy" or something. So are you really saying that "mainstream" always means "scientific mainstream?" As I said, if the FAQ applies to articles on fringe subjects, it looks like it could use some more explaining, because it contradicts itself, saying "Pseudoscience ... should not obfuscate the description of the main views" when the main views on may topics are either non-scientific or pseudoscientific. "Mainstream" is a very funny word to use in such a way. For one thing, it requires us to do original research to fill in the non-opinions that scientists might have if only they knew about the fringe subject. It requires us to take the opinions of, say, James Randi, and make them out to be the opinion of the "Scientific Community," when said community hasn't said a word. Is that really what you think? Kinda makes more sense to me to think that the ArbCom on Pseudoscience was meant to apply mostly to fringe ideas within mainstream articles- where it makes perfect sense. Notice also that the ArbCom does not use the word "mainstream."

If everyone were just willing to follow this, we'd have no problem. Because, all we have to do there is report on the level of acceptance, which is generally not in dispute, and we are not requiring ourselves to present information which has not been generated by the sources. With a couple of links, we can make it quite clear that idea X for going faster than light is not accepted. But we will have a very hard time saying it is rejected, or even saying specifically why it is false if we are not going to do OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, Martin? IT's been policy from the point that FT2 split it off the main policy page on. [10] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a response, nor was it important to my post. The original [11] section confirms my suspicion about it:

"However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article."

See? It's about pseudoscience within mainstream articles. You haven't dealt with how you are going to present the "majority" view when it doesn't exist. That's your problem that you're trying to fix. How are you going to do it without OR?

Yes, that wording has always caused problems. People have taken it to mean that WEIGHT says that the majority of an article on a fringe subject is to be taken up with mainstream science (read the opinions of professional skeptics). That's pretty silly interpretation, both presenting those views as "mainstream science," and taking up most of the space with those views instead of describing the subject.

So, if you don't want to deal with that, at least say how you are going to avoid OR. You also haven't dealt with some of the former points I made. Logic and common sense do have their place here. We sometimes get too caught up in the wikilawyering to see beyond the ends of our noses. It just doesn't make any sense to make most of an article on a fringe subject about mainstream reactions, even if they exist; thus, I interpret the FAQ to be about pseudoscience in mainstream articles. It does make sense to do OR to refute a fringe theory, when no other refutation is avaliable. That's why I've advocated that we change basic policy to allow it. But that is not policy, and you will have to change policy before you put it in FRINGE. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't make up your own meaning to get around policy, Martin. This is a key part of the policy relating to the discussion, denying it will make this discussion go in circles. I accept you don't like it, and looking at the FAQ, see you have attempted to remove it a few times and been reverted. I think that you're just going to have to accept it's policy, has been policy since at least 2004 [12] and is probably not going to change. If you're willing to work in that framework, that's fine, if you're going to insist policy doesn't apply when you dislike it, that's going to be a problem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking like that won't help. You didn't respond. Also, you forget that I pushed just the interpretation of policy you are trying to use, and I couldn't get it in. You didn't join me at that time. Other editors roundly rejected SPOV -that is, having a policy that the mainstream scientific view is the view of Wikipedia and always has WEIGHT- which is essentially what the FAQ says if you don't interpret it they way it was obviously meant (to apply to fringe ideas in mainstream articles). So, there is more than ample room for discussion here. I think that we should put that in policy in a more explicit way: we should say here at FRINGE just what that FAQ is saying, and what I just said above: the mainstream scientific view is the viewpoint of Wikipedia, and always carries the greatest WEIGHT in articles. Where the scientific POV cannot be determined through non-partisan sources, it may be derived from logical inference from standard textbooks on the general subject of the article. Make it crystal clear, and also put it in the NPOV article itself. I'm with you all the way on this. What I'm not with you on is saying that NPOV is the same as the mainstream scientific POV. That is just fooling the reader. Go and change it, and you have my support. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that general consensus was that the section does not meet the standards of WP. It has been edit warred in, and needs to come out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Good try, though. What we have are two known problematic editors dragging their feet with regard to this issue. You are one of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Particular attribution section

Should the section discussed in the section above be in the article? It seems to me that it was inserted and is being kept against the general consensus, and that consensus should exist before major changes are made to this guideline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised that ScienceApologist is the author of the section and edit warrs it in. The section did not have consensus and was rejected by the majority of editors present, including jossi, Martinphi, DGG, SteveBaker, and Ward20 Levine2112. There is room for debate on how much they rejected the current version, but there was no consensus on the current version.

• General consensus above was to have a section in the guideline about the issue. Compromise wording was worked out. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I support the version that ScienceApologist and I agreed upon way back when (I think it's the one currently in the guideline), insofar as I support the wording and the basis for including it. I don't support how ScienceApologist has used it since it's been installed, however. Specifically, he was involved in a content dispute at a fringe article, came over here and added this clause, then went back to the content dispute and appealed to this clause. I think that's bad form. I also don't think the clause was relevant in that content dispute, but that's besides the point. Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with the clause itself, just how SA used it, IMHO. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the uses I recall right now [13][14] I agree that part the section is common sense in a way (but not needed).

There is also one part of it which, I believe, is very wrong: for instance, stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable". If Dr. X is the only person who is known to hold this view, how would you suggest stating it? Surely not "It has been called untenable." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The above section does not introduce this very well. I, as well as others, would no doubt appreciate it if you could post a concise summary of the issue. Even better, offer us an example of what you propose to add/change. ImpIn | (t - c) 10:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was afraid of that. What seems to be happening is that the section is only being used to avoid attrubution. I've never seen a case where particular attribution was used to make out that the opinion was held only by the author. I'd like Nealparr's answer to the above. I just don't see how we can override WP:ATT here. ATT basically says that we should not say or imply what we can't source. This section essentially makes it difficult, or impossible, to say where the information is coming from. When we say where the info is coming from, this section makes out that we're acting as if the author is the only one holding that opinion. I think that this worry is unfounded. However, I think that the alternatives are worrisome, because they lead to bald statements of fact, or weaseling. Look at this section. It describes exactly, I think, the alternatives to particular attribution. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... ATT can certainly be "overturned", because is not an official policy or guideline... it should be used to better understand WP:V and WP:NOR (the two policies it summarizes), not to argue points of policy. That said, while I think the section could be better phrased, I think the intent is good. If only one published source states a theory, then we should make it clear that this is the only source that states it. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, dude, you have it opposite. The intent of the section is to have us not say that that is the only source which says it. In other words, don't tell the reader that "X is the only source that says Y" because to say such a thing gives the impression that the opinion of the source, X, might not represent a lot of people. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Stating that, "Dr. X says an idea is untenable" does not imply that, "only Dr. X holds this view". If the Particular attribution section can be used to amplify Dr. X's view to a more generalized view, it is not WP:NPOV. From the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", and "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better."

Propose different wording for second paragraph:

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". Other phrasings about Dr. X's views should not mislead the reader as to their reliability, or how many other people share them. Ward20 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the gist here. I think it's confusing though because the word "mislead" will cause endless battles- it invites editorial truithiness. Something more like "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". Other phrasings about Dr. X's views should not mislead the reader as to their reliability, or imply the extent of their acceptance when such acceptance is not reliably documented." I believe that the reader is not dumb, and will know the extent of acceptance relative to the general context, where it can in fact be inferred. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The current wording already does what Ward20 proposes. No need to change it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, agree about mislead, how about:

"A statement such as Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". Other phrasings about Dr. X's views should imply extent of reliability or acceptance reliably documented." Ward20 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The current statement already makes this point and so there is no reason to change it to that wording. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth." Ward20 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this non sequitor supposed to mean? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are too intelligent to not know. Ward20 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. I interpret it to mean that you don't see a need to change the wording of the section. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that one you got wrong.  ;-) Ward20 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can't tell me what you mean, then there is no way we can come to a consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. If the Particular attribution section is used to amplify Dr. X's view to a more generalized view (for example here), it is not WP:NPOV. It violates the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth". Ward20 (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is when the view is a generalized view, attributing it to Dr. X is inappropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) How about "If the extent to which a view is accepted cannot be determined by reliable sources, care should be taken not to imply the extent of acceptance or rejection. This is in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on original research."

The whole point is, we shouldn't be saying "this view is generally accepted or rejected" even if we think it is, unless we have something to back it up. That's the reason for what they say in WP:WEASEL,

"Weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc..... The case is similar with things that are apparently true "according to some studies" or "contrary to popular opinion"."

In fringe areas we need to be more careful about attribution, not less. We need to give the specific information, and let the chips fall where they may. This section encourages us to not attribute, and that is the opposite of what we should do.

For an example of how this might be used, see this. What's happening here is that, for some reason, the section is being used to eliminate attribution altogether. I rather think that the impetus for attribution needs to be strengthened, not weakened. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Nowhere does the section encourage us "not to attribute". It encourages us simply to avoid the pitfalls of particular attribution which is a recognized problem that you don't believe is an actual problem. You are acting as a POV-pusher in the instance you cite, trying to impose a particular attribution that is a summary statement that can be referenced to many different groups. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi that's good but someone beat you to it. [15] Ward20 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I put in that quote. It's another reason the section is not needed, see below. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then don't use it that way, as you did here and here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, I haven't "used it that way" at all. I've simply been using it to combat your disruptive editing, which, I'll remind you, is under probation. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been using it that way? Those aren't your edits? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been using it "that way", meaning I haven't been using it to encourage user "not to attribute". What I am encouraging users to do is not be disruptive. However, I'm not sure you have understood this point, so I'll be crystal: your attempts to marginalize the criticism of Sheldrake by using particular attribution is in direct violation of our guideline we wrote and is, moreover, disruptive in its continual reinsertion. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really feel that I'm a disruptive editor to that extent, it looks like you must have a case. If I were you, I'd take it right back to ArbCom, and see if you can get me perm banned this time. A nice new case, where everything can come out. In my opinion, I have not been disruptive. I try to follow and build consensus. You are continually disruptive, as pretty much every editor who knows you has told you. So by all means, take it back to ArbCom. If it's really like you say, then I'll get banned and you'll get your wish. But I think that my edits are in accordance with Wikipedia rules and the spirit -excuse me, the brain- of Wikipedia. If I'm wrong in a general way, I'm quite happy to be banned. I think I've just been doing the best I can in a tough situation, part of which is your continual disruption and POV pushing against the consensus of other editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think you may be doing "the best that you can", I am also of the opinion that your "best" is the perpetration of continued disruption at Wikipedia. I categorically refuse to "take it right back to ArbCom" as I don't see it to be necessary: I can accomplish all that I see to be necessary in other ways. I will continue to point out the fact that you continually flout your restrictions until you change your behavior either through your actions or the actions of another. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The section makes great play of the fact that phrasings such as "X is the only one who says A" or even "X says A" may imply that X is the only person saying such-and-such. This is clearly true in the first case (although it doesn't merely imply X is the only one saying A, it states it plainly), and it may also be true in the second case. However, this ambiguity can be resolved completely by the phrasing "some scientists, such as X, have said A" or more strongly "Scientists, for example X, have said A".

SA's approach is just to state A as a bald fact, assuming that A is such a widely acknowledged and undisputed truth that it would be pointless to even mention the fact that somebody said it. In the cases under discussion it is very far from clear that this take on things is accurate.

SA has offered a simple false dichotomy here. There are a huge variety of phrasings in between "X is the only scientist to say A" and just stating "A" as fact, so there is no need to choose between the two. I've recently used some of those variations, which were promptly reverted by SA, such as "Critics such as X say A." Also on no occasion have I, or anyone else for that matter, tried to write "X is the ONLY...". That part of the guideline is a straw man. We shouldn't have such things in a guideline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that you state that neither you nor anyone else has written "X is the ONLY...", that part of the guideline is apparently not impeding your writing of the encyclopedia, so should not be of particular concern to you. Regarding your debate with ScienceApologist, it does seem that this will ultimately be subject specific. If you were talking about a fringe subject such as Reiki, it would probably be appropriate to accept the word of the single mainstream scientist who has finally decided to comment on the subject as being, more or less, indicative the mainstream view on the subject. On the other hand, if you were talking about a subject that was not mainstream but at least rigorously studied, you'd be left with different standards. Without delving into the particular subject at hand, I can't really comment more regarding specifics. Antelan^talk 05:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how it can be a "particular" attribution when every diff I've seen it used has an "s" at the end of "critics", as in plural, as in not "particular" at all. Is there one demonstration of a proper use? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is again subject specific. Compare "mainstream scientists reject X because of Y" with "critics like John Smith argue Y". "Critic" de-emphasizes the credentials of the person being termed as such; it is a word often used to create the illusion of parity of authority where none exists. Antelan^talk 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. If "critics" isn't clear enough, it could be replaced with "physicists" or whatever the appropriate term is to convey their credentials. What I'm talking about is that the only one who has appealed to Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Particular attribution in its short history is ScienceApologist, and in every case he uses it to remove attributions altogether. This clause doesn't say to remove attributions. If it did it would be conflicting with other guidelines and the core NPOV policy. The reason I support it is because it doesn't say that, and instead directs us to strive to augment attributions with other examples in addition to the single attribution, or to reword the statement in a fashion that doesn't make it seem like a singular opinion. That can almost always be done, easily. Like in the example Ward20 pointed out [16]. In no way does this clause justify removing the attribution to Robert Todd Carroll (the author of the quote that follows). What the clause suggests doing is adding other examples in addition to it. Carroll isn't the only one who holds that opinion. James Randi, for example, is a perennial skeptic that can always be added to those sort of topics. If the only reason why the "Particular attribution" clause is here is to skirt attributing statements, by all means dump it, because it conflicts with other guidelines and policies. If not, stop appealing to it to remove attributions, because that's not its purpose. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he is using the section as if it says what he originally intended it to say " we likewise do not want to imply that only Dr. X shares this view inadvertantly by simply stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable"." [17]. What he did is write it in such a way that the only alternative to saying "Dr. X says" is just to state the fact, so long as other sources aren't there.

But oops, that's still what it says. So Nealparr, in the case where there is only one source, what do we do, just state it as a fact? I think SA is using it properly, when there is only one source. And we should not be writing a guideline which causes us to attribute things when there are multiple sources, but not do so when there is only one source.!! What if there were only one source? Sorry for the bold, but I just realized with your help that's what it does. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am allowed to appeal to whatever reasoning I want. You can dispute it on the talk page of the relevant article, but it is a bald fact as far as I'm concerned that Martinphi is disrupting that particular page by insisting on particular attribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, in the example you gave, it appears that ScienceApologist's edit was "sending a message". That is, SA's edit was making a disprovable claim of fact, not opinion. Fact need not be attributed to any particular person, so long as it is referenced. If there is indeed no other evidence for astral projeciton besides anecdotal evidence, then this fact can be stated plainly and referenced. If this is a contentious point or simply the opinion of one person, then other issues come into play. Antelan^talk 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The source says "the main evidence is in the form of testimonials"[18], and SA changed it to "the only evidence" (my emphasis) and said the reason for that change is this particular attribution clause. If it's a disprovable fact claim, appealing to particular attribution isn't going to help justify the change because not even the source says that. All it's going to do is make people question why the particular attribution clause was added in the first place. Again, if it's just so one can go around making fact claims under the guise of some quasi-policy, then dump it. Like always, the contributor adding material to the project is responsible for justifying keeping it there, and that applies to guidelines as well as articles. By misusing it (making unverifiable fact claims and claiming this clause supports doing so) SA's not doing a good job of justifying keeping the clause he himself added. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well as I said above, I think it's basically against other WP policy. I also think there is no practical reason for keeping it in. If there is, could SA point to a place where it was actually needed? Otherwise, since it's not needed, and we agree it is being abused, could we please take it out? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And of course, there has been research on it, and though very inconclusive, still makes the issue disputed. As SA well knows, having edited on that article. See this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the edit of interest, another reason why Particular attribution should not be used like that. "According to critics such as Robert Todd Carroll, the only evidence for astral projection is personal testimonial." This sentence should be a demonstrable fact as the source should verify Carroll said it, (he didn't, but leave that for the Astral projection talk page). It was changed to, "The only evidence for astral projection is personal testimonial." This sentence purports to be a fact without the support of Carroll's attribution.[19]. The first sentence is more NPOV.Ward20 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Before SA's edit warring and disruption, here is the bit I originally had in (which was there for many months):

"Astral projection is controversial. Skeptics say that there is only the evidence of personal testimonials that anything actually leaves the body.[2]"

And later:

Skeptics such as Robert Todd Carroll say that the only evidence for astral projection is personal testimonial.[2]

Both are in accord with the source, though the first one is not totally supported as only one skeptic is cited- but it isn't a controversial claim. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to drop the word "only" from all of those examples. Carrol said "mainly" testimonials, not "only". Synonyms for "mainly" could include "primarily", "mostly", or something other than "only". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted. If anyone sees fit to help out. I try not to edit war, though that's hard sometimes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But hey look! I think this is the version I originally put in, not the other ones [20] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining this discussion late, but I'm still navigating my way around here.  :-)

I'd like to offer this as a replacement for the current content of the 'Particular Attribution' clause. I think this will get at ScienceAplogist's intent, without raising any of the problematical issues noted above. basically I've removed that torturous second paragraph and a few of the more problematic clauses, and refocussed in on the fact that the speaker is an expert, even if he is speaking in isolation.

Proper sourcing is vital when adding critical viewpoints. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics, it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly address them. Care should be taken in such cases to make sure the criticism is seen as a product of the author's scientific qualifications and notability, to avoid the unmerited impression that he is speaking as an isolated individual.

comments?

as a side question, I see a number of other revisions and clarifications that I'd like to make to this guideline. is convention on pages like this to jump in and start editing like with normal articles, or is there a habit/rule/? of making talk page discussions first? --Ludwigs2 09:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely oppose SA's move here. He's presuming that he can tell what the scientific community thinks because he knows what is fringe and what is not. There's no reason to give editors that power -- it's a step into OR. Ludwigs proposed change gives him that room, and I don't think it is necessary. If something is truly fringe, it's going to be fairly obvious. Scientists should be quoted as individuals, as that is what they are -- and you can quote them on their opinion that the community is behind them, or that something is quackery, too. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see this point too. I certainly don't like the section as it's currently phrased. --Ludwigs2 10:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggest changing "product of the" to something less amorphous, and that the last clause be more even handed, stating neither diminishing nor amplifying the authors viewpoint. I believe the proposed change is being approached with the right amount of caution. This is a very sensitive guideline. More incremental changes of phrases are often used without discussion as they are more easily considered and reverted if objectionable. Ward20 (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather like Ludwig's suggestion. With respect to many of the difficulties above, there is almost always an exact wording. It is possible to say: "The only report indexed under the heading [ ] in PubMed" when it is critical. The only [positive/negative] result reported in the standard reviews article " " is ..." or something to fit the circumstances. Instead of "the only evidence is in the form of testimonials" or "the main evidence..." one could say" the evidence ..." DGG (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

perhaps if we change the last line to read "Care should be taken in such cases to show that the author's scientific qualifications and notability are the basis for the criticism, and to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources neither diminishes the author's viewpoint as an isolated opinion, nor amplifies the author's viewpoint through the implication that it is broadly representative." --Ludwigs2 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Torturous wording and unnecessary. Also it's just plain wrong. When an expert says that something is forbidden by the known laws of physics, then we can write "This idea is forbidden by the known laws of physics" without particular attribution. The person is an expert, trying to appeal to the expert particularly misses the point of the text. The current version explains the problem with particular attribution well enough. Your version does not. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to suggest for consideration something similar, "Care should be taken in such cases to make sure there is proper attribution to an author's scientific qualifications and notability, or an article's reliably sourced authority, in order to avoid unmerited reduction or enhancement of their viewpoint." Ward20 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the section is needed at all, the point needs to be that we use good attribution with implying anything about what we don't know. Don't have time to formulate a passage, but putting questions in bold below:

Care should be taken in such cases to show that the author's scientific qualifications and notability are the basis for the criticism, but what if they aren't? what if the author is speaking outside his field? and to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources what if there are good sources? neither diminishes the author's viewpoint as an isolated opinion, nor amplifies the author's viewpoint through the implication that it is broadly representative."

The last part there does get to the crux of things. On the "notability" part, you could say "or notability," instead of "and notability." For example, James Randi is a fine source, but for many years at least had no credentials. But however phrased, the goal is merely to make sure we do say what we know, and we don't say or imply whay we don't know. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to address concerns. "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute an author's scientific qualifications and notability, or article's reliably sourced authority to describe the weight of the criticism, in order to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources neither diminishes nor amplifies the viewpoint as an isolated or overly broad opinion." Ward20 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better, especially the first part where you say Care should be taken in such cases to attribute an author's scientific qualifications and notability". I'm not sure what this means "or article's reliably sourced authority".

I might put it "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute an author's qualifications and notability, or to state the publisher of an article used as a source, in order to allow the reader to judge it's reliability and how much weight to give it's criticism. This will ensure that the relative merits of other sources neither diminish nor amplify the viewpoint as either an isolated or overly broad opinion." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Or article's reliably sourced authority" tried to address for example a position statement by the National Science Foundation, or DGG's example, "The only report indexed under the heading [ ] in PubMed". Maybe it did not address it well if there is confusion. I am going to stop here for a while and let others comment. Ward20 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting the author and publisher in the text is a very poor stylistic practice. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, how about this: "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute the weight of the criticism to the author's scientific qualifications or notability, or to the reliably sourced authority of the journal or book that publishes the author's view, in order to ensure that the relative poverty of other sources neither diminishes nor amplifies the author's viewpoint as isolated or broadly accepted."

I think we are close enough to a consensus here that I am going to try editing this version in on the main page. let's see what happens...

It looks fine to me. I was mainly concerned about the second part, and that's been fixed now also. I'm going to do just a small change but not change the meaning to any extent. See what you think. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution as a list

(undent) while I'm at it I'm going to toss in a suggestion about the second paragraph. it seems to me it might work better as a list of examples, as follows (reworking the current version, minus whatever tweaks you just made).:

Examples

"Dr. X is the only scientist who believes this idea is untenable"

This is impossible to verify, and an obvious case of "particular attribution".

"Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable"

This is also an obvious case of "particular attribution". If Dr. X is actually the only source for the information being presented, this may be is unavoidable, but it should not be used when other sources are available.

"Dr. X says this idea is untenable"

This inadvertently implies that only Dr. X holds this view, when it is possible, and even likely given the fringe nature of the topic, that other qualified people share Dr. X's criticism without having addressed the subject in writing.

"Dr. X, in an editorial for <some credible journal>, says this idea is untenable"

This ties the credibility of the opinion to the credibility of the journal it is offered in, lending it strength despite the lack of other sources.

"Dr. X, renowned <specialist>, says this idea is untenable"

This ties the credibility of the opinion to Dr X's status in his field, also lending it strength despite the lack of other sources.;"

"Dr. X, as a <specialist>, says this idea is untenable"

This inadvertently implies that all specialists of Dr. X's type share Dr. X's view, artificially magnifying that view without proper sourcing.

Editors must be careful not to imply there is a consensus or a lack of consensus without a source to support it. Claims that all, most, few, or no researchers hold a particular view require a reliable source: see Reliable sources#Claims of consensus.

I don't know if that's actually an improvement - lol - but... let me know what you think.  :-) --Ludwigs2 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I like it as it is, but don't have special objections here. Let's see what other people think of having it this way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed - I could go either way. --Ludwigs2 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Current wording fine

The current wording is fine. I'm calling the bluff of those editors here who do not think this is the case. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SA...

1. I never bluff; I'm just not good at that dishonesty thing. makes me a lousy poker player, but we're not playing poker here.
2. that whole 'throw-down-the-gauntlet' thing starts to get really old when you use it every time you make a post. I would take it as a personal favor if you would stop demanding, insisting, asserting, and etc., and start discussing. life would be so much more pleasant for all of us. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The current wording seems to further the parity section by exploring its implications in terms of undue weight. Sources making statements in accord with observable reality are the only ones that may be used to cite statements of fact rather than opinion. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

to my mind, the current wording actually subverts WP:PARITY. the 'parity of sources' section is intended to loosen wikipedia policy about reliability of sources so that fringe topics (which understandably get little play in 'proper' venues) can still cite sources under a different level of scrutiny (including critical sources, which are likewise not to be penalized for their lack of peer-review). the value added by the 'Particular attribution' section is the clarification that an actual reliable source should not be dismissed as an isolated opinion (which strikes me as a reasonable assertion), but the current phrasing seems to be shaded to assert the primacy of peer-reviewed opinions, in contrast to the intent of PARITY. this phrase in particular - "Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim." - is torturously worded to indirectly suggest that a single 'proper' source implies a uniform agreement with the source in the scientific community.

am I the only person on Wikipedia who is bothered by the improper use of negations? the quoted phrase above reduces to 'the fact that there are not many sources does not imply the there are not many believers'. try to parse that triple negative, and what do you end up with? as far as I can tell, you get an absurd statement like 'the fact that there are not many sources does imply the there are many believers'. my version, if nothing else, is written in a clear and unambiguous affirmative style. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of the current version? As far as I can see it is now in line with policy, and doesn't use tripple negatives, does it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

errr... it seems that the current version merely added statements to the second paragraph, and didn't touch the first paragraph at all - or am I missing a draft that got redone? they qualifications you and SlimVirgin added are definite improvements, though. let me try an edit on the first paragraph (in line with the formulation that we all were discussing above) and see how it turns out.

Break and summary

The section was not needed for anything that I know of. But here is the reasoning for rejecting it:

The following quote is a straw man, it hasn't happened, ever, that I know of, and I doubt it ever did. At any rate, including it in the section is made completely unnecessary by the fact that such a statement can't be sourced and therefore can be removed on those grounds:

"A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". "

This following is false-- the implication is not there:

"However, other phrasings can inadvertantly imply that only Dr. X holds this view, for instance, stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable"."

The section actually doesn't cover cases such as "skeptics such as Dr. X say"

The real problem comes up in this case: you have only one source, which is Dr. X saying Y

You can't say "Dr. X is the only source which says Y." You never could say that, since it can't be sourced.

And you can't say "Dr. X says Y," the section prohibits it.

You can't say "skeptics such as Dr. X say Y" because Dr. X is probably the only person who ever bothered to say Y.

You can only say "X." You make a bald statement of fact based on what Dr. X says. (If there is an alternative I missed, one could put that into FRINGE.)

In the case of there being only one source, which can happen, you just have to state X. Yet the section of FRINGE does sort of justify the edit in that it states that giving particular attribution implies that only the person holds the view, which of course is incorrect.

If we really want to do something of use in this section, it would be to make sure that the reader always knows exactly where information is coming from. That is indeed especially important in FRINGE articles. So, giving particular and general attribution is more, not less, important. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed above. Please remand future discussion to those previous points. The fact is that when an authority makes a statement of fact, we do not need to particularly attribute the statement of fact to the authority by writing in the text the name of the person. That technique is one employed exclusively by people wishing to mitigate factual criticism of pseudoscience and fringe beliefs. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent change

The recent changes, started by SlimVirgin [21], and added to by myself [22] [23] addressed all the problems I saw in the passage. I hope that their essense can be maintained. The main points the passage should make clear:

1. If Dr. X is not the only source known to hold a viewpoint, we should not imply he is the only person who holds it.

2. In the case Dr. X is the only source with his viewpoint, we should still attribute (since attribution is a very good practice), but not imply that Dr. X is somehow isolated or out on a limb.

3. We should not imply anything, especially consensus, without a source. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually reading the changes over the last few hours made me realize where your misconception was coming from. My point is that facts should never be attributed and opinions are not as useful as facts for writing material about reality. So I tried to emphasize this. We aren't in the business of saying how one should attribute or not, just in the business of explaining how one should offer mainstream critique of fringe theories without seeming to bog down ourselves in he said/she saids that are not illuminating in the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

I reverted this change for several reasons. I don't see discussion and consensus on this on the talk page, though perhaps I'm missing it in the clutter. There are several problems here, beyond the obscure and difficult phrasing:

• "Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic." This is actually a key phrase, and was removed.
• "Care should be taken in such cases to attribute the weight of the criticism to the author's scientific qualifications or notability, or to the reliably sourced authority of the journal or book that publishes the author's view." Where to start? This is excessively prescriptive and, thus, an open invitation to wikilawyering. What are "scientific credentials"? Do you want to have 400 kb on whether a crank with a Ph.D. is a "weightier" source than a debunker without a degree? Any fringe theory worth its salt is promulgated by at least a handful of people with reasonable "scientific credentials". Likewise, "notability" is an inherently subjective concept with a Wikipedia-specific definition and a separate real-life connotation.

When policy gets this prescriptive, I can't escape the feeling that a handful of specific content disputes are being imported and argued through the medium of this guideline. I don't think that's a good idea, and I'm not comfortable with the proposed changes for the above reasons. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I put this in a new section because it doesn't relate to the section above. Personally, I'm happy with the version you reverted to. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks Martin.  :-)

MastCell - the discussion about the 'Particular attribution' change can be found near the end of this section Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#RfC_on_Particular_attribution_section just before the Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#break and summary section. it may be easier to use the latter link and scroll up. as I say there, we do not as yet have perfect consensus, but among the editors who have been participating there is something very close to an agreement. this with the exception of ScienceApologist, who is adamantly opposed to any change, and possibly as a result hasn't felt a need to participate much in the conversation. sorry, that section is kind of a mess.

with respect to your specific points...

• "Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic." which you call key, is grammatically suspect. it's a triple negative statement (no other sources does not imply that there is no consensus with the viewpoint), and that can easily be misconstrued as the positive statement that there is a consensus of agreement with the view. it's just unnecessarily convoluted, logically speaking. I believe the intent of the phrase is to make clear that a small number of sources on a fringe issue does not imply anything about the beliefs of other scientists, and should certainly not be taken as an indication of support for the fringe theory, or condemnation of the author's viewpoint. I think that intent is presented much less ambiguously in the version that I edited in. of course, if I've misunderstood the intent of this phrase, please correct me.
• your second point has completely inverted the intent of WP:Fringe and of this particular section. the problem being addressed here occurs when a single (or small number) of credible authors are offering well-sourced comments on fringe issues; the 'Particular attribution' clause is intended to prevent those authors from being unduly minimized or dismissed by virtue of the fact that they are such small numbers. this will never be used prescriptively to establish the relative merits of credentials, because it is an inherently protective measure designed to keep a well-sourced opinion from being unfairly dismissed. seriously, that's built into both versions of the passage, not just mine. you might object to the fact that it was also worded to prevent low-sourced opinion from being interpreted as generic to the field, which would be worth a discussion, but I think that's well in line with wikipedia policy... in short, your fears about wikilawyering (new term for me, thank you) are really unfounded.

with respect to the other edit of mine you reverted (story of my life, it seems - lol), that edit addressed a particular interpretive problem that I have seen in action repeatedly. The phrase "Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is," while perfectly true as far as it goes, implies that the notability of a subject is something like a universal constant or Platonic ideal. that's silly on the face of it. to borrow an example from a different discussion, Flat Earth Theory is obviously not notable enough for inclusion in an article about the Earth, but it is certainly notable enough to have an article of its own. thus, the notability of a subject varies according to the context in which it finds itself trying to be used. my edit merely changed the phrase to read "Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is within the context of a particular article," which strikes me as a mere acknowledgement of the situation as it is. no one would be able to use this addition to argue for the inclusion of an already excluded fringe theory. the only place where it might encourage 'wikilawyering' is in cases where there is, in fact, a serious question whether a theory should be teated as fringe or not, and that's not wikilawyering, that's effective content discussion.

I will note that (having looked more closely at the notability guideline), I think it might be being misused in the lead. what's there looks like a combination of features from wp:notability and wp:weight, yah? regardless, we might want to fix that, if true. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I most definitely agree with your second to last paragraph. And I'd like to see your suggestions for the lead. On the other matters I don't care. I think the first paragraph of Particular attribution section is good enough as it was/is, before the recent edit/revert. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the issue you're alluding to. Neither the article on Earth nor the standalone article on Flat Earth Theory should make Flat Earth appear more notable than it actually is. We don't say, "Oh, since this is a standalone article on Flat Earth Theory, we can exaggerate its notability." Actually, people do say stuff like that, which is my problem with your proposed change. If I had a nickel for every agenda account that came through and said: "This is the article on AIDS denialism. You can take your POV that HIV causes AIDS to the main page on HIV, but this is our place to expound on our beliefs." That's a problem, it's counter to everything I understand about Wikipedia and its policies, and I think that your proposed wording would give such editors more ammunition to subvert those policies. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is a tremendous ambiguity here over the term 'notability' that desperately needs to be cleared up. it seems the the term is being used haphazardly to mean any of the following:

• scientific acceptability
• cultural recognition
• relative prominence

as I understand it (which may of course be incorrect) notability guidelines (per wp:notability) "only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles." Flat Earth Theory clearly meets the criterion of inclusion in the encyclopedia. undo weight is a closely related issue, and the word 'notability' often seems to be used when talking about whether something is sufficiently important to use in an article (though wp:notability explicitly states that it is not about article content). this clearly varies with context: FET does not meet undo weight requirements (i.e., is not notable enough) to be discussed in the Earth article, but by virtue of meeting the wp:notability guidelines, it is surely notable enough to be discussed in its own article. scientific acceptability is a separate (but also closely related) issue - for instance, scientific critiques of the the FET would obviously meet WEIGHT standards for being included in the FET article - there is no clear understanding of FET unless it is also understood that it is not scientifically accepted. however, even this is not an absolute: for instance, scientific critics of FET might or might not meet WEIGHT requirements for inclusion in an article about the Flat Earth Society, since the Flat Earth Society is (arguably) notable for its cultural standing, not its scientific one. see what I'm getting at, here?

at any rate, it seems to me to be a properly conservative move to specify "within the context of a particular article." it harms nothing, and it helps to disentangle this odd confusion around the issue of the word notability. --Ludwigs2 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump request for feedback regarding pseudoscience FAQ

I posted a request for feedback at the Village Pump regarding a proposed revision of the second paragraph of WP:PSCI. That request can be found here [24]. It was made following a discussion on the NPOV talk page here [25]. Please chime in if you get a chance. Thanks! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

request for new section in the article

I'd like to add a section immediately after the "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" called "Unwarranted criticism of fringe theories." the content I suggest is as follows:

The primary purpose of WP:FRINGE is to maintain proper encyclopedic style by preventing articles from becoming overburdened with a plethora of small, disorganized discussions about minor or tangential topics. WP:FRINGE is not intended to permit critical attacks on viewpoints within their own context, nor is it a tool to enforce evaluations of the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts.

alternatively, this could be worked into the preceding section, changing its name to something like "Unwarranted promotion or criticism of fringe theories." my phrasing might be better, of course, but I think it's important to note that Wikipedia is not here either to defend or refute fringe theories, but rather to give them neutral coverage within the limitations of encyclopedic style. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Might have something here. Are you aware of the whole debate around the NPOV FAQ page, section on pseudoscience? That section is used sometimes to mean that the WEIGHT of any FRINGE article is mainstream. That is, mainstream opinion has more weight (thus space) not only in mainstream articles but in articles about the fringe subject. Obviously, the section is talking about fringe ideas within mainstream articles, but it is argued differently. This might apply here, because what you describe is often defended in terms of WEIGHT. But let me look into this more later. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This substantial change to a guildline should be widely reviewed. Please notify the relevent venues and seek comment from all affected editors. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the primary purpose of WP:FRINGE. The statement "WP:FRINGE is not intended to permit critical attacks on viewpoints within their own context, nor is it a tool to enforce evaluations of the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts." is misleading. Fringe does permit the exposition of critical attacks of fringe viewpoints within the context of the subject of a fringe article. No guideline is ever a "tool": it's a description of best-practices in editing. More than that, WP:NOT covers the objection that WP:FRINGE shouldn't be used to "evaluate the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts" so that's something of a red herring. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Poupon (great handle by the way...): I would happily comply with your request (which I think is excellent) except I have no idea how to do so. can you point me in the right direction(s)?

Martin: I have seen those debates, but I haven't had time to digest them properly yet. I'll get there one of these days...

SA: <sigh...> I feel that is the primary purpose of WP:FRINGE, and I can back it up with good arguments if you would like to debate the matter. and in terms of 'best-practices in editing,' neutrality is key; thus, if there is a specific injunction against promoting fringe theories, there ought to be a specific injunction against attacking fringe theories. no one is trying to prevent critical elements from being introduced into fringe theory articles, but unconstrained criticism is as damaging to wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia as unconstrained pandering. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it already say something of the same thing?

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics 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 originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the 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 sources that do the criticizing.

I have observed the dynamic closely, and feel that it is a matter of weight, and that the following formulation, if put into policy, would solve many problems with fringe and mainstream articles. It's taken from here:

There is a big problem with fringe advocates pushing their POV in fringe articles. But personally, I've seen much less of this than justifiable outrage at the highly negative way the fringe articles often sound, and the huge areas of the articles (40% in Homeopathy) taken up by mainstream-scientific analysis or derogatory opinions. This outrage is itself portrayed as fringe POV-pushing, which is why I have that reputation. Mainstream science is a notable view, it is usually the truest view, and scientific literacy is totally abysmal. But it isn't Wikipedia's mission to correct social ills (there should be such an area, IMO).

"Minority" and "majority" viewpoints are relative to the subject of the article. For example, the prominence of science in an article on Young Earth creationism is quite low but significant, and should receive enough coverage that the reader will go away knowing that creationism isn't the scientific mainstream view, and with a basic understanding of the argument. In an article on scientific Evolution, Creationism is a significant minority view, and it is mentioned. These articles properly interpret the policy as being relative to the subject of the article. If they interpreted the policy to mean that the majority mainstream view always predominated, then the Evolution article would be covered mostly from the perspective of Creationism, as that is the majority mainstream view of most people.

Let me emphasize that this does not mean that mainstream views would be sidelined. It is actually nothing more than is said "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints […] in proportion to the prominence of each." WP:WEIGHT. Any other interpretation of that is subject to reductio ad absurdum. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This guideline should be redundant with existing policies, chiefly WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV and give particular guidance on those areas which are problematic in fringe topics-WP:UNDUE, WP:N, etc. It should not be carte blanche to adopt any so-called "mainstream" position regarding the topic; it is a requirement to accurately describe the most prominent positions of the topic, which may or may not be (as is usually the case) meaningfully characterized as "mainstream". We need to put away this useless terminology for good. It's a lazy way out of an article dispute to invoke the "mainstream" in essentially the same manner one plays trump cards in a bridge match. It's not only unnecessary to write but tiresome to read encyclopedia articles written in a voice that says "this view is what's real/true/valid and the view of these fringe usurpers is not." See Flat Earth, which has some interesting information while at the same time demonstrates [something we need more of at WP] confidence in its readers that they don't need reminding of contrary opinions about the shape of the Earth every second sentence. Returning to the opening statement, "WP:FRINGE is not intended to permit critical attacks on viewpoints within their own context, nor is it a tool to enforce evaluations of the relative merits of viewpoints in larger contexts." That's not what WP:Fringe is. If there are prominent critical attacks on viewpoints, from whatever the context, they should be described appropriately. The guideline is not a tool to force evaluation at WP either. That's not the role of an encyclopedia. The role of the encyclopedia is to describe-describe-describe, not assess. But if there are sourced and prominent evaluations of the topic, then wp describes those evaluations of the topic.Professor marginalia (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said, as always. What do you think of my formulation: "Minority" and "majority" viewpoints are relative to the subject of the article? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed, well said, and I can see what you mean. just to put this out there, I happen to think a well-formed article on a fringe topic should run something like this, and I'm really just poking around trying to find a way to make this clear to others. so, a fringe topic article should have:

1. a clear, unbiased description of what the fringe topic is, in neutral terms.
2. an explanation of how the fringe topic appeared in popular culture (what social or political effects it had, how widespread it was, etc.).
3. a clear, concise critique on scientific or academic grounds, sufficient to remove any unjustified impression that the topic is overtly scientific, but not so intrusive that it starts looking like an attack.

I think the key element in dealing with fringe topics in an encyclopedic way is to see them as belief structures (often deeply held ones) that have their own internal logic, and that may make more-or-less unsubstantiated scientific claims. we are obliged to point out that the scientific claims are unsubstantiated, and to explain where such claims violate scientific principles, but we should avoid attacking the belief structure itself. I mean seriously - we can say on a Christian Scientism page that there are no significant findings in medicine that show that prayer can cure disease (that's probably a reliably-sourced fact), but we should stop well short of trying to imply that prayer just doesn't work. that shifts from being a scientific critique to an attack on their beliefs, and we have no reliable grounds for telling them their beliefs are wrong. --Ludwigs2 02:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, you two do put things well. We often run into trouble when (as maybe with prayer) the science is actually ambiguous, with some studies showing an effect, others not. It is very difficult to get editors to just portray the ongoing debate as a debate, without taking sides. That is, without bringing in their larger, (unsourced) picture of the world. All sorts of arguments get brought up on the talk pages, such as "Don't you think that if prayer really worked......" or "These pseudoscientists who think prayer might work aren't reliable sources even if mainstream journals do publish them once in a while," and many others. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principle. When the article goes so far as to spout edicts or closing arguments as if presenting a case to a jury, it has overstepped into polemic. In terms of the suggestion which opened this section, "Unwarranted criticism of fringe theories", my thought is that wikipedia needs to accurately present the content and views as represented in the most prominent or central body of literature about the topic. What would be unwarranted criticism would be cases when editors at wp take it upon themselves to assemble criticism of the fringe theory to make up for an absence of references to sources which have done so. WP is not a consumer protection agency. It's not a publisher of original claims. It's not Debunkers.org where hobbyist Do-It-Yourself types get to set the record straight with Synth. However, if critics have attacked the theory in reliable sources then those attacks should be described as well. But I admit, one problem I find in articles sometimes that are so aggressively criticized is that the criticism is detailed ad nauseum but explanation of the subject itself is either neglected or caricatured. A sketch of the problem goes something like this: Spectral Discontinuity Effect (SDE) is a pseudoscientific theory developed in the 19th century by the Equanorian Rafnapurian guru, Sub Sup Sun Moo. Its proponents claim that by analyzing SDE they can accurately predict the weather. Their claims have no scientific basis and violate basic principles of science, chiefly wave-particle duality, Shermer's Last Law, and the Infield fly rule. Cornwall Kermujeon calls it, "The largest load of hokem wooing cranks since the Y2K scare." Billy Blogblab calls it "Quackery". Marjory Doodowdy wrote, "More crackers than a box of saltines." And on and on. In such articles, the tone is "we don't think you can be trusted with descriptions of the theories or ideas underlying SDE unless it's packaged in snark. You might hurt yourself with it." And the problem is, as in this hypothetical case, the article's an essentially useless source of information about SDE.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

no disagreement. I think I'm going to table this particular section addition for the time being, because it obviously needs some more consideration. but I think I am going to pursue a different addition based on what I said earlier - a guideline for proper construction of an article on a fringe topic. that's much more to the point. I'll add it in as a request down below where we can clean it up, but how do I suggest this for general perusal? (I'm thinking of PouponOnToast's phrase above - This substantial change to a guildline should be widely reviewed. Please notify the relevent venues and seek comment from all affected editors. - which isn't very descriptive of the process). --Ludwigs2 15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

facts and opinions

I removed the paragraph:

"If Dr. X is an reliable expert in the field in which he is writing, consider writing about the facts mentioned by Dr. X rather than the opinions of Dr. X. Facts do not require in-text attribution since they are not solely Dr. X's opinions. So statements like "The principles of this fringe idea contradict basic scientific facts and are not corroborated by observation." can be included. Do not mistake a fact for opinion. Saying "Dr. X says that the principles of this fringe idea are neither corroborated by observation and contradict basic scientific facts" while true attributes a fact to the opinion of an expert: a practice which is misleading."

These are not facts, but Dr X's judgement about the implications of the facts, his opinions about what the facts show--however absolutely well founded. I understand the difficulties of the section involved, and I do not have any immediate solution, but this isn't a good one. DGG (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, DGG. Those are facts. If Carezani says that 1+1=1.4 it's a fact that it contradicts 1+1=2. We have observations that 1+1=2. That's not just a judgment. That's a fact. We source it to Dr. X, but he is giving us a fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about facts either, but also about synthesizing material. Fringe idea A may be unrelated to scientific principle B; it's Dr. X's synthesis that the two are related and that A contradicts B. Dr. X deserves credit for making the relation, and criticism for drawing incorrect synthesis. Eg. a few years back some physicists wrote a paper debunking popular Hollywood horror movie premises, for example that ghosts can both walk through walls and stand on a floor without falling through. They said that if a ghost were material enough to stand on a floor, it would be too substantial to walk through the wall. Seems like a basic fact that doesn't need elaboration. However, it was simply a synthesis on the part of the physicists that the ghost concept relates to physics in that way. Another popular theory for ghosts, for example, is that they are some sort of 3D image or projection, ie. substantially immaterial and merely "holographic". A hologram, by comparison, would be able to appear to both stand on a floor and pass through walls equally. In such a way, their synthesis that ghosts would have to be substantially material to stand on a floor (B) would be contradictory to the actual fringe theory (A), rather than the other way around. Call me HollywoodApologist : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See the example above. Sure people can suggest alternatives, but then we can source their alternatives if they are notable. Trying to attribute a fact to a scientist is neither good writing nor does it give the full important of the point. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we toss out some examples of what is meant here by "fact" and what is meant by "opinion"? From my understanding, facts in science are things like "the record temperature measured at the equator is *** in 1965", or "the half-life of ¹⁴C is 5,730±40 years", whereas claims like "this record temperature was caused by sun flare activity" would be opinion. A theory is in many ways "opinion", albeit one in the form of a model which is testable and predictive. And so we find all kinds of opinion offered by scientists, some of it widely accepted while some of it is widely rejected. Hence it can be very important to whom or what to attribute such opinion. So I think more realistic examples need be given. I doubt many wikipedians find themselves in disputes that are really over claims like 1+1=1.4. There's usually more to it than that. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, even if a scientist points to a scientific fact, it is still his opinion that the fact in some way applies to the fringe idea. Dr. X may be the most qualified expert in his field, but by definition the fringe topic isn't his field. So what sort of qualification would he have to comment (as in SA's example) "The principles of this fringe idea contradict basic scientific facts and are not corroborated by observation"? He's not an expert on the principles of the fringe idea. He may be strawmaning the concept, or simply not familiar with it. It's just his opinion that the facts have something to do with the fringe idea. In debunking, one always says something like "The idea is really just this, and it's contradicted by this." The first part of that sentence is very much an opinion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dr. X section just adds to the confusion, and I don't think it's worth salvaging. It's almost always necessary, yes, to attribute such opinion in those cases. I guess the real question is, is this issue over confusion in attributing facts and opinions? Or is it about creating a loophole to avoid giving attribution to a source by employing supposed "facts" derived from the source as an objective yardstick? If it's the latter, it violates a handful of core policies to tackle a non-problem. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dr. X section is dreadful. "Experts in the field" may well disagree over "facts" as well as "opinions". And they frequently disagree over whether something else altogether is consistent with a particular set of facts. Ask any trial lawyer. The Dr X example as worded is naively simplistic and invites bad editing. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget the wording and principles discussion, Dr. X must die. At this point in the conversation, Dr. X examples should be banned entirely, or at least replaced with Dr. Bob. : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject as HollywoodApologist - Dr. Henry Jones was killed by the dread fourth film in the series. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Jones, Jr., and it was a brilliant fourth film. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Critic X disagrees with you, but based on a huge box office, that may be a Fringe Opinion. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

totally useless criticism, but "Dr. Alice Jones"? can we at least get something interesting, like "Dr. Sanpar Alengopala" or "Dr. Xin Choi Ling" or even something like "Dr. Rory Lembert"? "Alice jones" is so... "Alice Jones." --Ludwigs2 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Particular attribution POV

Particular attribution can be used to bolster or diminish a positive or negative viewpoint, yet this section is written to be biased and concerned about supporting criticism. The present wording is POV:

"(Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim.

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". However, other phrasings can inadvertently imply that only Dr. X holds this view, for instance, stating that "Dr. X says this idea is untenable" when there are actually others (including experts) in addition to Dr. X who hold the same view. In a fringe topic, it is possible, even likely, that more people share Dr. X's misgivings about a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject, and such phrasing can therefore be misleading as to how many people actually share Dr. X's views."

A NPOV version would read like this:

(Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism or acceptance of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics, it may be the case only a small number of reliable sources discuss them. That does not imply that the general consensus is favorable or unfavorable toward the topic. In such situations, care should be taken not to imply or state to the reader that only a small number of people dispute or accept a fringe claim.

A statement such as "Dr. X is the only scientist who holds a certain viewpoint Y" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of "particular attribution". However, other phrasings can inadvertently imply that only Dr. X holds this view, for instance, stating that "Dr. X says an idea is Y" when reliable sources document that others (including experts) hold Dr. X's view.

If the WP:Fringe guideline is to comply with NPOV policy then the sections should be even handed about sourcing content. If not, then WP:NPOV needs to be rewritten to exclude fringe theories. Since the fringe theories guideline is not NPOV, it is used in endless disputes to marginalize one viewpoint and not another depending upon each editor's definition of what is a fringe viewpoint. Ward20 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if this version takes care of the problems? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. A fringe idea departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. The rejection or acceptance of the fringe idea should be represented fairly and without bias.

Even though there is some NPOV wording toward the end of the version, the beginning hypothetically talks about fringe topics thusly, "many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics"..."it may be the case"..."In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim." So, ""which" of the "many fringe theories" should we not "mislead" the reader, "that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim"? It suggests a POV, as does other content in the section. The section should respect WP:NPOV throughout. Ward20 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ward20: you're version does seem better than the version given. how about this variation?

(Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism or acceptance of fringe theories. However, fringe topics are often underrepresented in mainstream research, so it may be the case that only a small number of reliable sources can be found. This lack of sources can not be taken to mean that the general consensus is favorable to or unfavorable to the topic, and statements or implications to that effect should be carefully avoided. The source should be given as a reliable source only, with no suggestion that it is isolated from or entirely representative of the larger community.

That one looks good. One tiny problem would be that "The source should be given as a reliable source only" will cause people to go "The reliable source X says..." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - I hadn't thought of that.  :-) how about this? (borrowed something from the current active version...)

(Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism or acceptance of fringe theories. However, fringe topics are often underrepresented in mainstream research, so it may be the case that only a small number of reliable sources can be found. This lack of sources can not be taken to mean that the general consensus is favorable to or unfavorable to the topic, and statements or implications to that effect should be carefully avoided. The source should be used in an unequivocally factual and even-handed manner, with no suggestion that it is isolated from or entirely representative of the larger community.

That one's good. I really believe that this had very good info in it, and should be further incorporated:

The claim that all or most researchers hold a particular view requires a reliable source: see Reliable sources#Claims of consensus. [26]

How about:

(Proper sourcing and attribution are vital when writing about criticism or acceptance of fringe theories. However, fringe topics often have very little representation in mainstream research or literature, so it may be that only a small number of reliable sources can be found. This lack of sources can not be taken to mean that the general consensus is favorable or unfavorable to the topic, and statements or implications to that effect should be carefully avoided. The source should be used in an unequivocally factual and even-handed manner, with no suggestion that it is isolated from or entirely representative of the larger community. The claim that all or most members of any group hold a particular view requires a reliable source (see Reliable sources#Claims of consensus). When statements are controversial, they should be properly attributed to their sources.

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the addition of the attribution elements. I'm a little worried that the last two lines unbalance it, though - it feels like you're pushing too hard against claims of consensus. the point here is that we don't know and can't say - can you pull it back to a 'not either or' position? --Ludwigs2 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but of course that is one main issue, and it's already in that section of policy Reliable sources#Claims of consensus. So including it it far from pushing, just putting policy directly in the guideline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Vassyana#You_asked_for_notification. Martinphi appears to be suggesting those last two lines in order to further his position in a dispute. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is just basic policy. Judge the position of the editor on it's merits, not the editor. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how this would further his position. A statement "Scientists contend" shouldn't require a unique standard of verification quite apart from "Skeptics of the paranormal say". The problem of conflating skepticist opinion with scientific consensus opinion, however, does warrant a discussion at some level.Professor marginalia (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Professor. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The source evidently discusses scientists, but Martinphi's arguments claim that you can't say scientists because there might be some that believe, so he insists it must be skeptics of the paranormal, whatever the source says. The penultimate sentence of his suggestion thus seems, in light of his simultaneous argument elsewhere, to be created mainly to bolster that argument. There's other evidence, but I'd rather not rehash old problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been going on for weeks or months. Stop that please. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A few tweaks and borrowing here and there:

(Proper sourcing and attribution are important concepts when writing about criticism or acceptance of fringe theories. However, fringe topics often have little representation in mainstream studies or literature, so it may be the case that only a small number of reliable sources exist. A scarcity of sources does not mean that the general consensus is favorable or unfavorable to the topic, and unverifiable statements or implications that a sourced opinion is isolated from or entirely representative of a larger community should be carefully avoided.

Ward20 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This statement implies that it is impossible to decide whether a fringe theory is a fringe theory or not. Wholly unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ward - what you called "the present wording" at the start of this section is just fine. I suggest we keep it. Cardamon (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SA: this passage is not concerned with establishing what a fringe theory is - that's covered elsewhere. besides, I don't follow how this passage makes that decision impossible.

Cardamon, no. the present wording as you call it is biased and poorly written. --Ludwigs2 19:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, except I definitely like Ward's changes. It incorporates everything (?), in a more readable form. The two principles of course are: don't imply anything by word choice unless it's impossible not to, and use good ATT. As an example of when it's impossible not to, you could have one source, and then you have to just say "According to Dr. Jane, XXXX". But I disagree that this implies that the opinion is isolated. If it does so imply, however, we've just got to live with it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ward, your changes were not good at all. I have reverted them. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you please explain what was not good about more NPOV wording? The content reverted addressed your concern about wording reducing an expert's viewpoint to a sole dissent or criticism. It also covers the converse so as not to be biased. The present content is biased in one direction as was discussed. Why do you think the biased content should remain? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the section never, ever had anything like consensus for inclusion in the first place. There is no need for it at all. I have templated the section so that people will know it is in under dispute, at least. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, whatever the problems, this shouldn't be decided between four people, which I believe are in major content disputes with each other. At least post a notice on WP:FTN and/or WP:VP to bring people in. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

removed 'right great wrongs'

I am not necessarily averse to the concept that 'Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs,' but the way that phrase was included struck me as polemical and lacking in context. if that's part of wikipedia policy somewhere, I would be fine reinstating it with an explanatory link. --Ludwigs2 01:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll stay out of this, as I think it's too entrenched to be buried. heh. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

uh-oh. did I step in something? again? damn, Wikipedia needs a newbie guide to content land-mines...  :-\ --Ludwigs2 03:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Antelan - while I don't doubt you have a reason for undoing the change I made, your edit summary left me totally in the dark. I asked for a wikipedia policy or guideline reference to the phrase righting great wrongs so that it could be added as a link to the phrase in text. without that kind of a link, the phrase really is is obscure and polemical. now I'm assuming that your "This is well established" means that you can provide such a link, or at least point to someplace so I can see that it's well established. can you assist? --Ludwigs2 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's well established here. Been here forever. And also WP:TE#Righting Great Wrongs. It's also the spirit of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - well 'established here' is circular (well, wikipedia policy is inherently circular, but never mind that..). that first link you gave is what I was looking for, though. I'm going to add a link there from the phrase, if no one has any objections (because really, it did just jump out at me as out-of-the-blue oddness). --Ludwigs2 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

edit: whoops, someone beat me to it. excellent. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a natural follow to the preceeding sentence which says "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere." Summed up, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, I see it, now that I see it.  :-) --Ludwigs2 17:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you all have resolved this; Neal, thanks for adding the link. Antelan^talk 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yr welcome. I think there were more places that wording was used in the past as well, but I can't remember. It should be put into the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

proposed new section - guideline for fringe article structure

I'm proposing a new section that I think will clear up a lot of the interpretive confusions that plague fringe topic articles - basically I want to put in a guideline for the proper structure of such an article. here's a first draft; please comment.

In order to produce a neutral article on a fringe topic, the subject of the article should be treated first and foremost as a belief system in any of the accepted meanings of that term. It may couch itself in scientific or pseudoscientific reasoning, or present itself as valid competitor to mainstream science, but these should not be considered its primary characteristic. If science does not accept these theories as scientific, then Wikipedia cannot present them that way.

The following is a guideline for structuring a properly formed article on a fringe topic. the article should contain:

1. a clear, neutral description of what the belief system is, including (as appropriate):
   • its worldview
   • its basic assumptions, and the conclusions it draws from those assumptions
2. an explanation of the place of this belief system in popular culture, including (as appropriate):
   • its social or political effects, in terms of its direct impact and the impact of the actions of its opponents
   • the extent of its spread through the culture
   • major historical turning points in the belief.
3. a clear, concise critique of the belief system's claims on scientific or academic grounds, including (as appropriate):
   • notable problems in assumptions made
   • violations of established scientific principles or academic research
   • contradictions of mainstream belief and practice

The key element in dealing with fringe topics in an encyclopedic way is to defuse any unjustifiable claims they make to truth, efficacy, superiority, or etc., without implicitly or explicitly attacking the underlying belief structure. Thus, if Christian Scientism were treated as a fringe theory, it would be necessary to indicate that no significant findings in medicine support the assertion that prayer can cure disease. However, the article should stop well short of any implication that prayer doesn't work, since that is no longer a scientific critique but rather an attack on Christian Scientist beliefs. Wikipedia is not the place to overturn the deeply held beliefs of others any more than it is the place to promote those ideas.

--Ludwigs2 17:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The very first phrase is wrong. Not every subject is a "belief system" and we definitely should not treat all article like that. As one who removed the "right great wrongs" issue, I think that you need to really look more carefully at to the points being made by editors who are saying that protection of "underlying belief structures" in our policies is right out: we aren't here to protect the beliefs of anyone. We're here to present research. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but no. Fringe theories are belief systems by definition - i.e. they are systematic and collective sets of beliefs about the world (which happen to be foundationless, of course, but that's irrelevant). I mean really... give me an example of a fringe theory that isn't a belief system? what would that even mean? I expected you to argue with a lot of points in this - 'cause that's just how you show you love me ;-) - but that first line is (as far as I can tell) completely unarguable. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. A "belief system" in an academic sense is formalized. It is social. It is not idiopathic nor is it necessarily the basis for all proposals. Most fringe theories are not systematic. Most are incomplete. They cannot be a "belief system" in a reliable sense. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

again, no. there is nothing in the concept of a belief system that implies it needs to be complete or correct or entirely systematized. a definition like you're suggesting would mean that no religion on the face of the earth could be a belief system.

besides, this is easily solved if you can give me one example of a fringe theory that is not a belief system. stop trying to refute this on weird abstract grounds - show me an example. --Ludwigs2 19:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough. AIDS denialism. This is not a "belief system"; it's a group of people who (ab)use scientific literature to draw a conclusion at variance with that of experts and authorities in the field. For the most part, these are people who ostensibly share the beliefs, assumptions, and value system of scientific culture, but simply differ in that they believe HIV and AIDS to be correlated rather than causatively related. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

so what you're telling me is that this loose group of people believes that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but rather by other causes (such as recreational drugs, malnutrition and antiretroviral drugs), and that they have tried to demonstrate the accuracy of this belief by marshaling various scientific facts into an argument. and they obviously don't share the share all the beliefs, values, and assumptions of the modern scientific community, otherwise they wouldn't be AIDS deniers, would they? how is this not a belief system? granted, it's not a particularly sophisticated or involved belief system, but the fact that they continue to advocate for it even after it's been debunked is a clear sign that it's not just normal scientific investigation. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's your definition of "belief system", then I think it's so vague as to be essentially meaningless, or at least not particularly useful in the context of this guideline. MastCell ^Talk 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. In fact, if you think about it, this approach solves the Fringe Topic problem very nicely. by approaching them as belief systems, we can discuss fringe topics seriously and completely, without demeaning or attacking them, yet without any worry that we will be presenting them as serious competitors to the scientific understanding of the world. honestly, I'm not really seeing what your objection on this point is. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if by "structure" you are referring to the order of the material presented, but your wording would suggest that to many readers. Thus #3 would be seen as saying the criticisms should be concentrated in one area of the article, and that wouldn't be good. Criticisms should be placed wherever they are most relevant, otherwise you risk giving undue weight to the Fringe theory, and making the article disjointed. We had and fixed this problem at Bates method, which, while you can still question some of its content, is now at least a well-organized treatment of a fringe theory, imho. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I meant it more as a list of things that needed to be covered than an actual ordering. and I'll add that I am still perplexed when people apply the undo_weight clause this way. undo weight literally reads: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all but this has got to be taken relative to the article. otherwise you start trying to claim that the holders of a fringe belief are a tiny minority within their own fringe beliefs, which is clearly silly (bordering on stupid) pov-pushing. there is nothing about giving a clear, unbiased description of even the wackiest fringe theory that triggers undo weight.

look - I understand that there are any number of people here who are jonesing to stamp fringe theories to death. there's a lot of history behind that, I'm sure, so I don't want to criticize the feeling. but it's not NPOV; it's just not. an encyclopedia needs to describe even stupid and offensive ideas with neutrality and openness, or it's not an encyclopedia. your model here should be scientific texts - scientists never come out and vindictively pound their opponents into dust. what they always do is is give a nice, neutral statement about what their opponent's research actually said, and then they calmly and cooly take it apart into little pieces and show where it doesn't work. read any reputable journal, on almost any topic; you'll see what I mean. If we can't have that kind of scientific attachment when we are talking about fringe theories, then we might as well just give up trying and begin all the fringe topic pages with "these stupid little sh@tf%#kers don't know what the hell they're talking about..." --Ludwigs2 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I like a lot of what you're doing here, Ludwigs. The problem I see with it is sourcing: to say all the things you say would be very difficult sometimes. Also, fringe ideas are not always belief systems. See Parapsychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

true about the sourcing... but I think it's better to have some sort of guideline that might create some headaches than to have no guideline at all (and the obvious headaches that creates).

but let me be clear on this belief system thing - it's not meant to be a difficult concept, but I can see how it can get taken weird ways. beliefs come before facts in the human mind. we hold beliefs whether we want to (or know it) or not. if we are reasonable people, our beliefs grow and change over time, and if we're careful thinkers our beliefs become more in tune with reality as we think about them. for instance, we all believe in science in some very simple, practical ways. I believe as a matter of course that if I turn on the television I'll get to watch a TV show, even though I have a limited understanding of the principles of electromagnetism or the workings of the human eye. the fact of the matter is, my belief in science is well-justified, because all these things around me work in pretty much the way advertised.

with fringe theories (like cults) people somehow get caught up in a set of beliefs that are not borne out by conventional reality, but for some reason or other they start looking for ways to reconstruct reality to fit their conceptions, rather than the other way around. sometimes it even works (think Galileo, or Darwin, or the 'meteor killed the dinosaurs' guy that SA mentioned). if you've read Kuhn, this is inherent in the nature of paradigm shifts: scientific consensus (i.e., scientific beliefs) shift from one mode to another, and all of a sudden standard understandings of the world become passé fringe beliefs, while some heretofore fringe belief becomes the standard understanding of the world. you just can't get away from the belief thing on some level or another, because it's jst the way we think. --Ludwigs2 23:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is good...

"If Dr. Jones is an reliable expert in the field in which she is writing, consider writing about the facts mentioned by Dr. Jones rather than the opinions of Dr. Jones. Facts may not require in-text attribution if they are facts and not solely Dr. Jones's opinions. Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by substantiating it rather than attributing it."

It covers both angles. It guides us to (instead of attributing to a particular person, regardless of how many sources can be found) to substantiate it with facts. Plus we have a core policy to back it up. The "may not" and "if they are facts and not solely" that SA had a problem with are there to cover contingencies such as fact-claims that are really just opinions posing as facts. Like the core policy says, we can avoid that (and the cases of particular attribution) by substantiation. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Neal, what do you mean exactly by "substantiation"? Do you mean checking other reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean no less and no more than the alternate approach proscribed by Wikipedia:Npov#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. It kind of makes sense. If we're having problems with attribution, use the alternate approach. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm not a fan of the last statement because it implies that facts are somehow "biased". Maybe in another part of the article this would be good. There are often people who claim that a fact is an opinion posing as fact: but such arguments can easily be decided by considering sources. If the reliable sources say its a fact then Wikipedia must treat it as such no matter how much the people who don't think it is a fact think otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SA, the previous examples you gave of facts were actually biased statements. Your version said "So statements like 'The principles of this fringe idea contradict basic scientific facts and are not corroborated by observation' can be included." The substantiation approach would be to list the scientific facts that supposedly contradict the theory without the biased sythesis of "contradiction" and unverifiability of "not corroborated by observation". An even better approach would be both. List the facts and also the attributed statement that the facts contradict the fringe theory. The "contingencies" I spoke of were examples like the one you gave. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should add what I feel is an eg. Give me a sec... --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Suppose only one scientist bothered to criticize the Hollow Earth Theory (dubious that it'd only be one, but it's just an example) although almost no one supports it. We only have one source as a direct criticism of the idea. We've exhausted all searches for other critics and aren't simply being lazy in our research. What do we do? What can we do?

Particular attribution approach:

"Proponents of the Hollow Earth Theory say that the Earth is hollow and that whole societies dwell along the interior circumference of the Earth. Scientists such as Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. disagrees saying the Earth is actually quite solid."

Substantiation approach:

"The Earth is composed of layers that consist of an outer crust, an upper and lower mantle, an outer core, and an inner core. The mantle is relatively solid, below that is a liquid outer core that generates a magnetic field, and beneath that is a solid iron inner core. Some writers, particularly in science fiction and mythology, have speculated that the Earth is instead hollow, with whole societies living along it's interior."

Both in conjunction:

"The Earth is composed of layers that consist of an outer crust, an upper and lower mantle, an outer core, and an inner core. The mantle is relatively solid, below that is a liquid outer core that generates a magnetic field, and beneath that is a solid iron inner core. Some writers, particularly in science fiction and mythology, have speculated that the Earth is instead hollow, with whole societies living along it's interior. Dr. Henry Jones Jr., a geologist, says decades of scientific understanding of the interior of the planet effectively renders hollow earth theories as a relic of the past."

Sounds pretty good to me. Eh? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, except you need to substantiate it fully, and keep perspective - this is an article about Hollow Earth, right? e.g.:

Hollow Earth theory holds that the Earth is hollow, with whole societies and ecologies living along its interior. This theory was originally a speculative assertion by various writers, particularly in science fiction and mythological essays. Modern geological theory has given evidence that the Earth is, instead, composed of multiple layers of solid and molten rock, leading geologist Dr. Henry Jones Jr. to suggest that "decades of scientific understanding of the interior of the planet effectively renders hollow earth theories as a relic of the past."

--Ludwigs2 20:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an example of particular attribution. Where it fails to "be careful" is when it says "originally a speculative assertion" and "given evidence" (as if it's in doubt). This is where SA is coming from: There's no reason to doubt the sincerity of mainstream claims, such as the Earth is millions of years old or that it is solid, simply because a fringe claim disagrees. Young Earth does not cast doubt on a million year old Earth. Hollow Earth does not cast doubt on a solid Earth. Stating facts clearly should not be an issue. The sole issue is what's facts and what's opinions. Fact: the Earth is not hollow, should not be in dispute. Opinion: hollow earth theory has become a relic of the past, is a scientist's opinion that may not sit well with, perhaps, science fiction writers who think it's the latest trend in fiction. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see your point, but to be honest Ludwig's proposed text looks fine to me. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we're at value judgements. Which is better and what should we be guiding people to do in a guideline. The ultimate problem is if we can't state any facts clearly, the article ends up reading like a lawyer wrote it and that's not very encyclopedic. Fortunately, we don't have to, because there are better approaches wrapped up in all the various policies and guidelines. Avoiding particular attributions clearly directs us to substantiate instead, using facts. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

well, maybe that's just my overly-careful approach to scientific statements. scientists work on a 'preponderance of evidence' concept - a careful statement about any established theory would be something like (instrumentalist) "we have used this theory productively many times, and so feel justified in continuing to use it" or (Popperian) "we have not yet seen a case in which this theory has failed to produce its expected results." statements like "we have shown" or "we have proved" are always colloquial shorthand, not intended literally. just for me, when I hear that a scientific field has 'given evidence,' that's a powerful statement, meaning that that field is onto something. you're probably right, though, that that might not play the same way to a general audience. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - hit the save button too early.  :-) to finish, saying that there's no reason to doubt mainstream claims is a bit off-base. there's always reason to doubt in science; if you're not willing or able to doubt a claim then you've stepped into the realm of faith. what should really be said is that there is nothing in the evidence a fringe theory can produce that would lead one to question a mainstream theory. in other words, it's not a fact that the earth is not hollow, it's just that there's (pardon the pun) a world of evidence suggesting that it's not hollow, and no claim made by a hollow earth theorist (to date) has tipped the balance one iota in its favor.

really, this is why I like the belief system approach. the difference between mainstream and fringe science is really that mainstream science is a belief system with a hell of a lot of teeth... --Ludwigs2 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just an underhanded method to push fringe theories. How do I know that Dr. Henry Jones is a renowned geologist? What if he thinks the earth isn't hollow, but continents float on honey and was created 6000 years ago? Moreover, what if I am not a geologist, how do know that Dr. Henry Jones is anything more than a movie character? Dr. Henry Alvarez (geez, his name probably isn't Henry, but it goes with this discussion) once was a nutjob saying that an asteroid hit the earth killing all of the dinosaurs. Then they found out his theories were essentially right (give or take a few years and a few other processes). But 25 years ago, if the internet existed, and Wikipedia existed, and we actually had laptops (I believe I had an Apple IIc), and someone was writing about the extinction of dinosaurs, Alvarez would mean nothing to the article. I think Ludwig's proposal is not going to work. And ludwig, I'd suggest you learn a little bit about science before utilizing a sentence like "preponderance of evidence." Science doesn't work like a commercial law court. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Science works on a "belief system?????" WTF????? Ludwigs, where are you getting this stuff? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OM: I'm getting it from books about scientific methodology. where are you getting your stuff?

SA: the presumption here was that Dr. Jones meets the reliable source guidelines, otherwise why would we be quoting him at all? therefore your fears that he believes that the continents float on giant streams of honey (delicious as that sounds) probably isn't justified. remember, the purpose here is to make sure that a reliable source is not dismissed because he is one of only a few sources available. I don't know how you turned that around into a pov-pushing thing. wasn't the original purpose of all this to preserve valid scientific references? --Ludwigs2 21:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I get my stuff from a substantial education in science, medicine, and more science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

excellent. then we ought to be able to discuss this reasonably. --Ludwigs2 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You probably read Karl Popper. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Thomas Kuhn who argued that scientists work under a belief system or paradigm, blame him : ) Really, it's not the concept of a paradigm that fuels fringe theorists, it's the optimism that their theory will cause a paradigm shift (another of Kuhn's ideas). Definitely Kuhn. Nothing wrong with Popper. It's partly Popper's falsifiability that kept creationism out of Arkansas Public Schools. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read a lot of postings around here where fringe theory pushers will misquote Popper. I've actually not read Kuhn, so I'm going to have to do that, especially if it's the "bible" for stating that science is a belief system. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Neal, that is a total misreading of Kuhn and if you were to take my philosophy of science course you'd be hurting right now. The "paradigmatic" system that Kuhn is talking about is not a "belief system" any more than one might call English a "belief system". ScienceApologist (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Right guys, 'cause pseudoscientists always interpret scientific ideas as they were meant to be received and never draw their own self-serving conclusions *rolls eyes* : ) This quote and link doesn't do service to the extent that "new paradigm" has been adopted by fringe theorists:

"One of the more common applications of the terms paradigm and paradigm shift is to mean 'traditional way of thinking' vs. 'new way of thinking.' Some New Age thinkers seem to think that paradigms can be created by individuals or groups who consciously set out to create them. They seem to mean by 'paradigm' nothing more than "a set of personal beliefs," e.g., Essays on Creating Sacred Relationships: The Next Step to a New Paradigm by Sondra Ray and Handbook for the New Paradigm from Benevelent Energies. Many of the New Age self-help promoters base their approaches on the notion that one's current paradigm is holding them back and what they need to do is create a new paradigm (set of beliefs, priorities, assumptions, values, goals, etc.) for themselves that will allow them to break through, etc., e.g., The Paradigm Conspiracy: How Our Systems of Government, Church, School, and Culture Violate Our Human Potential by Denise Breton and Christopher Largent."[27]

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - I've read Popper, yes. can't say that I agree with him particularly, though he is a notable source in the philosophy of science. I've read Kuhn as well, though I really wouldn't call him the poster boy for science as a belief system. you'll find much better discussions of it in John Dewey, William James, and the other american pragmatists, or in some of the more post-modern critiques of the scientific method. heck, if you squint your eyes a bit you can see it in Plato and Aristotle.

SA - I've read people who claim that language is inherently a belief system. I'll give you references if you want (though I recommend stocking up on beer and aspirin before beginning). not my cup of tea, personally, but I respect their arguments. --Ludwigs2 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should tell whatever third-rate teachers who are feeding you nonsense that the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis is not about "belief systems". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

per discussion above, adding a 'vague' tag

I'm making a synopsis of my point in an above discussion, here, to explain why I'm adding a {{vague}} tag in the lead.

I put the {{vague}} tag there because the use of the word 'notable' in this sentence has nothing to do with the wp:notability guideline, despite the link. wp:Notability is specifically limited to determining whether an article topic may or may not be included in Wikipedia. The sentence in question, however, is actually aiming at something closer to wp:Weight#Undue_weight. But it is not precisely WEIGHT, either: where WEIGHT is simply a question of the prominence of a particular viewpoint, this sentence - particularly combined with the points about 'significance' in the following line - seems to be asking for an evaluative judgement in the 'common-sense' definition of notable (as 'special', or 'worthy of attention'). this is confusing:

1. wp:notability is a yes/no, include/exclude question
2. wp:Weight#Undue_weight is contextual, in that the same topic might have different prominences, and thus different weights, in different articles
3. 'notable' in the common-sense meaning is not an evaluation that's part of any wikipedia policy or guideline, and shouldn't be used except implicitly where it overlaps WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY.

my original suggested solution to this problem was to add a phrase so that the first line of the second paragraph read (addition in italics): "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is within the context of a particular article." this is maybe not the best solution to this issue, but it forces the sentence to be treated contextually (more in line with WEIGHT) and breaks up the tendency to use FRINGE to impose absolutist evaluations of fringe topics in terms of their universal worthiness. that was reverted, so I'm placing the {{vague}} tag while we discuss the matter and think over some better alternatives for resolving the issue. I'm open to suggestions, as always... --Ludwigs2 01:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it vague at all. Most commonly used words in English have multiple connotations, yet we don't use {{vague}} left and right. "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is." This is a remarkably straightfoward statement, and it's true regardless of which particular connotation of "notability" one chooses to consider. This is a fairly stable guideline, the sentence has been there for quite awhile without any difficulty in parsing as far as I'm aware, and I don't see why the guideline needs to tagged up when there hasn't really been an effort to address this on the talk page, propose alternate wording, etc. Do other editors find this sentence problematic? MastCell ^Talk 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, your concern about "absolutist evaluations of fringe topics" appears to me to miss the essential WP:WEIGHT requirement that minority view topic articles should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. If the majority view evaluation is that a fringe view is not very notable, or not notable at all, that should be shown wherever relevant, as well as fairly presenting the views of the minority as minority views. The sentence does not appear problematic to me. dave souza, talk 08:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I stopped reading right when you said notability is an absolute yes/no. If it were absolute, then we'd never argue anything on here. You probably also think that Wikipedia speaks the truth.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin: if you are going to stop reading the minute you see anything you don't already agree with, then (frankly) your opinion stops being worth listening to. This is a discussion that is trying to resolve an issue, and discussions require that views on all sides be heard and responded to. or are you going to go the fanatic route and tell me that the mere fact someone disagrees with you implies they must be wrong?

MastCell, Dave: the fact that this phrase hasn't been questioned for a long time is irrelevant (except that it reflects on the lack of care with which people have read the phrase). it's being questioned now, on decent, good faith grounds, and the extent to which it is or is not a problem needs to be decided on that basis. so let me be even more specific about the problem...

The sentence as written is factually wrong.

The wikipedia guideline, here, states that "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles." However, the phrase should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is is clearly an article content issue, not a question of inclusion or exclusion of an article topic. Further, WP:FRINGE is not intended to deal with the inclusion and exclusion of articles in the encyclopedia. Therefore (at the very least) the current link from the word 'notable' to wp:notability is incorrect and misleading.

Ambiguity in the language of official guidelines is dangerous

You're correct that there is a certain extent to which linguistic ambiguity has to be tolerated as unavoidable, but it should never be tolerated where it allows for a broad range of divergent and contradictory interpretations. many of the bitterest disputes I've seen on article talk pages (and here, for that matter) have to do with how this particular phrase should be interpreted, and what that means for article content. in fact, Dave used one of the more common interpretive moves in his comments above, where he said: "If the majority view evaluation is that a fringe view is not very notable, or not notable at all, that should be shown wherever relevant." Now he has kindly added a disclaimer that the minority view should be treated fairly as well, but other editors have interpreted this phrase expansively to mean that fringe views should never be treated fairly within any wikipedia article (because fringe views are universally and absolutely rejected), and still others (such as myself) argue that the phrase should be interpreted to mean that the presentation of a fringe view in an article should be evaluated according to the context of the article and the place of the fringe view within that context. whichever of these views you happen to believe, you ought to recognize that the ambiguity of this passage is causing one hell of a lot of trouble on wikipedia. It needs to be fixed, if for no other reason than that.

210.194.40.149: I don't think that wording actually resolves the problem. it seems to say that 'just because a topic has an article about it doesn't mean that it's worth discussing.' The fact that an article is wp:Notable means that it's worth discussing in the encyclopedia - that's part of the definition on the Notability page. the questions being addressed in FRINGE are where and to what extent should a fringe topic be included in articles, and how do we present its relationship to the greater scientific community. --Ludwigs2 19:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be preferable for 210.xx.xx.xx to use his/her main account to comment here, as that might allay the strong suspicion that this is a particular banned user editing through an open proxy. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If the fringe guideline is used to determine how content is to be presented in the article, then I agree the second paragraph links to the wrong guideline, and is vague or inaccurate about the use of notable. If the primary function of the guideline is to determine which fringe articles may be presented in WP then WP:N is relevant. It would seem the article may indeed be in transition (see about 1 1/2 years ago) and thus Ludwigs2's arguments are certainly pertinent. Ward20 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to claim that I speak for 210.194..., but I do feel a sort of telepathic connection so here goes.

Re Ludwigs' point: nobody was claiming that 210's new wording resolved all the issues with the guidline - only that it resolved the vagueness in the sentence/paragraph under discussion. 210 did note that maybe another paragraph would be needed to spell out the import of WEIGHT once the initial paragraph had been clarified such that it referred solely to NOTABILITY.

Re Ward 20's point: spot on. The guideline has been transformed from one that was solely about NOTABILITY to one that covers both NOTABILITY and WEIGHT. This change is largely the reason the introductory paragraphs seem ambiguous. That is, they are now connected to an guideline that goes well beyond what they were originally the introduction for.

Re MastCell's point: God works in mysterious ways.Clarityschmarity (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Generalities

"When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

This never seems to have been observed and it may be the case that the guideline should be rolled back to a less contentious version. This is further supported by the content of the second box which begins

“In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia...”

And then never goes further than clarifying the inclusion criteria for wiki. The point being that the new stuff on attribution and sourcing veers into massively different territory and it is not clear that that is what this page was intended for at all. Looking at the edit history it is clear that this guideline has been “worked on” for some considerable time. Maybe it is time to call for some much much wider input. We need a bunch of outside policy wonks to work on it, and if we all signed a petition and put it on the RS and NPOV noticeboards, that might do the trick. If only one editor does it, it might be ignored. Want to try this? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good point in that the original intent of the guideline seemed be what fringe topics could be included in WP. Now the guideline is getting more into stating how to include content in fringe articles. WP policies already state how content in articles should be edited. I am not sure why fringe theories need content guidelines separate from policy. I certainly don't know the proper venue to bring this up at. Comments? Ward20 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I think fringe theories do need a separate guideline. the fact that they are inevitably poorly sourced (in any definition of the term sourcing) opens the door to abuse - either by fanatic supporters who want to use wikipedia as a staging ground for the resurgence of their cause, or by people who have a particular grudge against a/some fringe theory(ies) and want to use wikipedia as a convenient place to publicly kick them in the teeth. they need to be handled specially, or they will inevitably fall into one POV or another. that being said, the air does smell a little stuffy here, and I think throwing the doors open to the wider world would be a tremendous help. unfortunately I'm too much of a newb to know what to do. I'll cosign any reasonable petition on this topic, in whatever forum you choose to put it in; just point me in the right direction. maybe we should post a request at the village pump, as well? --Ludwigs2 19:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As Martin suggests, I would certainly like to see wider input here, preferably from editors not directly involved in editing specific fringe-theory articles. I'd support general notices on the noticeboards requesting outside input. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, the general understanding of 'wider input' precludes restricting people you disagree with, and since this issue is about fringe topics it's a bit bizarre to suggest that fringe topic editors shouldn't be involved. besides, you do realize that this restriction would also exclude ScienceApologist, OrangeMarlin, and any number anti-fringe theory editors as well, right? since they are all directly involved in any number of these pages?

I'll be honest: as far as I'm concerned this argument is only going to be resolved when a consensus is reached through discussion, based in proper and effective reasoning about relevant material. Wider input is a good idea, IMO, because there is such a tremendous resistance on the part of some editors here to engage in reasoned discussion. I'm tired of being insulted, and I'm tired of running into obstructionist tactics, and I think I've been being very reasonable trying to talk about these matters, and I haven't gotten much back for it except spite. maybe with a large chunk of wikipedia watching the debate, people will feel a little more self-conscious about behaving badly. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fresh opinions are always a good idea. Would an RfC suffice or do we need something broader? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah. RfC's don't get answered here, for some unknowable reason. We need to really drag people in. SV might help out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps post simultaneously a neutral enquiry to WP:Village pump (policy) Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for editors to weigh in here. All these topics are involved and if requested at the same time it would not be forum shopping. Ward20 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Pump. And Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but not the Fringe noticeboard, as the fringe crowd already monitors FRING, and we'd draw the same old same old. To Ludwig- yes, we probably do need it, but letting it be handled by those who have an ax to grind is a really bad idea, and that's what's happening here. You're unusual as a new face. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday already posted to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, so I also posted to WP:Village pump (policy) and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Ward20 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Put it at RS also, I'd do it but people in general are tired of my pretty face )= ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)