This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
...between articles on the fringe subject and those where the fringe subject appears within a mainstream setting is very important. Please tell me here what you think the original sentence means, if my clarification of it needed reverting. You don't "mention" a thing in its own article. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The second bullet of the Nutshell could give the impression of a conflict with WP:UNDUE, which states:
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. Now an important qualification: 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. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
I therefore propose dropping the second bullet, i.e.,
Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
from the Nutshell or rewording it to bring it in line with the WP:UNDUE policy quoted above. The reason is that as currently worded, it may be viewed by some as giving carte blanche to include any fringe theory if the insertion is "hedged" so as to satisfy the second bullet of the Nutshell. That would contradict WP:UNDUE, which says that tiny-minority views will generally not be included at all.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Both Martinphi and I have changed the wording of this section, but it seems a little unclear what the section is meant to accomplish. I notice the paragraph has been in this guideline since 2006, so those of you who have been around for a while, what was the section meant to address and how has it been used in the past? Can we tweak it to be more useful, or can it be merged with another section? NJGW ( talk) 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is my proposed text, I would like other editors to evaluate it:
Material in an article should be given weight in proportion to how prominently it figures in the sources which are directly related to the subject. Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. However, in articles on subjects where both science and non-science are deeply relevant, such as creationism or creation science, both the scientific and theological aspects of the subject should be discussed.
We should not make it as specific as "conflict." We are trying to make things general here, so it can be applied everywhere needed [2]. We should write it from first policy principles. We need to be especially careful not to support extremism (pro or anti science), and to keep the tone here cool so that editors will remain cool during conflict.
The section was written by ScienceApologist editing under the name "Nondistinguished," this is the first version [3]. It remained unchanged since then, looks like. I don't know what problem he was trying to solve. I think this section has never undergone any real debate and analysis. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Material in an article should be given weight in proportion to how prominently it figures in the sources which are directly related to the subject. Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which touch on or re-evaluate scientific claims should be handled as literature, as historical documents, or as theological, metaphysical, or philosophical cosmologies, not as scientific theories exclusively. For example, the Book of Genesis should be covered primarily as a part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible and for its theological and moral implications, while scientific opinion should be included only to negate its unfounded extension as a physical truth.
Blueboar, what I mean is that the section indicates now that the article evaluates the subject. Wikipedia editors may evaluate things, but Wikipedia articles do not evaluate their subjects. If an evaluation of a subject has taken place in the real world then that evaluation should be described in the article. This is an important distinction to make because too many editors think that Wikipedia is a place to evaluate. The problem with Ludwigs version is that we aren't here to cherry pick sources to "negate." We just report what the source say. Certainly, they are probably going to "negate," but it isn't our job to pick them for that function. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
With regards to the wording, the wording in the text is fine as it stands. The title of the section could be changed though. As for what those who wrote it think, they surely meant pretty much what it says now. Deadasamackerel ( talk) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I removed the section because it is empty, and headers should have much more specific titles. By the way, who are you Deadasamackerel? You seem to be very comfortable in Wikipedia for someone who's never edited until today. NJGW ( talk) 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
How is academic consensus not a "particular light" which we should "go out of our way to present"?
We should present it, but not "go out of our way" to do so. If it isn't in the sources, we don't do OR to get it.
What in the present guideline precludes this
Maybe nothing, that's RS, OR, and NPOV.
Is there anything in this articles which prevents the accurate portrail of academic consensus
No
or even prevents the maintaining of weight in favor of academic consensus?
We maintain WEIGHT in proportion to the prominence. In scientific articles, that's science, in fringe, less so. There is no "scientific exception" to WEIGHT.
It's getting hard to tell who you disagree with
The "in order to" part.
Could you just tell me if you have any objection to the text I proposed? I get the feeling you don't.
The confusion, perhaps, is that the end result in the article is often similar, as Deadasamackerel says.
My basic problem is that it says we "evaluate." While that may be how the article turns out, in that the sources will lead the reader to a certain conclusion, our goal should be to report, not evaluate.
So again.... what problem with my proposed version? No one here is trying to say that we don't include information negative towards fringe ideas. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Here, NJGW, look at this if you want to know a little more where I'm coming from [4]. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but two or three people supporting each other on a talk page, ignoring opposing views, just isn't ennough to get consensus for the really massive changes made, including something easily read stating outright that fringe theories should be included in mainstream articles. the version of 16 October is back before the start of the current edit spree, I think that some pretty firm consensus needs to be gained before the guideline is changed to say something completely different to what it said before on most of the issues at hand. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There are some reasonable edits, and I freely admit that, but such major changes to the guideline cannot be done without more participation. The most problematic is probably this:
Old | New |
---|---|
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used. | While the use of reliable, properly referenced scientific critiques is preferred in an article on a fringe topic, peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the many fringe subjects. If a notable fringe theory is only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in an alternative venue (such as by amateurs and self-published texts), it may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain and provide criticism of the fringe topic.... |
In the old one, it simply says -- somewhat badly, that if a fringe theory uses a lesser level of sources still generally permitted under WP:RS, then the criticism cannot be held to a higher level of sourcing. The new one throws out WP:RS entirely, explicitly alloing amateur and self-published sources to be used without restriction on both sides.
Look, I don't want to be difficult about this, but this really, really needs appropriate review. Until that time, I'd encourage suggestions be taken a little slower, and revised paragraphs be presented on this talk page first, so it's clear exactly what's being agreed to. Many of these changes probably should be readded, but we need to slow down a little, and get this right, since it's a fairly major guideline. If the changes were listed by section here, it would be clear what changes were being made, and the non-controversial ones can be quickly voted in. I'll do that tonight if noone else wants to. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the points SH seems to disagree with is the idea that fringe views can be covered in mainstream article. I think NPOV is very clear on this. All notable viewpoints should be covered, even fringe ones, unless they are a tiny minority view. So, for example, in the article on the JFK assassination there is a section on the fringe conspiracy theories included exactly as NPOV requires. There seems little dispute about this point and so it is unclear why anyone would object to that point being made explicitly in this guideline. Deadasamackerel ( talk) 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is just to set out the changes made, it is not meant to demonstrate anything, just to set it up in such a way that it's easier to discuss. It's possible that I got old and new swapped round in one or two cases, but it probably shouldn't matter.
Old | New |
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia; all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence. [1] In this context, this guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. | This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. It is an extension of neutral point of view, which is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. While all significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, the placement and amount of representation each view receives must be in proportion to that view's prominence. [2] |
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. [3] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, [4] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it. | Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is. [5] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories. 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. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. |
[Footnote] | [Footnote] |
For information on determining "prominence", see WP:WEIGHT. | For other pertinent guidelines, see WP:NOTABILITY. |
Neither of these are particularly good, I slightly favour the new version. If we're going to improve it further, neither sets out what context the prominence should be considered from: Now, obviously, n articles dedicated to them, fringe theories should be described (with the possible exception of things like HeadOn which are only really notable for things tangental to the fringe theory) but the prominence should not be determined by the fringe theory. Amongst practitioners of homeopathy, the skeptical view may be exceedingly rare, but the homeopathy article should nevertheless describe the mainstream views. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources... | Fringe theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular fringe theory are in news sources... |
Uncontroversial, obviously beneficial change. That said, there's some obvious stupidity in both versions: "the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." - balancing the article's content probably should not be changed completely based on whether the barely notable website "PromotingMyFringeTheory.com" appears in the sources, or if it happened to be left out. Quality of sources should count for something here. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
... sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged.... | ... sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are not allowed.... |
Obvious, non-controversial improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis. | On the other hand, in articles on subjects which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, such as creationism or creation science, sources which evaluate both the scientific and theological basis should be discussed. |
Both versions work out to pretty much the same thing, though neither is particularly clear. We could do better. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Three words added, bolded below:
One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources which do exist must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. |
Not controversial, but neither does it do very much to fix the rather awful prose. "bellwether"? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the problematic one.
Old | New |
1a Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. | 1bSources may be included or excluded from articles on fringe topics or their mainstream equivalents based on maintaining a rough parity of sources. Articles should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but can only be sourced by obscure, self-published, or non-peer reviewed texts. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects. |
2aIn an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used. | 2b While the use of reliable, properly referenced scientific critiques is preferred in an article on a fringe topic, peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the many fringe subjects. If a notable fringe theory is only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in an alternative venue (such as by amateurs and self-published texts), it may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain and provide criticism of the fringe topic. For example, the views of adherents can be used to explain creation science, but the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism from that article. Similarly, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not typical reliable sources, as long as a rough parity is maintained. |
3aParity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects. |
I've taken the liberty of numbering these.
This is the biggest problem of the rewrite - 2b throws out the reliable sources guideline completely, which 2a... well, actually, it also does, but it at least qualifies it. But we surely shouldn't be throwing out WP:RS in the first place. Less reliable sources are one thing, unreliable sources a very different kettle of fish.
The sentence (1b and 3a) "Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects." would probably be better read as "to the extent they are excluded in standard texts on the mainstream subject" or something like that, perhaps with a note saying that particularly notable fringe theories such as Cold fusion and creationism might be briefly discussed in mainstream articles, provided that the mainstream responses are also included. Or... something. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, that's all the changes. I'm going to have to apologise, as they did look more extensive in the Parity section because of the rearrangement, and a full revert was thus probably excessive in retrospect. That said, I'm not entirely sure how much o f an improvement they are, simply because the really bad prose and confusion in the guideline isn't actually fixed. The problems are at least, somewhat isolated, but I think we can all agree that some parts are at least problematic. SStarting an RFC to lure people in, followed by rewrites of the problematic sectin weould probably be better thn these small changes in fixing the real problems Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you may not just revert to a preferred version- and expect others to then defend their changes from there. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker, why don't you either 1) tag the guideline some way or 2) revert back to this version [8] till we get consensus changes? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And Shoemaker, thanks for the nice tables and comparison. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker, changing a guidline in this much turmoil is not provocative: it's basic common sense. How would you like to tag it? I thought changing it to an essay for the time being was the least provocative way to go. Since you reverted it, why don't you suggest a way to warn people who come to it that it is not to be taken too seriously right now? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Per the disruption over the last few days, and the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, both Martinphi ( talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) have been banned from editing this guideline for the next 30 days. They are still allowed (and encouraged) to participate here at the talkpage. The other editors here who are actively working to build consensus: Keep up the great work! It may not be easy, or quick, but your work will hopefully result in a strong consensus, which will make the guideline much stronger as a result. So thanks, and keep at it. :) -- El on ka 02:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just read through this guideline and observe that it is too long but doesn't seem to add much to the essential idea of undue weight. Per WP:CREEP, this guideline needs to justify its existence. My general impression of such pages is that editors love to work upon them because it gives an illusion of great power without the tedious business of citing sources to support one's opinions. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.". A page of this sort should therefore cite significant precedents and evidence of consensus for anything that it wants to say, rather than issuing empty fiats. My impression of the current consensus is that we tolerate any amount of fringe topics here, provided that they are notable. The archetypal example of Flat Earth is considered to be a good article, for example. It's all a matter of finding good sources and so we don't seem to need more than our core principles to address this issue. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, MastCell, Fringe says it's a content guideline... —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment this was the subject of an RFC this summer... please review the overwhelming support this guideline has: Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 7#RfC: Is there enough argument to downgrade this guideline to the status of an essay?
I think it's time for a rewrite. Here is why (and I'm gone tomorrow, so can't discuss it, but I hope you'll think on it while I'm gone).
One of the main problems with this guideline is that it tries to answer three very different questions, but it does not clearly separate those questions or their answers, and at various places it is very hard to tell which question is actually being addressed. The questions that this guideline addresses are as follows:
a)Is a fringe theory notable enough to have its own article?
b) Should a fringe theory be covered in mainstream articles (i.e., ones not specifically devoted to that theory), and if so, what kind of coverage should it receive?
c) How should a fringe theory be covered in an article devoted specifically to that theory?
These are very different questions, and they all require different answers and different types of answer. For example, question (a) will resolve to a yes or no answer. There will always be gray areas here, but ultimately the guideline should expand upon the notability requirement threshold for article status. Question (b), on the other hand, has an initial yes or no answer, but in cases where the answer is yes, it must go on to expand upon, amongst other things, issues around undue WEIGHT. And finally, question (c) is an altogether more complex question which will ultimately cover many aspects of core policy and how those aspects relate to fringe theories.
These are complex issues, and no good can come of trying to cover them all together at the same time. It would be much better to be explicit about the three questions addressed: to divide the article into three sections; and to deal with each question in turn. This may make for a certain amount of repetition, but as a guideline there will never be any need to look at more than one section at a time. That is, for any particular issue or article an editor is seeking guidance on, there will be only one relevant section. For example: if I am trying to decide whether a topic should have its own article then section (a) will be relevant; if I am trying to decide whether a fringe theory should be included in a mainstream article and/or how to cover that theory in that article then section (b) is the section I need; and if I am trying to write an article specifically about a fringe topic then section (c) will provide the appropriate guidance.
It is also worth noting that if it is in the least difficult to extract the text from the guideline as it is now and arrange it into the three relevant sections, then that means there is all the more reason to do just that. That is, if it is difficult to determine which of the three questions is being addressed by any particular section then that section needs to be rewritten anyway. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) well, I'm going to pause this effort for a moment anyway, because I want to clarify something. I've been going through the page with a fine-toothed comb trying to restructure it per the above, and it's becoming clear to me that I can't do it without some significant rewriting. just for example, the lead would have to be largely rewritten because (as it stands) it doesn't fully conform to the rest of the guideline and makes none of the distinctions we're trying to make here; the nutshell is all about Notability, as is the first paragraph, but the second paragraph starts morphing into Weight through the double meaning of the word 'notable' in its first line. I don't mind doing the rewriting, mind you, but I don't want to take liberties without consensus. how far do you want me to go with this? for the moment, I'll just write what seems to me to be a decent outline of headers without content - maybe that's a better way to approach this project anyway. -- Ludwigs2 05:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The example set forth of a fringe viewpoint which warrants mention in a more general subject article appears to be outdated. At present, there is no mention in the Port Chicago disaster article of the conspiracy theory, which indicates to me that the legitimacy of its inclusion therein is controversial. Can anyone think of a better example? PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
[10]. The only people who object substantially to this version are, in my opinion, known single-purpose accounts who actively promote fringe theories. To that end, unless they can provide a cogent reason why this version is problematic, I refuse to let them monopolize this page with their disruptive tacitcs. ScienceApologist ( talk) 07:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent refactoring of ScienceApologist's post above has not been an improvement. Speaking for myself:
SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I too fail to understand SA's point about single purpose accounts. His own account seems to have a distinct agenda, as indicated by the manifesto on his user page and even his account name. Is he suggesting that we should discount his utterances because he is here to promote a particular POV? Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how anyone who has done much editing of fringe articles can doubt that single-purpose accounts frequently are a factor in problematic articles. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking about nominating this guideline for deletion. Before discussing any changes, I believe we should have a poll about whether it should be retained at all. My argument as I stated above under "Unhappy with the Nutshell" is that it is unnecessary and harmful. Specifically, it is confusing, redundant, riven with inconsistencies, too long, and full of opportunities for fringe-theory advocates to spot loopholes that they will exploit. Anything that is good in it can already be found in the "senior" Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. So, let's hear it for the Deletes and Keeps.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This has come up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard... I'm sorry, but "the simple statement that the Rothschild theory is notable" does not satisfy the burden of evidence. If a theory is indeed notable, then there will be more than a few reliable sources that will substantiate that notability. See: WP:FRINGE. In this case, there is ample evidence to show that the Rothschild theory has been discredited. The most it deserves is a brief mention... a single sentence to say that it has been discredited. More than that is indeed giving the theory Undue Weight.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
...between articles on the fringe subject and those where the fringe subject appears within a mainstream setting is very important. Please tell me here what you think the original sentence means, if my clarification of it needed reverting. You don't "mention" a thing in its own article. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The second bullet of the Nutshell could give the impression of a conflict with WP:UNDUE, which states:
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. Now an important qualification: 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. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
I therefore propose dropping the second bullet, i.e.,
Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
from the Nutshell or rewording it to bring it in line with the WP:UNDUE policy quoted above. The reason is that as currently worded, it may be viewed by some as giving carte blanche to include any fringe theory if the insertion is "hedged" so as to satisfy the second bullet of the Nutshell. That would contradict WP:UNDUE, which says that tiny-minority views will generally not be included at all.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Both Martinphi and I have changed the wording of this section, but it seems a little unclear what the section is meant to accomplish. I notice the paragraph has been in this guideline since 2006, so those of you who have been around for a while, what was the section meant to address and how has it been used in the past? Can we tweak it to be more useful, or can it be merged with another section? NJGW ( talk) 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is my proposed text, I would like other editors to evaluate it:
Material in an article should be given weight in proportion to how prominently it figures in the sources which are directly related to the subject. Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. However, in articles on subjects where both science and non-science are deeply relevant, such as creationism or creation science, both the scientific and theological aspects of the subject should be discussed.
We should not make it as specific as "conflict." We are trying to make things general here, so it can be applied everywhere needed [2]. We should write it from first policy principles. We need to be especially careful not to support extremism (pro or anti science), and to keep the tone here cool so that editors will remain cool during conflict.
The section was written by ScienceApologist editing under the name "Nondistinguished," this is the first version [3]. It remained unchanged since then, looks like. I don't know what problem he was trying to solve. I think this section has never undergone any real debate and analysis. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Material in an article should be given weight in proportion to how prominently it figures in the sources which are directly related to the subject. Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which touch on or re-evaluate scientific claims should be handled as literature, as historical documents, or as theological, metaphysical, or philosophical cosmologies, not as scientific theories exclusively. For example, the Book of Genesis should be covered primarily as a part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible and for its theological and moral implications, while scientific opinion should be included only to negate its unfounded extension as a physical truth.
Blueboar, what I mean is that the section indicates now that the article evaluates the subject. Wikipedia editors may evaluate things, but Wikipedia articles do not evaluate their subjects. If an evaluation of a subject has taken place in the real world then that evaluation should be described in the article. This is an important distinction to make because too many editors think that Wikipedia is a place to evaluate. The problem with Ludwigs version is that we aren't here to cherry pick sources to "negate." We just report what the source say. Certainly, they are probably going to "negate," but it isn't our job to pick them for that function. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
With regards to the wording, the wording in the text is fine as it stands. The title of the section could be changed though. As for what those who wrote it think, they surely meant pretty much what it says now. Deadasamackerel ( talk) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I removed the section because it is empty, and headers should have much more specific titles. By the way, who are you Deadasamackerel? You seem to be very comfortable in Wikipedia for someone who's never edited until today. NJGW ( talk) 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
How is academic consensus not a "particular light" which we should "go out of our way to present"?
We should present it, but not "go out of our way" to do so. If it isn't in the sources, we don't do OR to get it.
What in the present guideline precludes this
Maybe nothing, that's RS, OR, and NPOV.
Is there anything in this articles which prevents the accurate portrail of academic consensus
No
or even prevents the maintaining of weight in favor of academic consensus?
We maintain WEIGHT in proportion to the prominence. In scientific articles, that's science, in fringe, less so. There is no "scientific exception" to WEIGHT.
It's getting hard to tell who you disagree with
The "in order to" part.
Could you just tell me if you have any objection to the text I proposed? I get the feeling you don't.
The confusion, perhaps, is that the end result in the article is often similar, as Deadasamackerel says.
My basic problem is that it says we "evaluate." While that may be how the article turns out, in that the sources will lead the reader to a certain conclusion, our goal should be to report, not evaluate.
So again.... what problem with my proposed version? No one here is trying to say that we don't include information negative towards fringe ideas. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Here, NJGW, look at this if you want to know a little more where I'm coming from [4]. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but two or three people supporting each other on a talk page, ignoring opposing views, just isn't ennough to get consensus for the really massive changes made, including something easily read stating outright that fringe theories should be included in mainstream articles. the version of 16 October is back before the start of the current edit spree, I think that some pretty firm consensus needs to be gained before the guideline is changed to say something completely different to what it said before on most of the issues at hand. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There are some reasonable edits, and I freely admit that, but such major changes to the guideline cannot be done without more participation. The most problematic is probably this:
Old | New |
---|---|
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used. | While the use of reliable, properly referenced scientific critiques is preferred in an article on a fringe topic, peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the many fringe subjects. If a notable fringe theory is only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in an alternative venue (such as by amateurs and self-published texts), it may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain and provide criticism of the fringe topic.... |
In the old one, it simply says -- somewhat badly, that if a fringe theory uses a lesser level of sources still generally permitted under WP:RS, then the criticism cannot be held to a higher level of sourcing. The new one throws out WP:RS entirely, explicitly alloing amateur and self-published sources to be used without restriction on both sides.
Look, I don't want to be difficult about this, but this really, really needs appropriate review. Until that time, I'd encourage suggestions be taken a little slower, and revised paragraphs be presented on this talk page first, so it's clear exactly what's being agreed to. Many of these changes probably should be readded, but we need to slow down a little, and get this right, since it's a fairly major guideline. If the changes were listed by section here, it would be clear what changes were being made, and the non-controversial ones can be quickly voted in. I'll do that tonight if noone else wants to. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the points SH seems to disagree with is the idea that fringe views can be covered in mainstream article. I think NPOV is very clear on this. All notable viewpoints should be covered, even fringe ones, unless they are a tiny minority view. So, for example, in the article on the JFK assassination there is a section on the fringe conspiracy theories included exactly as NPOV requires. There seems little dispute about this point and so it is unclear why anyone would object to that point being made explicitly in this guideline. Deadasamackerel ( talk) 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is just to set out the changes made, it is not meant to demonstrate anything, just to set it up in such a way that it's easier to discuss. It's possible that I got old and new swapped round in one or two cases, but it probably shouldn't matter.
Old | New |
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia; all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence. [1] In this context, this guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. | This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. It is an extension of neutral point of view, which is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. While all significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, the placement and amount of representation each view receives must be in proportion to that view's prominence. [2] |
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. [3] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, [4] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it. | Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is. [5] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories. 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. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. |
[Footnote] | [Footnote] |
For information on determining "prominence", see WP:WEIGHT. | For other pertinent guidelines, see WP:NOTABILITY. |
Neither of these are particularly good, I slightly favour the new version. If we're going to improve it further, neither sets out what context the prominence should be considered from: Now, obviously, n articles dedicated to them, fringe theories should be described (with the possible exception of things like HeadOn which are only really notable for things tangental to the fringe theory) but the prominence should not be determined by the fringe theory. Amongst practitioners of homeopathy, the skeptical view may be exceedingly rare, but the homeopathy article should nevertheless describe the mainstream views. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources... | Fringe theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular fringe theory are in news sources... |
Uncontroversial, obviously beneficial change. That said, there's some obvious stupidity in both versions: "the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written." - balancing the article's content probably should not be changed completely based on whether the barely notable website "PromotingMyFringeTheory.com" appears in the sources, or if it happened to be left out. Quality of sources should count for something here. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
... sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged.... | ... sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are not allowed.... |
Obvious, non-controversial improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Old | New |
On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis. | On the other hand, in articles on subjects which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, such as creationism or creation science, sources which evaluate both the scientific and theological basis should be discussed. |
Both versions work out to pretty much the same thing, though neither is particularly clear. We could do better. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Three words added, bolded below:
One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources which do exist must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. |
Not controversial, but neither does it do very much to fix the rather awful prose. "bellwether"? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the problematic one.
Old | New |
1a Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. | 1bSources may be included or excluded from articles on fringe topics or their mainstream equivalents based on maintaining a rough parity of sources. Articles should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but can only be sourced by obscure, self-published, or non-peer reviewed texts. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects. |
2aIn an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used. | 2b While the use of reliable, properly referenced scientific critiques is preferred in an article on a fringe topic, peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the many fringe subjects. If a notable fringe theory is only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in an alternative venue (such as by amateurs and self-published texts), it may be necessary to use these sources to properly explain and provide criticism of the fringe topic. For example, the views of adherents can be used to explain creation science, but the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism from that article. Similarly, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not typical reliable sources, as long as a rough parity is maintained. |
3aParity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects. |
I've taken the liberty of numbering these.
This is the biggest problem of the rewrite - 2b throws out the reliable sources guideline completely, which 2a... well, actually, it also does, but it at least qualifies it. But we surely shouldn't be throwing out WP:RS in the first place. Less reliable sources are one thing, unreliable sources a very different kettle of fish.
The sentence (1b and 3a) "Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects." would probably be better read as "to the extent they are excluded in standard texts on the mainstream subject" or something like that, perhaps with a note saying that particularly notable fringe theories such as Cold fusion and creationism might be briefly discussed in mainstream articles, provided that the mainstream responses are also included. Or... something. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, that's all the changes. I'm going to have to apologise, as they did look more extensive in the Parity section because of the rearrangement, and a full revert was thus probably excessive in retrospect. That said, I'm not entirely sure how much o f an improvement they are, simply because the really bad prose and confusion in the guideline isn't actually fixed. The problems are at least, somewhat isolated, but I think we can all agree that some parts are at least problematic. SStarting an RFC to lure people in, followed by rewrites of the problematic sectin weould probably be better thn these small changes in fixing the real problems Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you may not just revert to a preferred version- and expect others to then defend their changes from there. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker, why don't you either 1) tag the guideline some way or 2) revert back to this version [8] till we get consensus changes? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And Shoemaker, thanks for the nice tables and comparison. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker, changing a guidline in this much turmoil is not provocative: it's basic common sense. How would you like to tag it? I thought changing it to an essay for the time being was the least provocative way to go. Since you reverted it, why don't you suggest a way to warn people who come to it that it is not to be taken too seriously right now? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Per the disruption over the last few days, and the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, both Martinphi ( talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) have been banned from editing this guideline for the next 30 days. They are still allowed (and encouraged) to participate here at the talkpage. The other editors here who are actively working to build consensus: Keep up the great work! It may not be easy, or quick, but your work will hopefully result in a strong consensus, which will make the guideline much stronger as a result. So thanks, and keep at it. :) -- El on ka 02:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I just read through this guideline and observe that it is too long but doesn't seem to add much to the essential idea of undue weight. Per WP:CREEP, this guideline needs to justify its existence. My general impression of such pages is that editors love to work upon them because it gives an illusion of great power without the tedious business of citing sources to support one's opinions. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive.". A page of this sort should therefore cite significant precedents and evidence of consensus for anything that it wants to say, rather than issuing empty fiats. My impression of the current consensus is that we tolerate any amount of fringe topics here, provided that they are notable. The archetypal example of Flat Earth is considered to be a good article, for example. It's all a matter of finding good sources and so we don't seem to need more than our core principles to address this issue. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, MastCell, Fringe says it's a content guideline... —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment this was the subject of an RFC this summer... please review the overwhelming support this guideline has: Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 7#RfC: Is there enough argument to downgrade this guideline to the status of an essay?
I think it's time for a rewrite. Here is why (and I'm gone tomorrow, so can't discuss it, but I hope you'll think on it while I'm gone).
One of the main problems with this guideline is that it tries to answer three very different questions, but it does not clearly separate those questions or their answers, and at various places it is very hard to tell which question is actually being addressed. The questions that this guideline addresses are as follows:
a)Is a fringe theory notable enough to have its own article?
b) Should a fringe theory be covered in mainstream articles (i.e., ones not specifically devoted to that theory), and if so, what kind of coverage should it receive?
c) How should a fringe theory be covered in an article devoted specifically to that theory?
These are very different questions, and they all require different answers and different types of answer. For example, question (a) will resolve to a yes or no answer. There will always be gray areas here, but ultimately the guideline should expand upon the notability requirement threshold for article status. Question (b), on the other hand, has an initial yes or no answer, but in cases where the answer is yes, it must go on to expand upon, amongst other things, issues around undue WEIGHT. And finally, question (c) is an altogether more complex question which will ultimately cover many aspects of core policy and how those aspects relate to fringe theories.
These are complex issues, and no good can come of trying to cover them all together at the same time. It would be much better to be explicit about the three questions addressed: to divide the article into three sections; and to deal with each question in turn. This may make for a certain amount of repetition, but as a guideline there will never be any need to look at more than one section at a time. That is, for any particular issue or article an editor is seeking guidance on, there will be only one relevant section. For example: if I am trying to decide whether a topic should have its own article then section (a) will be relevant; if I am trying to decide whether a fringe theory should be included in a mainstream article and/or how to cover that theory in that article then section (b) is the section I need; and if I am trying to write an article specifically about a fringe topic then section (c) will provide the appropriate guidance.
It is also worth noting that if it is in the least difficult to extract the text from the guideline as it is now and arrange it into the three relevant sections, then that means there is all the more reason to do just that. That is, if it is difficult to determine which of the three questions is being addressed by any particular section then that section needs to be rewritten anyway. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) well, I'm going to pause this effort for a moment anyway, because I want to clarify something. I've been going through the page with a fine-toothed comb trying to restructure it per the above, and it's becoming clear to me that I can't do it without some significant rewriting. just for example, the lead would have to be largely rewritten because (as it stands) it doesn't fully conform to the rest of the guideline and makes none of the distinctions we're trying to make here; the nutshell is all about Notability, as is the first paragraph, but the second paragraph starts morphing into Weight through the double meaning of the word 'notable' in its first line. I don't mind doing the rewriting, mind you, but I don't want to take liberties without consensus. how far do you want me to go with this? for the moment, I'll just write what seems to me to be a decent outline of headers without content - maybe that's a better way to approach this project anyway. -- Ludwigs2 05:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The example set forth of a fringe viewpoint which warrants mention in a more general subject article appears to be outdated. At present, there is no mention in the Port Chicago disaster article of the conspiracy theory, which indicates to me that the legitimacy of its inclusion therein is controversial. Can anyone think of a better example? PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
[10]. The only people who object substantially to this version are, in my opinion, known single-purpose accounts who actively promote fringe theories. To that end, unless they can provide a cogent reason why this version is problematic, I refuse to let them monopolize this page with their disruptive tacitcs. ScienceApologist ( talk) 07:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent refactoring of ScienceApologist's post above has not been an improvement. Speaking for myself:
SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I too fail to understand SA's point about single purpose accounts. His own account seems to have a distinct agenda, as indicated by the manifesto on his user page and even his account name. Is he suggesting that we should discount his utterances because he is here to promote a particular POV? Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how anyone who has done much editing of fringe articles can doubt that single-purpose accounts frequently are a factor in problematic articles. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking about nominating this guideline for deletion. Before discussing any changes, I believe we should have a poll about whether it should be retained at all. My argument as I stated above under "Unhappy with the Nutshell" is that it is unnecessary and harmful. Specifically, it is confusing, redundant, riven with inconsistencies, too long, and full of opportunities for fringe-theory advocates to spot loopholes that they will exploit. Anything that is good in it can already be found in the "senior" Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. So, let's hear it for the Deletes and Keeps.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This has come up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard... I'm sorry, but "the simple statement that the Rothschild theory is notable" does not satisfy the burden of evidence. If a theory is indeed notable, then there will be more than a few reliable sources that will substantiate that notability. See: WP:FRINGE. In this case, there is ample evidence to show that the Rothschild theory has been discredited. The most it deserves is a brief mention... a single sentence to say that it has been discredited. More than that is indeed giving the theory Undue Weight.