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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I see a problem with the approach that this section takes towards the labeling of material as a pseudoscience. It states: "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." There is a serious problem with this, because it implies a level of centralized direct, literal speech that simply has no mechanism within the scientific community. Put another way, yhe scientific community generally does not take the time to literally label every fringe theory a pseudoscience in a specific announcement. However, the scientific community does have a way of expressing whether something is even being considered as a having the possibility of being scientific, which is publication in mainstream academic journals. In a nutshell, not every article in a mainstream journal is correct or represents accepted science, but it does represent something of interest that the scientific community believes may be of scientific value. If a 'theory' is not new and if it is well known and has never been the subject of a significant body of publication in mainstream journals, lack of mainstream academic publication is the way the overall scientific community states that something is not considered science. In other words, if there is a theory which has many proponents outside of the scientific mainstream, a lack of mainstream publication on the topic implies that every relevant mainstream journal has rejected the theory at the most basic level: it is not even worth of serious scientific consideration. If the scientific community does not consider it to be scientific and if its proponents claim it to be, it is by definition a pseudoscience. I thus suggest that we clarify the criterion above.
It aught to state something to the effect that "In most cases the lack of a significant body of publication in mainstream scientific journals on the subject of a well-known fringe theory is sufficient evidence of lack of scientific acceptance for the theory to be labeled a pseudoscience. In this case the scientific journal databases used to establish this fact should be cited. However, if the theory is especially new, or if it has simply not come to the attention of the scientific community for other reasons, this evidence may not be sufficient. Finally, publication in mainstream journals does not necessarily demonstrate acceptable of a theory; rather the lack of publication demonstrates a lack of acceptance."
The wording above is clunky and poor; but I think we need something along these lines. Right now, any fringe theory that is too ridiculous or minor to even be commented upon from within the scientific community is effectively immune from the pseudoscience designation. In other words, the present policy allows only the least extreme pseudosciences to be labeled pseudoscience and protects the most extreme. Locke9k ( talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this correct? The following is a comment of mine copied from here:
-- Brangifer ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What about turning one's user page into a Wikipedia article that's been deleted from mainspace, per consensus that it's crackpot? I'm thinking of User:Iberomesornix. After this article was rejected, the editor recreated it on his user page and attempted to link to it from mainspace; just now another (?) editor used it as a source for adding some of the content back into mainspace. [1] Would I be out of line in deleting the user page?
I asked at Wikipedia talk:User page, but there hasn't been much response. As for the fringiness (besides the socks, personal attacks, the paranoia, and the fact that these accounts have claimed to be the "persecuted" authors of the crackpot hypothesis they're pushing), a prominent epigrapher who originally championed the idea that the Iberian script is found on the Canaries has with further discoveries changed his mind; [2] and the Wikipedia editor(s) tie this in to a second fringe idea, that the Iberian language was Basque, which for evidence they include known Latin borrowings in Basque (like BAKE "peace", from Latin pace,) apparently unaware of this elementary error.
So, is this an appropriate use of one's user page? kwami ( talk) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I note that this guideline point editors to the above article, as an example of how to write an article on a Fringe theory... With the 40th anniverary of the Moon landing upon us, that article is getting a lot of edits. That means we need to keep close eyes on it, to ensure that it does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please put it on your watch list. Blueboar ( talk) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This article does not give sufficient guidance on how to differentiate between a fringe theory and a non-fringe view, such as a mainstream view. I suggest that the article be modified so that more guidance is provided. The process of differentiation needs to be made more objective and less subjective so that individual editors cannot proclaim a view as being fringe in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The current system inadvertently allows individual editors to proclaim a view as being fringe without them having to provide justification, which gives them an undue amount of influence in preventing that view from being included in Wikipedia or otherwise getting sufficient coverage in Wikipedia. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 20:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"a mainstream view is one held by the mainstream... a minority view is one that is accepted by the mainstream but held by a minority... and a Fringe view is something not accepted mainstream."
Because the entire point of this guideline is that it does not really matter what one's definition of a Fringe theory is... no matter what the theory is, if reliable sources beyond the adherants of the theory itself have discussed it (even to disparage or debunk it), then it is appropriate to for us to have an article about it (or to discuss it as part of another related article), if reliable sources have not taken note of it, then neither should we. Blueboar ( talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
According to above views, (supposedly) non-fringe views should have reliable and well cited sources. Ironically, the lead of
Fringe theories article doesn't seem to have that. 25+ years generated
4 citations for the cited view.
79.101.174.192 (
talk) 09:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Atomic blunder is right, in that this article does not give sufficient guidelines as to how to differentiate between a fringe theory and a non-fringe minority view. "The process of differentiation needs to be made more objective and less subjective so that individual editors cannot proclaim a view as being fringe in an arbitrary and capricious manner." Well said. As a start, consider this phrase:
"ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus..."
Is it true that ideas (that purport to be scientific theories) are fringe theories if they have not gained scientific consensus? This is what the above phrase implies. And this is not correct. For example, highly controversial theories have not gained scientific consensus (consensus might be split), and yet they are not considered fringe theories. Similarly with modestly controversial theories. Scientific consensus has very little to do with this. It seems a better and more accurate formulation of this phrase would be:
"ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support"
Dbrisinda ( talk) 03:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus..."
- "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support..."
I'd like to point out that "ELs that are not RS should be removed or replaced", as well as the effective requirement which said edit restored, contradicts WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a better and more accurate definition for fringe science? -- JeanandJane ( talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. However, nothing in this guideline should require that a theory or idea be classified in a consensus view as fringe or non-fringe before the guideline applies – the guideline applies to all theories and ideas equally, but may be particularly helpful for those ideas that some regard as fringe. | ” |
(Outdent) I say again that Dbrisinda seems to hung up on needing to classify an idea as fringe or not. There is no such need. The guideline doesn't say to treat fringe ideas differently from other marginally notable ideas. There's no hard boundary needed, just a way of thinking about NPOV. If it ever comes down to arguing whether an idea is fringe or not, you're just going to have a fight on your hands from the advocates versus detractors. There's no need for that. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this article from "Fringe theories" to "Minority viewpoints". -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 19:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
According to consensus, fringe theories and minority viewpoints are different things so the name should not change and the difference should not be explained in this guideline. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 11:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose that this article be modified to give a better explanation of the difference between a fringe theory and a minority viewpoint. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The mainstream academic community often portrays fringe theorie as theorie that don't apply scientific principles and they are usualy right. But sometimes there are cases where the mainstream overlooks certain simple inconsisstancies which make them fringe by the definition of using scientific principles. The best way to address this would be with the help from academic institutions but in the meantime it would be a good idea to point out those rare cases where there are obvious contradictions and let the reader decide. In this case it would help to define the basic principles in the simplest way possible. Better guidelines would help but the most important thing is how they are used in practice. Zacherystaylor ( talk) 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I missed the point at all. Wikipedia invited members of the public to participate which enables us to take notice when the scientific community isn't being honest. People in major academic institutions shouldn't have virtual copyrights to the truth. If we're going to have an encyclopedia edited by the people and the people don't want to believe false facts that should be acceptable. That is essentially what this debate is about is fringe minority or unscientific? Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. My point is in order to find out whether something should be called fringe in a perfect world should be whether it applies scientific principles. In some cases this doesn't happen. the examples cited above are obvious frauds but there are some that may not be so obvious when that happens it is necessary to do the work to figure out if it is accurate or not. However this isn't a perfect world and fringe is not always being used properly so as far as I'm concerned the guidelines are fine for now since they do allow people to provide different ideas as long as it is notable. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the link from the first sentence of the guideline that links "fringe theories" to the " Fringe science" article. The examples given in this guideline are not fringe science and fringe theories are not limited to fringe science. I will add a link to the Fringe science article to the "See also" section. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A Fringe theory article has just been created. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As discussed above, we did not have a seperate article on Fringe theory (the title was a redirect to Fringe science. As it turns out, I did not need to request an undo at RfD... unless the redirect is locked, you can be bold and simply delete the redirect and write the article. I have done so.
It is a bare minimum stub at the moment... which obviously needs to be expanded and sourced. I am not at all sure where to take it... and could use in-put as to what should be discussed, not discussed, its structure, etc. Please help. Blueboar ( talk) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Can a scientific viewpoint be considered notable, despite a lack of peer-reviewed journal articles supporting it - if prominent scientific organizations have spilled enough ink denouncing the viewpoint?
I tried mentioning NARTH's idea that homosexuality is not immutable ( here) (, but was told that no such mention is permitted - on the grounds that it was a "fringe theory". However, the most prominent statement about how homosexuality develops mentions "environment" (presumably meaning social environment, including one's interaction with parents and other family members, interactions at school and so on). Moreover, at least one notable scientist has said that there are causes other then genetics.
Anyway, is there room for unpopular viewpoints at Wikipedia? If so, how should they be described? Is there a "fair" way to talk about them that avoids giving the misleading impression that they are held more widely than they are?
In particular, is there any risk that describing alternate theories about topics like homosexuality would violate the "equal validity" clause of our NPOV policy? I mean, if we make it clear that it is not part of the mainstream but is all but universally condemned, are our readers nonetheless likely to conclude that a minority POV is just as valid as any other?
For example, we could list the prominent scientific bodies that have denounced the idea. We could give the arguments and evidence which they have marshaled against it.
On the other hand, I wonder if there are some contributors here who are abusing the "no fringe theories" rule simply to censor POV that they disagree with. Such people give me the impression that any mention of a minority alternate idea (let alone a summary of the arguments given by its supporters) would undermine public support for the 'mainstream' idea.
But I thought the function of our NPOV policy was to describe all ideas (even ludicrous and patently biased ideas such as holocaust denial) in such a way that readers would be equipped to make up their own minds - even if they wind up drawing a conclusion different from the position held by the contributors.
Please enlighten me. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I boldly made this addition to the Nuthshell of the policy in order to remove an ambiguity. Since there are fringe theory publication that are arguably "major", the use of a "major" fringe theory publication will self-validate the notability of a fringe theory, which would result in making this whole policy moot. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure it needs to... the key to this guideline is notability... what matters isn't who published the theory, but who has commented upon it. That is expanded upon in the next phrase of the sentence... it has to be someone "independent of the theory". You use the term self-verification... so I thik you are worried that someone will argue that the writings of some fringe theorist will constitute a "major" publication. However, that publication would not be "independent of the theory" and so could not qualify demonstrating notability. What we are trying to say is that someone in the mainstream has to have noticed the theory and discussed it. Blueboar ( talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this subsection here for discussion per this discussion:
Warranting mention in other articles
- Port Chicago disaster conspiracy theory — There exists a theory that this disaster (which itself is of unquestioned notability), held by official reports to be an ammunition-loading accident, was actually a detonation of a nuclear weapon with the intent of testing the effects on American soldiers. This theory has been proposed by one journalist, and he has published on it almost exclusively through his own self-published website and e-book, which many other non-mainstream websites and publications have parroted. The theory probably does not deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mention in the main Port Chicago disaster article, since its Internet presence is very large due to the aforementioned fringe websites. The exact wording of the mention is of course dictated by NPOV and other content guidelines.
The Port Chicago disaster, an example culled from an FA article, is incorrect because the conspiracy theory was discussed in a major book covering the incident. [8] This subsection also contradicts the "nutshell" that requires all content to be covered by mainstream sources independent of the theory. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. Fringe stuff shouldn't be snuck into WP under the guise of not having a separate article. As stated in the "nutshell", all fringe content must meet the standard of being covered by non-fringe. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
OK... it turns out that the Port Chicago disaster was a bad example... but I think the policy point that the example was trying to discuss remains valid. That means we need a new example. Start brainstorming folks. Blueboar ( talk) 14:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I face an interesting conundrum of late: The article on parapsychology was, as far as I can tell, written by fairly extreme amateur enthusiasts, and takes a fairly extreme view of the subject, for instance:
“ | A number of studies conducted in the American, European, and Australasian continents have found that a majority of people surveyed report having had experiences that could be interpreted as telepathy, precognition, and similar phenomena. citation needed Variables that have been associated with reports of psi-phenomena include belief in the reality of psi; the tendency to have hypnotic, dissociative, and other alterations of consciousness; and, less reliably so, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. Although psi-related experiences can occur in the context of such psychopathologies as psychotic, dissociative, and other disorders, most individuals who endorse a belief in psi do not necessarily have a serious psychopathology. | ” |
This section is basically advocating for "If anything odd happened to someone, it's psychic." However, I've poked around the academic parapsychologists, and they're much, much more moderate, saying that most such things can be explained away, and that they merely want to see if there's anything left underneath.
In short, the proponents of parapsychology we have appear to be the extreme, amateur fringe of a fringe theory that isn't nearly so bad as they're making it look.
Should we discuss this in this guideline? Because, when discussing fringe theories, we do have to decide where on the spectrum we should concentrate. We don't want to select only the presentable people, ignoring the majority lunatics in theories where that's the case, but at the same time, here we have the opposite, presenting the minority fringe-of-the-fringe, and ignoring the (at least in academia, which is the relevant set for parapsychology, even if it's not for, say, psychic), majority not-so-cranky. But would discussing it result in problematic wikilawyering? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 19:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Current nutshell:
Fringe theory in a nutshell:
|
(The target of adequate is inclusion critereon, right?)
My suggestion:
Fringe theory in a nutshell: Because "encyclopedia" represents comprehensive world thinking, in order to be notable enough to appear, an idea should be in proportion to this phase of the world stage. To qualify for an article in Wikipedia today, a notable fringe theory should have significant mention in a number of references from at least one reliable cite of a
Thus it is unlikely that fringe theory merits a mention in a main article yet. There is not space, especially as an item in the more prominent comparisons and contrasts. |
CpiralCpiral 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The proposed edit to the nutshell awaits any more objections or suggestions, please. Thank you. CpiralCpiral 04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The change I made in response to your earlier comment was from "an established idea" to "a notable theory". Both this comment and your earlier comment question my attempt to "clarify" or "define" WP:N. My focus is WP:fringe. The nutshell is about WP:fringe.
I am not yet qualified to clarify or define WP:fringe. I only recommend a copyedit of the nutshell. I think the nutshell as it has stood over the year is not quite satisfying enough, and that it is a good thing to try and improve it. The archive ( Unhappy with the nutshell ) supports this. I value your studied opinion and will wait for our discussion of the copyedit to play out. Meanwhile, I am devoting some time to the article itself, and am making progress. Soon I will have an reformed nutshell that is not only representative of the current version of the article and it's links, but also a useful nutshell that will be satisfying to read. As I study I am reforming the the proposed nutshell, formerly a copyedit, and have already added two sentences. CpiralCpiral 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Please consider going forward with the changes to the title and tone. Also, the content now stresses the expanded idea of "comparison" alluded to in the original. There may be logical and factual omissions or errors, but the idea of comparison techniques in general is an improvement for this section. CpiralCpiral 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who sees this guideline more aimed at notability for inclusion than content? Angryapathy ( talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I see a problem with the approach that this section takes towards the labeling of material as a pseudoscience. It states: "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." There is a serious problem with this, because it implies a level of centralized direct, literal speech that simply has no mechanism within the scientific community. Put another way, yhe scientific community generally does not take the time to literally label every fringe theory a pseudoscience in a specific announcement. However, the scientific community does have a way of expressing whether something is even being considered as a having the possibility of being scientific, which is publication in mainstream academic journals. In a nutshell, not every article in a mainstream journal is correct or represents accepted science, but it does represent something of interest that the scientific community believes may be of scientific value. If a 'theory' is not new and if it is well known and has never been the subject of a significant body of publication in mainstream journals, lack of mainstream academic publication is the way the overall scientific community states that something is not considered science. In other words, if there is a theory which has many proponents outside of the scientific mainstream, a lack of mainstream publication on the topic implies that every relevant mainstream journal has rejected the theory at the most basic level: it is not even worth of serious scientific consideration. If the scientific community does not consider it to be scientific and if its proponents claim it to be, it is by definition a pseudoscience. I thus suggest that we clarify the criterion above.
It aught to state something to the effect that "In most cases the lack of a significant body of publication in mainstream scientific journals on the subject of a well-known fringe theory is sufficient evidence of lack of scientific acceptance for the theory to be labeled a pseudoscience. In this case the scientific journal databases used to establish this fact should be cited. However, if the theory is especially new, or if it has simply not come to the attention of the scientific community for other reasons, this evidence may not be sufficient. Finally, publication in mainstream journals does not necessarily demonstrate acceptable of a theory; rather the lack of publication demonstrates a lack of acceptance."
The wording above is clunky and poor; but I think we need something along these lines. Right now, any fringe theory that is too ridiculous or minor to even be commented upon from within the scientific community is effectively immune from the pseudoscience designation. In other words, the present policy allows only the least extreme pseudosciences to be labeled pseudoscience and protects the most extreme. Locke9k ( talk) 19:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this correct? The following is a comment of mine copied from here:
-- Brangifer ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What about turning one's user page into a Wikipedia article that's been deleted from mainspace, per consensus that it's crackpot? I'm thinking of User:Iberomesornix. After this article was rejected, the editor recreated it on his user page and attempted to link to it from mainspace; just now another (?) editor used it as a source for adding some of the content back into mainspace. [1] Would I be out of line in deleting the user page?
I asked at Wikipedia talk:User page, but there hasn't been much response. As for the fringiness (besides the socks, personal attacks, the paranoia, and the fact that these accounts have claimed to be the "persecuted" authors of the crackpot hypothesis they're pushing), a prominent epigrapher who originally championed the idea that the Iberian script is found on the Canaries has with further discoveries changed his mind; [2] and the Wikipedia editor(s) tie this in to a second fringe idea, that the Iberian language was Basque, which for evidence they include known Latin borrowings in Basque (like BAKE "peace", from Latin pace,) apparently unaware of this elementary error.
So, is this an appropriate use of one's user page? kwami ( talk) 01:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I note that this guideline point editors to the above article, as an example of how to write an article on a Fringe theory... With the 40th anniverary of the Moon landing upon us, that article is getting a lot of edits. That means we need to keep close eyes on it, to ensure that it does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please put it on your watch list. Blueboar ( talk) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This article does not give sufficient guidance on how to differentiate between a fringe theory and a non-fringe view, such as a mainstream view. I suggest that the article be modified so that more guidance is provided. The process of differentiation needs to be made more objective and less subjective so that individual editors cannot proclaim a view as being fringe in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The current system inadvertently allows individual editors to proclaim a view as being fringe without them having to provide justification, which gives them an undue amount of influence in preventing that view from being included in Wikipedia or otherwise getting sufficient coverage in Wikipedia. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 20:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"a mainstream view is one held by the mainstream... a minority view is one that is accepted by the mainstream but held by a minority... and a Fringe view is something not accepted mainstream."
Because the entire point of this guideline is that it does not really matter what one's definition of a Fringe theory is... no matter what the theory is, if reliable sources beyond the adherants of the theory itself have discussed it (even to disparage or debunk it), then it is appropriate to for us to have an article about it (or to discuss it as part of another related article), if reliable sources have not taken note of it, then neither should we. Blueboar ( talk) 23:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
According to above views, (supposedly) non-fringe views should have reliable and well cited sources. Ironically, the lead of
Fringe theories article doesn't seem to have that. 25+ years generated
4 citations for the cited view.
79.101.174.192 (
talk) 09:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Atomic blunder is right, in that this article does not give sufficient guidelines as to how to differentiate between a fringe theory and a non-fringe minority view. "The process of differentiation needs to be made more objective and less subjective so that individual editors cannot proclaim a view as being fringe in an arbitrary and capricious manner." Well said. As a start, consider this phrase:
"ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus..."
Is it true that ideas (that purport to be scientific theories) are fringe theories if they have not gained scientific consensus? This is what the above phrase implies. And this is not correct. For example, highly controversial theories have not gained scientific consensus (consensus might be split), and yet they are not considered fringe theories. Similarly with modestly controversial theories. Scientific consensus has very little to do with this. It seems a better and more accurate formulation of this phrase would be:
"ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support"
Dbrisinda ( talk) 03:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus..."
- "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support..."
I'd like to point out that "ELs that are not RS should be removed or replaced", as well as the effective requirement which said edit restored, contradicts WP:ELMAYBE #4: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." PSWG1920 ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a better and more accurate definition for fringe science? -- JeanandJane ( talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. However, nothing in this guideline should require that a theory or idea be classified in a consensus view as fringe or non-fringe before the guideline applies – the guideline applies to all theories and ideas equally, but may be particularly helpful for those ideas that some regard as fringe. | ” |
(Outdent) I say again that Dbrisinda seems to hung up on needing to classify an idea as fringe or not. There is no such need. The guideline doesn't say to treat fringe ideas differently from other marginally notable ideas. There's no hard boundary needed, just a way of thinking about NPOV. If it ever comes down to arguing whether an idea is fringe or not, you're just going to have a fight on your hands from the advocates versus detractors. There's no need for that. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this article from "Fringe theories" to "Minority viewpoints". -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 19:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
According to consensus, fringe theories and minority viewpoints are different things so the name should not change and the difference should not be explained in this guideline. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 11:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose that this article be modified to give a better explanation of the difference between a fringe theory and a minority viewpoint. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 03:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The mainstream academic community often portrays fringe theorie as theorie that don't apply scientific principles and they are usualy right. But sometimes there are cases where the mainstream overlooks certain simple inconsisstancies which make them fringe by the definition of using scientific principles. The best way to address this would be with the help from academic institutions but in the meantime it would be a good idea to point out those rare cases where there are obvious contradictions and let the reader decide. In this case it would help to define the basic principles in the simplest way possible. Better guidelines would help but the most important thing is how they are used in practice. Zacherystaylor ( talk) 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I missed the point at all. Wikipedia invited members of the public to participate which enables us to take notice when the scientific community isn't being honest. People in major academic institutions shouldn't have virtual copyrights to the truth. If we're going to have an encyclopedia edited by the people and the people don't want to believe false facts that should be acceptable. That is essentially what this debate is about is fringe minority or unscientific? Zacherystaylor ( talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. My point is in order to find out whether something should be called fringe in a perfect world should be whether it applies scientific principles. In some cases this doesn't happen. the examples cited above are obvious frauds but there are some that may not be so obvious when that happens it is necessary to do the work to figure out if it is accurate or not. However this isn't a perfect world and fringe is not always being used properly so as far as I'm concerned the guidelines are fine for now since they do allow people to provide different ideas as long as it is notable. Good day Zacherystaylor ( talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the link from the first sentence of the guideline that links "fringe theories" to the " Fringe science" article. The examples given in this guideline are not fringe science and fringe theories are not limited to fringe science. I will add a link to the Fringe science article to the "See also" section. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A Fringe theory article has just been created. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As discussed above, we did not have a seperate article on Fringe theory (the title was a redirect to Fringe science. As it turns out, I did not need to request an undo at RfD... unless the redirect is locked, you can be bold and simply delete the redirect and write the article. I have done so.
It is a bare minimum stub at the moment... which obviously needs to be expanded and sourced. I am not at all sure where to take it... and could use in-put as to what should be discussed, not discussed, its structure, etc. Please help. Blueboar ( talk) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Can a scientific viewpoint be considered notable, despite a lack of peer-reviewed journal articles supporting it - if prominent scientific organizations have spilled enough ink denouncing the viewpoint?
I tried mentioning NARTH's idea that homosexuality is not immutable ( here) (, but was told that no such mention is permitted - on the grounds that it was a "fringe theory". However, the most prominent statement about how homosexuality develops mentions "environment" (presumably meaning social environment, including one's interaction with parents and other family members, interactions at school and so on). Moreover, at least one notable scientist has said that there are causes other then genetics.
Anyway, is there room for unpopular viewpoints at Wikipedia? If so, how should they be described? Is there a "fair" way to talk about them that avoids giving the misleading impression that they are held more widely than they are?
In particular, is there any risk that describing alternate theories about topics like homosexuality would violate the "equal validity" clause of our NPOV policy? I mean, if we make it clear that it is not part of the mainstream but is all but universally condemned, are our readers nonetheless likely to conclude that a minority POV is just as valid as any other?
For example, we could list the prominent scientific bodies that have denounced the idea. We could give the arguments and evidence which they have marshaled against it.
On the other hand, I wonder if there are some contributors here who are abusing the "no fringe theories" rule simply to censor POV that they disagree with. Such people give me the impression that any mention of a minority alternate idea (let alone a summary of the arguments given by its supporters) would undermine public support for the 'mainstream' idea.
But I thought the function of our NPOV policy was to describe all ideas (even ludicrous and patently biased ideas such as holocaust denial) in such a way that readers would be equipped to make up their own minds - even if they wind up drawing a conclusion different from the position held by the contributors.
Please enlighten me. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I boldly made this addition to the Nuthshell of the policy in order to remove an ambiguity. Since there are fringe theory publication that are arguably "major", the use of a "major" fringe theory publication will self-validate the notability of a fringe theory, which would result in making this whole policy moot. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure it needs to... the key to this guideline is notability... what matters isn't who published the theory, but who has commented upon it. That is expanded upon in the next phrase of the sentence... it has to be someone "independent of the theory". You use the term self-verification... so I thik you are worried that someone will argue that the writings of some fringe theorist will constitute a "major" publication. However, that publication would not be "independent of the theory" and so could not qualify demonstrating notability. What we are trying to say is that someone in the mainstream has to have noticed the theory and discussed it. Blueboar ( talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this subsection here for discussion per this discussion:
Warranting mention in other articles
- Port Chicago disaster conspiracy theory — There exists a theory that this disaster (which itself is of unquestioned notability), held by official reports to be an ammunition-loading accident, was actually a detonation of a nuclear weapon with the intent of testing the effects on American soldiers. This theory has been proposed by one journalist, and he has published on it almost exclusively through his own self-published website and e-book, which many other non-mainstream websites and publications have parroted. The theory probably does not deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mention in the main Port Chicago disaster article, since its Internet presence is very large due to the aforementioned fringe websites. The exact wording of the mention is of course dictated by NPOV and other content guidelines.
The Port Chicago disaster, an example culled from an FA article, is incorrect because the conspiracy theory was discussed in a major book covering the incident. [8] This subsection also contradicts the "nutshell" that requires all content to be covered by mainstream sources independent of the theory. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. Fringe stuff shouldn't be snuck into WP under the guise of not having a separate article. As stated in the "nutshell", all fringe content must meet the standard of being covered by non-fringe. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
OK... it turns out that the Port Chicago disaster was a bad example... but I think the policy point that the example was trying to discuss remains valid. That means we need a new example. Start brainstorming folks. Blueboar ( talk) 14:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I face an interesting conundrum of late: The article on parapsychology was, as far as I can tell, written by fairly extreme amateur enthusiasts, and takes a fairly extreme view of the subject, for instance:
“ | A number of studies conducted in the American, European, and Australasian continents have found that a majority of people surveyed report having had experiences that could be interpreted as telepathy, precognition, and similar phenomena. citation needed Variables that have been associated with reports of psi-phenomena include belief in the reality of psi; the tendency to have hypnotic, dissociative, and other alterations of consciousness; and, less reliably so, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. Although psi-related experiences can occur in the context of such psychopathologies as psychotic, dissociative, and other disorders, most individuals who endorse a belief in psi do not necessarily have a serious psychopathology. | ” |
This section is basically advocating for "If anything odd happened to someone, it's psychic." However, I've poked around the academic parapsychologists, and they're much, much more moderate, saying that most such things can be explained away, and that they merely want to see if there's anything left underneath.
In short, the proponents of parapsychology we have appear to be the extreme, amateur fringe of a fringe theory that isn't nearly so bad as they're making it look.
Should we discuss this in this guideline? Because, when discussing fringe theories, we do have to decide where on the spectrum we should concentrate. We don't want to select only the presentable people, ignoring the majority lunatics in theories where that's the case, but at the same time, here we have the opposite, presenting the minority fringe-of-the-fringe, and ignoring the (at least in academia, which is the relevant set for parapsychology, even if it's not for, say, psychic), majority not-so-cranky. But would discussing it result in problematic wikilawyering? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 200 FCs served 19:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Current nutshell:
Fringe theory in a nutshell:
|
(The target of adequate is inclusion critereon, right?)
My suggestion:
Fringe theory in a nutshell: Because "encyclopedia" represents comprehensive world thinking, in order to be notable enough to appear, an idea should be in proportion to this phase of the world stage. To qualify for an article in Wikipedia today, a notable fringe theory should have significant mention in a number of references from at least one reliable cite of a
Thus it is unlikely that fringe theory merits a mention in a main article yet. There is not space, especially as an item in the more prominent comparisons and contrasts. |
CpiralCpiral 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The proposed edit to the nutshell awaits any more objections or suggestions, please. Thank you. CpiralCpiral 04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The change I made in response to your earlier comment was from "an established idea" to "a notable theory". Both this comment and your earlier comment question my attempt to "clarify" or "define" WP:N. My focus is WP:fringe. The nutshell is about WP:fringe.
I am not yet qualified to clarify or define WP:fringe. I only recommend a copyedit of the nutshell. I think the nutshell as it has stood over the year is not quite satisfying enough, and that it is a good thing to try and improve it. The archive ( Unhappy with the nutshell ) supports this. I value your studied opinion and will wait for our discussion of the copyedit to play out. Meanwhile, I am devoting some time to the article itself, and am making progress. Soon I will have an reformed nutshell that is not only representative of the current version of the article and it's links, but also a useful nutshell that will be satisfying to read. As I study I am reforming the the proposed nutshell, formerly a copyedit, and have already added two sentences. CpiralCpiral 21:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Please consider going forward with the changes to the title and tone. Also, the content now stresses the expanded idea of "comparison" alluded to in the original. There may be logical and factual omissions or errors, but the idea of comparison techniques in general is an improvement for this section. CpiralCpiral 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who sees this guideline more aimed at notability for inclusion than content? Angryapathy ( talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)