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.

In brief: It's a noticeboard to report incidents of fringe theories being pushed (usually by cranks) onto articles, where usually they are not wanted: this is a very wide-spread problem that often takes place on highly obscure articles. Talk page discussion often doesn't work here, often because cranks shout very loudly, and because said articles are so obscure (not saying that they are necessarily obscure, they just often are). Wikipedia is a big place. Hence the noticeboard. Hopefully this will work, though I don't mind if it doesn't. I'm being bold, and haven't bothered to tick the usual banal boxes when creating such things. Moreschi ^Talk 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being bold. Let's see what will become of this idea. Hopefully we will not see long-standing opponents fighting each other on this board. Is it only for cases of active POV-pushing that requires urgent intervention? I suppose I'm not expected to report old cranky pages such as Asii here? -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 00:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the wording a little to clarify that we not only want to help remove unjustified discussion of fringe theories, but that we want to help to have justified discussion and only justified discussion. The problems can run both ways, and I think a neutral wording is advantageous. Bold, and also prudent. Otherwise it could make things even more divisive. I think of this more as a neutral place for centralized discussion--there really isn't any of this that is quite as urgent as blocking vandals and removing copyvios. DGG 04:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this really needed? It seems a bit bureaucratic and instruction creepy to me. -- Core desat 05:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is one of the biggest self-delusions I have seen on this project. Sigh. This noticeboard actually has potential to be useful.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  09:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus and I take a slightly different approach to some of this, but I agree with him that it just might work to try to separate discussions from the hot-button environment of a bitterly contested article.If it doesn't help, it can be removed. DGG ( talk) 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed some of the language in the header to show an appropriately objective position. if this is seen as an attempt to eliminate the discussion of alternative views, it should and will be rejected. DGG ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. An editor reverted my post on the notice board. I found a link to this page in the edit summary. Is it appropriate to make a comment, about the notice board, on this page? ☻ Fred| ☝ discussion| ✍ contributions 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Go ahead. Moreschi ^Talk 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an interest in fringe theories. I was interested to see a project about this topic and maybe join it. It is not what I expected, it seems to be a bit hostile in places. I just wanted to make that comment, I contend that it would not improve the community or the any of the articles. Many new, maybe young, users might like to add to an article on something 'weird'; most people believe all sorts of strange, unverifiable, things. I think that a lot of care should be taken in this way, by avoiding offending people with judgemental comments and harsh statements about these beliefs. This is a community space. Thanks, ☻ Fred| ☝ discussion| ✍ contributions 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "strange, unverifiable, things" - lots of people do hold such beliefs. Usually such beliefs don't have a place in Wikipedia, unless it's notably weird belief: notable enough for its own article, or notable enough for a mention somewhere else. But such things must not be presented as part of mainstream academia, nor as fact, nor be given undue weight. Which is policy, so don't blame me :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Though you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience, which looks useful. Moreschi ^Talk 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor has made a remark that I find both presumptive and offensive, I hope that he did not intend to do so. Howwever, I am leaving this space. These things can and do have a place on wikipedia. Editors can and do learn to present and explain things, even completely unverifiable theories. Others take the path of excluding information, that is an old story. Dominicanis As I say, I'm going now. ☻ Fred| ☝ discussion| ✍ contributions 16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for any offense caused, I'm baffled as what part of what I said was evil. Moreschi ^Talk 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he still doesn't understand the goal of this board. I tried to explain it on his talk page, and encouraged him to participate, as I think the board will need people who are interested in the minority theories to help with balance on articles. -- Rocksanddirt 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he really understands what we're doing here; unverifiable information should be excluded from an encyclopedia; not theories which, they themselves, may be unverifiable. I think he misunderstood the distinction. -- Haemo 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you all might find the project above interesting to you. It seems to deal in many ways with potentially the same sort of material. John Carter 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure I knew about this before. Looks very useful. Moreschi ^Talk 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Think I'll pass, per Groucho Marx. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to make use of this place next time I see some noxious nonsense being passed off. 68.39.174.238 04:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was cool too; I always wished there was a page like this. Thanks for the tip on Joe Cell. Cool Hand Luke 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone given thought to how to archive these as the page is starting to fill up now? And how do we decide something is 'resolved'? Maybe one of those bots that archives sections that hasn't had any activity after a certian number of days? -- Rocksanddirt 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that myself. Even if an issue has not been resolved, inactivity here for a couple of weeks ought to signify that, at the very least, those who are going to take an interest in that issue have already had it brought to their attention. Sheffield Steel ^talkers _stalkers 04:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, we should get a bot to archive threads that are untouched for a week or so, same as on WP:AN. dab (𒁳) 18:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to do the MiszaBot thing; we'll see if I got the config right. ← Ben ^B4 18:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I did not, although I did it the same as WP:RSN, which is working. The bot hasn't archived here yet. Someone look into it please, as I don't know what I did wrong. ← Ben ^B4 06:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's working, finally. The problem was that all the headers were H3s for some reason. I'm leaving the archive age at 30 days, because 20 entries seems reasonable, and that's what it is on WP:RSN which gets more traffic. ← Ben^B4 07:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If an editor insists on adding some facts of dubious notabity to existing article, where can this be discussed in a wider forum? This noticeboard comes to mind, but what if it is not a fringe theory, but just some unotable detail from local news?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

in principle, this should be discussed via WP:RFC or WP:3O. In practice, no-one pays attention to these nowadays, and you have to shop for attention elsewhere / anywhere. If it's a clear case of WP:UNDUE, the editor adding the factoid usually will find themselves outnumbered even against the small number of people watching the article and give up eventually. -- dab (𒁳) 07:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure I read an item here in which there was discussion on when a fringe theory could be considered mainstream. About how many times it needed to appear in mainstream publications before it could be considered mainstream. Now when I need it I can't find it. Had a very good answer by Blueboar, any idea where I might find it, or can you give me a response? Jagra 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't I ever talked about how or when a Fringe theory becomes Mainstream. I have, however, talked about how and when a Fringe theory has gained enough notice by the mainstream to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE reads:

• In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.

In short, a Fringe theory that has been talked about by the mainstream can be talked about in Wikipedia... because we can cite those mainstream sources doing so. There is no magic number that establishes notablility. The key phrase is 'extensisve coverage'... a whole bunch of passing refferences to the theory does not make it notable, while even one in depth article does. For example, if I started a fringe theory stating that the US Government was secretly being controled by Big Foot, and the New York Times, Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune all included statements in unrelated articles that said something like "The idea that "XXX" is occuring is as loony as the idea that the US Government is controled by Big Foot"... those passing references would not be enough to establish notability of my Big Foot Conspiracy theory. But if the Albany Times-Union contained an article devoted to debunking the Big Foot Conspiracy theory, just that one article that would be enough to establish its notability. Does that help? Blueboar 13:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar that is a help. I must have read your earlier comment on same. By the way where was that? Jagra 05:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all sure which comment you mean ... Probably in an archived talk page for WP:FRINGE. I know I have also made several comments to this effect on other pages (such as WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:RS) when the issue has come up.

By the way... none of this changes what other policies and guidelins say... statements about a Fringe theory still need to be verifiable to reliable sources, still need to be written in a NPOV manner (and still pass the Undue Weight clause in WP:NPOV). And it does not always follow that you should include discussion of a Fringe theory, just because you are allowed to. Good luck. Blueboar 13:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

now that we've been at this for a couple of months.....does it seem to be working? helping any? -- Rocksanddirt 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so. We have to be careful the noticeboard is not used to gain the upper hand in content disputes by fraudulently labelling the other side a promoter of fringe theories, but in general I think this idea has really helped out on a number of articles. Then again, that's what I would think, seeing as I created the noticeboard in the first place. Moreschi ^Talk 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

it works because it has a number of regulars who enjoy debunking fringy stuff. The noticeboard is only as good as its participants, but at present, things are looking bright. -- dab (𒁳) 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

True, though I enjoy the wackjob theories themselves, and want to see good articles on them. -- Rocksanddirt 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just, remember what the guideline says... we can have good articles on wackjob theories... as long as they are NOTABLE wackjob theories that have been commented upon by the mainstream. :>) Blueboar 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

I just found this noticeboard today, and it seems like a good idea, though I would like to address the point mentioned by Moreschi above.

Maybe when an article is discussed here, it would be good to post a note on the talk page of the article to inform editors that there is a discussion about their work happening here. Not right away - If it's a short discussion that quickly agrees the article has not got a "fringe" problem, then that would not be needed. But if people here start to agree that there is a "fringe" issue with an article and get into discussing changes, or the edits of particular users, then it seems only fair that the article editors be informed about it.

That's how the other noticeboards work, so in the interest of fairness and transparency, it seems we should do that here too - perhaps by adding a short instruction at the top of the page.

Comments? -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 11:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, especially since I have seen discussions on this notice board that have excluded the other involved editors of the articles being discussed, by the very fact that they did not know the discussion had shifted here. Arion ( talk) 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

the point of this noticeboard is drawing attention to ongoing debates, not to duplicate them. Discussions should not "shift here", and this doesn't usually happen. It happened in some cases (the SRA case), but we should discourage that. As soon as a threaded discussion begins to develop, we should move it to the relevant article talkpage. dab (𒁳) 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, in general things should stay with the article(s) in question. This noticeboard is not really for editor conflict as much as to get more people to look at some of the articles with fringe that don't get a lot of editor traffic. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. So far, it seems there is agreement that extended discussions are not intended to happen on this noticeboard.

Yet when I reviewed the current page and the archives to get oriented, I saw that a significant portion of the discussions did become long debates and were not moved to the article talk pages. In some situations, there may be difficulty moving the discussion, for example, if it involves a group of related articles rather than a single topic.

One way or another, editors working on the articles should be informed of the discussion. If it's about a single article, the discussion can be continued at the article talk page, and that can be noted here. When the discussion of the fringe issues is then brought up on the article talk page, it should be disclosed that the article has been mentioned on this noticeboard, so interested editors can see the full context of the debate.

If a thread can't be moved to an article talk page, for example, if it involves more than one article, then a notice should be placed on the article talk pages, with a link to the section on the noticeboard, so the article editors can join the discussion.

The above should be made part of the procedure for this page, and explained in the instructions for posting to the noticeboard, so all interested editors can participate in forming consensus on the topic(s) being addressed. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

people are free to debate any article in any way they like. On user talkpages, in private, and on pertinent project or noticeboard pages. Obviously, the result of such a debate cannot be taken to represent a consensus unless it was presented on the talkpage of the relevant article. This noticeboard is actually a courtesy by being fully in the open. If people on this noticeboard decide to take action on some article, and these actions run into controversy there, obviously the debate will shift to the article talkpage. The purpose of this noticeboard is to (a) alert interested people of potential WP:FRINGE problems, and (b) debate whether "FRINGE" or "UNDUE" applies to a given case. If this results in editing disputes, these editing disputes will be treated like any other, quite regardless of their being initiated by a post to this board. I don't see a problem with "disclosure" as suggested by Jack-A-Roe, but I also don't see why this is at all important since (a) it is impossible to hide this board, nor is this anybody's intention, debate here just like debate on user talkpages is fully in the open, and (b) there is no reason or obligation to "disclose" private conversation on an article. On-wiki debate is ostensibly and purposedly in the open. If people like to discuss an issue in private, they are perfectly free to do so, off-wiki. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to read that you don't see a problem with my suggestion of "disclosure". Regarding private discussions, off-wiki, that's up to the people who choose to do them. But this is a formal noticeboard, listed in the noticeboard navbox. If it has that standing, then people should be notified when they or their work is being discussed.

Also, several people have said that this noticeboard is only for short mentions of topics and that the discussion should then move to the topic talk pages. However, the project page here, and the archives, shows many long debates that did not move to the talk page. Yet, we don't even know if the article editors were aware those discussions were taking place. That's one reason notification is important.

Another reason is that sometimes the discussions here involved groups of articles. In those cases there is no way to move the discussion to the article talk page because there is no centralized talk page. That makes this noticeboard the ideal place for that to take place, when there are multiple articles involved. It's true that might make this a more difficult project to manage, but considering that the hard work of many people can be affected by actions here, that seems to be a reasonable trade-off, if the result is that the encyclopedia is improved.

Several people have agreed so far with the idea of notification being part of the procedure for this page. If no-one disagrees, then I suggest we add notification to the instructions at the top of the page as part of the procedure for posting a notice here. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Several people have already disagreed, for reasons provided. Also, I think you're incorrect when you say that every other noticeboard requires notification. In fact, most don't ( Biography, COI, Fringe, LGBT, RS, Africa, etc.). Fireplace ( talk) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Who has disagreed? I didn't mean to give the wrong idea. If someone has not agreed about this, please point it out. I'm not trying to railroad anything, I just want to find consensus about it.

As far as the other noticeboards not notifying, it looks you're right that some don't. But on WP:COI/N, it states this in the instructions:

If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them.

On WP:AN it states:

As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed.

On WP:AN/I:

As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting.

The WP:RS/N noticeboard doesn't mention that, but it also doesn't fill a function of calling editors to go and make changes elsewhere, it states this as its purpose:

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer.

That's quite different than the way the fringe noticeboard has been functioning. I've read through the page at RS/N, and don't see examples of the editors working that page deciding to make changes in articles. They're just answering questions and mediating debates about reliability of sources. Notification seems less of an issue in that type of situation. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Project crossovers, or not

I'm a little concerned that this notice board has been used to discuss issues relating to Project Paranormal which should really be discussed on the project's own noticeboard. In particular I'm referring to two discussions about templates that were designed as part of the project and are used extensively on project pages.

1) The project members had those templates created and so should be consulted above all others. In one instance project members weren't even notified and only found out by chance AFTER a decision was made on this board, which effected multiple pages of theirs.

2) Some issues of concern being discussed actually related significantly to popular culture, rather than to fringe science. Technically, even discussing them on this board could lead to claims of POV-Pushing as they don't even approach the level of fringe because they exist in urban myth or popular fiction such as the X-files, more than in fringe science. - perfectblue ( talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

my advice is to encourage all project paranormal members to watchlist and participate here at FTN. The main purpose of this noticeboard is to help increase eyes and editors on areas that need it. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Advising the project members to watch this page is a good idea. But it doesn't address the two core problems that have been happening:

• Discussions on this page about the fate of articles have been engaged without participation from the editors of the articles involved. The creates a lack of transparency and is unfair to editor volunteers working on this encyclopedia. The solution for this is that when an article is reported here, if the report is not quickly closed as a non-issue, if discussion or editing of the article(s) begins, resulting from the report, then a notice should be posted on the article talk page to inform editors of the article that there is an active report about that article on this noticeboard.

• The WP:FRINGE guideline is intended address fringe theories in science (including social sciences like history and politics). It is not intended to address religion, philosophy, popular culture, fiction, or any other non-scientific topics. There have been many reports on the noticeboard beyond the intention of the guideline. When that happens, those reports should be closed out as having been posted in the wrong place.

I recommend the instructions for this noticeboard be changed to include above points and comments. I request comments to form consensus on these two points. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Andries ( talk) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Is_this_notice_board_for_discussing_each_and_every_minor_religious_group?

I think this board should also be used for balance issues in soft science and scholarly matters, not just for hard science. Andries ( talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Jack-A-Roe's first point... that if an article is being discussed here, a notice of the discussion should be placed on the article's talk page. Transparency is indeed a good thing.

I do NOT agree that the WP:FRINGE guideline is indended to only address fringe theories in the sciences. That may have been the genisis of that guideline, but the guideline has grown beyond that. It defines the term Fringe Theory very broadly for a reason. I think it applies to anything that is Fringe, reguardless of the subject matter. Even if you do limit it to accademic topics ... I disagree that religion and philosophy are exempt. Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies are all considered "social sciences".

That said, this does not mean that "every tiny religious group" should be raised here on this noticeboard. First of all, we should not be discussing the group itself on this page... we should be discussing the article about the group. Secondly, the article should only be raised here if it has WP:FRINGE problems that need to be looked at. If the article is in line with WP:FRINGE, it does not need to be discussed here. Blueboar ( talk) 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] -- if Blockinblox is really a bureaucrat, I must say I am a bit disturbed by their complete lack of judgement. dab (𒁳) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a warning at the top of the page: "Contains scenes of mild threat and peril". -- Folantin ( talk) 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

and raw neanderthal mergism :p dab (𒁳) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Blockinblox has a point. This board would be more effective if it was more... nice. Ok? Yeah. You all need to be nicer. Don't bite and don't be a know-it-all. futurebird ( talk) 20:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for how I "come across" to you.... I'd say "sue me", but then you already did (which I didn't exactly chalk up on the "nice" side). dab (𒁳) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not just talking about you. futurebird ( talk) 21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not at all sure your original statement is accurate. What makes you think this board would be more effective if people were "nicer"? I think this might be particularly important considering that generally not many people know about the board in the first place, so there isn't that much reason for people to necessarily "tone down" their arguments. Also, I personally seriously question whether the editor who apparently failed to AGF regarding this matter as linked to above can be counted as being a completely neutral party. I could probably say more accurately that his comment there might have been more effective if it hadn't automatically failed to AGF and accuse all those who frequent this board as being "self-important gadflies". Evidently, "niceness" doesn't apply to him? John Carter ( talk) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay point taken, JC. "self-important gadflies" is over the top-- but maybe a little funny? Maybe? If not... okay. I don't know. I'm just saying that it bugs me, that's all. It's not like it's that hard to change. People often are more willing to listen when one is kind. YMMV, of course. futurebird ( talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As a fairly regular participant here, there is an assumption of bad faith both by some folks who bring up articles or topics, and by those whose views are on the fringe of a topic. It would be a good reminder to everyone to assume that folks are trying to make a better encyclopedia and direct them in ways to make it better. I would suggest that it would have been "nicer" to use futurebird's language to put requests for merges on talk pages, and start a generalized discussion amongst the editors of the "walled garden" that many of the articles don't seem to stand on their own, and ought to be merged. AND LET THEM DO THE WORK. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wish that would work. Unfortunately, there is a precedent regarding at least some content which indicates that in at least some of these cases, AGF is not a reasonable stand to take regarding some editors who are in fact POV pushing, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Two of the few discussion I have been involved with here have had editors on the "other side" placed on probation for a year and banned indefinitely. It would be nice if there were good reason to AGF regarding these editors whose actions are questioned. I'm just not sure how reasonable it really is in all cases. John Carter ( talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We can still assume good faith (which I think most of the editors of articles with fringe/undue problems have), while recognizing that these editors may not be implementing WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE/WP:N/WP:NPOV accurately. Fireplace ( talk) 21:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in both of the cases above, it was blatantly obvious to everybody but the problematic editors involved that AGF wasn't warranted in their cases, as per the block and ban they received. The problem was producing the evidence that the fringe theories they were pushing were fringe theories. Having said that, in some of the cases here, it could well be that some of the editors in question are acting on the basis that "their" source(s) is/are the best possible ones out there, and that it should be pointed out to them that those sources may not be as good as they believe. Unfortunately, some people have very negative reactions when they find out they may not be right. I personally can't speak to how many cases here are about the first kind of editor, about whom AGF is not warranted, the second, about whom AGF is warranted, although their reaction should be obvserved, and a third kind, who takes the information presented and goes with it. I know in a few cases the arguments have been ongoing some time before the initial post here. In some of those cases, the inapplicability of AGF is already more or less proven regarding at least one editor in the discussion. John Carter ( talk) 22:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes us sound like a cabal. That said, I agree we could be nicer. Fireplace puts it well above. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the general idea of being "nicer", but I would express it a bit differently. What is needed is "mutual respect" for all Wikipedia editors in good standing. Even if someone is working on articles that some believe to be "fringe", that does not mean that the articles should be called "silly" or "crackpot" or whatever (those are not real quotes, just examples to give the idea), and it does not mean the editors doing the work are not worthy of respect. They might be COI POV-warriors - if they are, that will eventually be brought to light. But until/unless it turns out that's what's going on, they deserve as much respect as anyone else.

As part of that respect, I believe article editors should be notified with a talk page posts if an article is discussed here. That is how every other noticeboard works, and so should this one. Please see the section above above for more discussion on this idea. I recommend it be made part of the procedure for this page, out of respect to all good-faith editors. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Notifying every single editor who had ever contributed to an article or its talk page wouldn't be practical. But it might be a good idea to a make note on the talk pages of articles discussed here. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant exactly what you wrote - just to post a notice on the talk page of the articles. Thanks for clarifying that. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that; actually there is a good case to be made for merging this and some other stuff into a WikiProject of some sort. The Paranormal and Rational Skepticism wikiprojects seem to em to be more or less redundant to each other and there is a danger of people joining one or other due to a POV rather than an interest in the subject area. Guy ( Help!) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Due weight which right now doesn't seem to be going anywhere in particular. If anyone could think of a way to alter the name to make it more appealing though, I think that input would be more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

si certains continuent à tenir des propos insultants à mon égard et sur mes titres universitaires, je déposerai une plainte contre X en France et contre Wikipedia pour diffamation... ce site n'est qu'un lieu où des voyous se permettent de tenir des propos déplacés sur des personnes dont ils ignorent tout; bref ce n'est pas une encyclopédie, mais "du vomis" d'individus tendancieux et malhonnêtes... Dominique Boubouleix, Dr. NR de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes Ve section -Sorbonne

Mme Boubouleix... we do not care about credentials of editors on Wikipedia. We judge the edits, not the editor. Blueboar ( talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rough translation: If certain people continue to make insulting remarks about me and my university titles, I will lodge a complaint against person or persons unknown in France and against Wikipedia for defamation...this site is nothing but a place in which hooligans are allowed to make uncalled-for remarks about people they know nothing about; in short, this isn't an encyclopaedia, but the "vomit" of tendentious and dishonest individuals...Dominique Boubouleix, Dr. NR de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes Ve section -Sorbonne.

To put this in perspective the same editor made the following remarks about User:Elonka on Wikipedia on February 22: [2]: "Stop to the Polish Catholic Vandalism of Elonka! The Polish Catholics' methods, mainly of Elonka, are disgusting, that are used so as to vandalize the historical truth as borne forth by Buddhists concerning the Crusades. Certainly, those Catholics have a lack of background and are not Scholars... Dr. Dominique Boubouleix, Dr. de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes en Sorbonne, Dr. Litt. CIU, Chancellor CIU". Very nice, very scholarly and not at all defamatory. -- Folantin ( talk) 19:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, mate. You want to sue us, go ahead. We've nailed you good and proper. All that remains is to get your bio removed from the French Wikipedia: shouldn't be hard, plenty of fr.wiki admins edit en as well. 81.99.113.232 ( talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this notice board for discussing each and every minor religious group? To me, it seems that minor religious groups (See list of new religious movements and list of cults) should not be discussed here only because of this reason. Andries ( talk) 16:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Well, play the ball where it's laying. If it's no fringe (that is, enough reliable sources are available), it shouldn't be too difficult to demonstrate isn't it? But don't assume a position that you're allowed to write what you fancy, and others need to do the positive collaboration by providing sources (which is something you suggested).
2. All non-sourced info should be removed from these articles: you know the rules of the game, don't you? You're no novice are you? If someone wants to test these articles for "fringe", they're allowed to aren't they? Other aspects can be questioned on other noticeboards: if there's no problem, then there's no problem, and that should be easy to demonstrate, for whatever aspect that is put to scrutiny. Anyway there's no "you're not allowed to scrutinise for this or for that because I Say So". I hope nobody needs to explain you the very basics of WP:V, maybe re-read it for "burden of evidence" and whatnot you seem to have temporarily forgotten.
3. someone suggested the articles give a too positive slant about the subject. Surprises me if they were indeed written by you. So maybe use the input from this noticeboard and rewrite for tone. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this board isn't for discussing every minor religious group... it is for discussing articles that have potential issues with WP:FRINGE. If an article on a minor religious group has such issues, then that article can and should be discussed here, if the article does not have such issues then it should not be raised here. The key is that we don't discuss the merits of the topic, we discuss the article and its WP:FRINGE issues. Blueboar ( talk) 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed Andries' way of presenting the issue was a bit strawmanish, the notice board wasn't used "for discussing each and every minor religious group", it was used for discussing these articles:

• Benjamin Creme
• Share International

(see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Benjamin Creme) - Andries objected, and instead of discussing whether or not "fringe" applied to these articles (and to what degree), tried to divert attention in various directions ("others should provide the sources"; "the discussion doesn't belong here"; etc). I'm completely amazed while I may assume that by know Andries knows how it works: if he wants content in the encyclopedia, then, well, he should provide sources, and in a swiff it would be clear whether this is too fringy for inclusion in Wikipedia or not. So, stop the charade: provide the sources, and at least start by removing all unsourced content (which might very well mean that the two articles above are merged into one with what is left, so everybody happy). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This also isn't the place to complain about individual editors, and what they did or did not do. Focus on the edits, not the editor. The point is that these two articles have WP:Fringe issues (issues that might be solved with better sourcing and/or a merge)... that is certainly a valid reason for raising the articles for discussion here. Blueboar ( talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis, Of course, I know that the article needs sources and I will provide them within a short time, but I think this should be discussed on the talk pages of the respective article talk pages. Not here. Andries ( talk) 08:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, there's no "should be": you may suggest to continue the discussion on these talk pages, others are free to follow or not, there's no "rule" that these discussions necessarily should be in one place or the other. I'd advise against having the discussion in too many places. Better keep the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Benjamin Creme, instead of steering for something that would inevitably amount in a fractured discussion in too many places (I've counted at least five thus far):

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Benjamin Creme
• Talk:Benjamin Creme
• Talk:Share International
• #Is this notice board for discussing each and every minor religious group?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Share International
• ...

Anyway, you *definitely* need a reference for "Some Christian pastors maintain that Maitreya is the Anti-Christ" ( Share International#Anti-Christ?) or the entire section should be removed. That's not something of the kind "I will do tomorrow", no: the section should be removed and only put back with at least some basic sound references included. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that "fringe theories" do not apply for the beliefs of a minor religious group that has its own article. Andries ( talk) 08:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, as explained by Blueboar, and detailed by me (at first I couldn't imagine by far that this is the way you tried to play this), on this noticeboard we're not discussing a "belief", we're discussing Wikipedia article(s), and whether their content adheres to WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, etc... Again, if there's no problem w.r.t. these policies and guidelines that should be easy to demonstrate. Instead of demonstrating, you entered into a line of inappropriate wikilawyering. Please procure the evidence, and please stop the chatter in the margin. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I'm one of the major contributors to an article entirely devoted to a church that existed a few years in the late 19th century, and had only a single adherent. If Wikipedians bring that to the fringe theories noticeboard, I suppose I'd try to address the concerns brought foreward in a reasonable fashion. Defending a line where I would state this couldn't be treated here, well, I couldn't imagine that's the way I'd go about it. I'd point to the sources, try to improve the article per suggestions, etc. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries, do us a minimal courtesy and read WP:FRINGE and the header of this noticeboard before jumping to the talkpage. Your "question" is fully answered there. No, a noticeboard shouldn't duplicate a debate. It should draw attention to issues. Once there is bona fide debate on an article talkpage, interested editors should go there. If bona fide debate is not possible due to disruptive behaviour or failed communication, measures need to discuss that will get the editing process back on track. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I re-read it and I continue to hold the opinion that the discussion of minor religious groups, such as Benjamin Creme and Share International that are treated in their own articles is off-topic here for two reasons. They do not cause balance issues and they do not pretend to present a theory. Andries ( talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, it's all about your continuation of the straw man argument. Andries, you're better than this. So stop the idiotic games, in this case WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Indeed, we have rules against such behaviour. Note that I highly value you as an editor, apart from these idiosyncratic quirks which sometimes seem to make your productivity impossible. I never could've written Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Differences in perception, if you hadn't pointed time and again to a series of sources that otherwise probably would've went unnoticed at en:wikipedia. So please try to see what you're good at, and don't put yourself in an impossible position in this Creme thing.

"[...] the Share International version of Maitreya is the Anti-Christ" is a theory, potentially fringe, and currently (as far as I can see) presented with insufficient references in Share International#Fundamental claims. Discussing this at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is highly appropriate, and not to be countered with weaseliness, which only puts the editors attempting such weaseliness in a bad daylight (sorry for the dunglish expression). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andries, instead of changing the article, you want Wikipedia, with all its guidelines for articles, and all its editors (aside from you) to change instead. Essentially you are saying Wikipedia is out of step with Andries. Considering that you are far out of step with all the editors who have so far looked at these articles, it seems to me that you have been cut a lot of slack and have nothing to complain about. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)~

So how do you think that the existence of these two articles cause balance issues? I do not see it. Andries ( talk) 14:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to sound like one of my favorite Bob and Ray routines [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Project_crossovers,_or_not. Andries ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_about_scope_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard. Andries ( talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that this discussion move to the main noticeboard... This talk page is really for questions about the noticeboard, not for discussion about articles. The original question that Andries raised (which dealt with the scope of the noticeboard) was appropriate... but it has been answered. Now that you are getting back to the merits and faults of the articles in question you are going beyond this talk page's focus. Thanks. Blueboar ( talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss the articles on their respective articles. Not here, because I am still convinced that this is the wrong place. Andries ( talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... I can't force you to discuss something if you refuse to do so. But, since the articles have already been raised on the Noticeboard, I think that it is foolish of you to boycot the resulting discussion. I would think you would want your opinion to be heard. In any case, my point was simply that articles should be discussed on the noticeboard, while the noticeboard itself should be discussed here on the talk page.

We can certainly continue to discuss the broader issue of defining the scope of the noticeboard, if you need to (that is an appropriate use for this talk page). Blueboar ( talk) 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This main page is protected so I write here

On Victory Day (Eastern Europe) (misnamed, there's consensus to rename on talk page, but that's for later), somebody keeps replacing any references to Soviet occupation of Baltics with "restoration of Soviet territorial integrity"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Victory_Day_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=prev&oldid=216350437
• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Victory_Day_%28Eastern_Europe%29&diff=216544915&oldid=216505670

What is to do? 82.131.24.88 ( talk) 15:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These edits don't look problematic to me, nor are they "Stalin apologism". They could be worded more clearly, but they indicate that the Soviets saw a "reestablishment of their terriorial integrity" while the Baltic states saw it as renewed occupation under Stalin's despotic rule. In other words, the edit indicates that Victory Day is viewed somewhat differently by the two groups. Seems reasonable to me. MastCell  ^Talk 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. "The Baltics see May 9th as representing the Soviet Union reestablishing its control over its terriotial integrity" in first edit clearly claims it's Baltic POV which it isn't.

And the Soviet POV is a fringe theory 82.131.24.88 ( talk) 16:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The first edit was nonsensical and was properly corrected. I was referring to the second edit, which distinguished between the Soviet and Baltic views of the day. MastCell  ^Talk 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Baltics see May 9th as representing the Soviet Union reestablishing its control over its terriotial integrity". That is indeed rather odd. I think the article should just say that the Baltic states stopped celebrating Victory Day on May 9th after they had regained independence because they saw it as marking the unwelcome re-establishment of Soviet rule in 1945. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What about explaining the controversy? The riots in Estonia connect to celebrating the Soviet Victory Day 82.131.24.88 ( talk) 16:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was only talking about the phrasing of that particular sentence. Obviously, other information should be there if it's relevant and it's referenced. -- Folantin ( talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some proposals at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise that the people who regularly work here should be aware of. The gist seems to be an attempt to allow greater leeway to wikiprojects in developing special notability guidelines for themselves. This worries me, as I could easily see someone starting a "Fringe Theory" Wikiproject that would set its own pro-fringe notability criteria that would allow any whacky Fringe theory to be considered notable. Of course, I suppose you could argue that WP:FRINGE is in essence already a special notability guideline for this topic area. In any case, please take a gander at the proposals. Blueboar ( talk) 20:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this is relevant to many who frequent this page, I'm announcing a new list:

• List of alternative medicine subjects

It of course links to this noticeboard. ;-) -- Fyslee / talk 08:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Lyckey has just added a paranormal section to Ra, and I'd like some other eyes on this and other edits. I'm already involved with him and he has just come off a block for edit warring. I'm not sure what the best thing to do about the Ra thing is, whether NPOV covers it as not significant or WP:UNDUE or... Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs)

Reverted as an obvious case of WP:UNDUE. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:54, 29 November 2008 (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)

A Fringe theory article has just been created. -- Atomic blunder ( talk) 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note... actually this was created a long time ago, as a redirect to our article on Fringe science. However, I feel that the topic goes beyond just science (there are Fringe theories in most academic disciplines, and even in pop culture... Urban legends and conspiracy theories come to mind) and so decided to start an article to discuss the broader topic of Fringe theories in general. It is a bare minimum stub right now, and obviously needs expansion, sourcing, etc. Please contribute. Blueboar ( talk) 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why archiving of this noticeboard is set so high, to 21 days? The admin noticeboard archives every 24 hours I believe. I would have thought threads should be archived after 7 days of no response?-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

when we started there wern't many threads or watchers. now there are more of both. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah right yea makes sense then why it was set to 21 days when the board first started up. Are you in agreement that it should be reduced to 7 days?-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, 7 days seems very reasonable. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's not the people's encyclopaedia it's just typed out by the people: "Wikipedia aims to reflect academic consensus." It is this sort of Orwellian ignoral of the obvious that characterises the rest of the media - it would be nice if you lot had more democratic leanings.

And the heterodox is typically the spawn of cranks. Would it not be kinder and more accurate to say it was typically the spawn of the powerless? Sporus ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but still wp is already by far more democratic than anything else that came before. Just imagine tying to get your message out just like that in say, 1988. Web 2.0 has changed the world, anyone can voice their opinion like never before, and maybe even challenge "consensus" if you go about it with the right tools. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been some additions to this article lately that I'd like to hear some opinions about. To me, the article appears to be making a slow "creep" away from viewing "exotheology" as exclusively a somewhat "philosophical" and entirely speculative branch of something like religious studies; toward a position that seems to rely more and more on using and promoting the ideas of von Däniken and related authors as the core of the subject matter. Any thoughts? cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 03:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to fix it. The von Däniken stuff belongs on ancient astronauts. -- dab (𒁳) 08:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time in doing that; it's appreciated. My chief concern here is that the article appeared headed toward becoming a platform for promoting specific groups, both in the main body and the external links. I'll keep an eye on it. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 16:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

At what point do editors no longer get to call something fringe. I am dealing with an editor that is citing a piece of information as fringe and as such stating mention in the article as undue weight. How many books or articles does it take to refute that claim? So far I have provided quite a few books, 5 now I believe, there were a few already in the article, 3 I believe. Is this tenditious editing on their part, or has the threshhold not been met to state it is not a fringe theory? -- SevenOfDiamonds 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• It depends on the topic, and the books or articles that exist. Presumably, if something is not fringe, then there should be reliable sources talking about it being a mainstream belief. -- Haemo 23:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• and if you'd like some additional comment on that, put a section on the notice board, link to the article and a short description of the issues. -- Rocksanddirt 00:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the advice. I do not want to get into specifics because I do not want to bring any more people into the current dispute, perhaps it would be seen as canvassing. Considering the large ammount of sources presented, I guess I can explain to them that the threshold is that it has been covered by WP:RS sources. With 7+ books now addressing the issue, I guess that has been met. -- SevenOfDiamonds 10:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind they have to be addressing it as a mainstream or widely held belief. 68.39.174.238 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, they don't. According to WP:FRINGE as long as a theory is discussed by the mainstream (even if that discussion is to ridicule it) the theory itself can be as Fringy as they come. The key is that the mainstream talks about it, not how they talk about it, or what they say about it. Blueboar 18:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds asked when do "editors no longer get to call something fringe." Haemo, Rocksanddirt, and an unidentified IP answered that (except for the caveat that it doesn't have to be a 'mainstream belief' to be notable). However, the question was ambiguous. The underlying question might have been "when can editors no longer reject something as fringe?" Blueboar answered that question. The distinction is important.

There are two core issues here.

1. To clarify what if anything might be meant by the labels "fringe author" and "fringe publisher" and the relation of these labels to an appraisal of the reliability of such sources.
2. To clarify what we mean by "fact checking" (a basis of reliability) when the facts are about the fringe idea itself.

An example: Proponents of a flat earth theory have been shown to have failed at fact checking (by generally accepted standards). An author who seriously wrote things like "the earth terminates in precipitous edges" would be considered fringe, and a publisher that specialized in writings of that sort would be considered fringe. However, a statement that the earth has precipitous edges might be a true fact about a flat earth belief system, and to document that fact, a proponent would be an appropriate and reliable source to cite and quote. In other words, a document written by a fringe author and published by a fringe publisher could be a reliable source for true facts about fringe beliefs, and may indeed be the only reliable source. There may also be secondary sources, such as academic studies of the fringe idea or its proponents, but primary sources are not to be rejected.

If an editor challenges a source as a fringe author or as being from a fringe publisher, we should see what the citation is supporting. If it's supporting some fact about the given fringe idea, and the cited source is regarded by proponents as accurately representing the fringe idea, then the issue is no longer about the reliability content guideline, and the discussion should center instead on the neutrality policy, particularly due and undue weight.

Being clear about this might shorten some wasteful contention. Bn ( talk) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fringe" being the label. This Noticeboard looks to me like blatant Thought Police activity in play. The terms thrown around by grassroots Editors "tinfoil hat" "conspiracy theory" "conspiracy nut" "paranoia land" etc. are being encouraged through the very existance of this noticeboard and are used within the encyclopedia in the same way the terms "heresy","blasphemy","heretic" and "witch" were used in the dark ages as a way of demonizing non-conforming information. Look, its real easy to use labels, we have a section about it. But I don't think it ever makes much sense and especially when it comes to so-called "conspiracy theory". The official version of 9/11 is exactly that; a theory about a conspiracy and 19 conspirators. Itabletboy ( talk) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read our WP:FRINGE policy? or are you simply reacting to the name of the noticeboard... the entire point of both that policy and this notice board is to ensure that theories that are on the fringe receive proper coverage, in accordance with their due WP:WEIGHT... in some cases this means quite a lot of coverage... in others it means no coverage at all. We actually set a fairly low bar on what can be covered. In the case of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the topic is notable enough to have an entire article devoted to it... even if the topic is considered 'fringe'. Blueboar ( talk) 00:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I respect the good intentions,but here's the rub; look at the first sentence of WP:FRINGE; "This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia." That sentence has the effect of segregating a certain type of content into a separate class. By way of analogy, imagine a golf club that has membership criteria which says "This guideline advises which people of color may be acceptable to the club." Yes, its better than not allowing people of color into the club at all, but the real solution is to be "color blind", or, in this case, "content type blind". I would argue that it would make just as much sense to have a WP:Government Originating Theories Policy (e.g the details of the Sept.11 Attack or the "Iraq Has Weapons of Mass Destruction" theory) and apply that policy in a similar way. Itabletboy ( talk) 01:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The building of an encyclopedia necessarily means exercising editorial judgment, and judging means discriminating between material we want here and material we don't. Unlike the hypothetical country club which admits everyone without passing judgment on them, an encyclopedia that encompasses all information regardless of its worth or reliability would be inherently useless. Indeed, such an encyclopedia would be worse than useless, and actively misinformative, if it presents theories which are fringe as though they were equal. So you'll pretty much have to get used to the idea that judgment is going to be exercised here. This is a natural consequence of our NPOV standard, and if you don't want to abide by it, there are other encyclopedias you can edit that don't have NPOV as a basic principle. - Nunh-huh 02:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

To Nunh-huh. Hopefully other Editors will agree that your point is quite opposite from Blueboar's. I think your description of the point of the Fringe designation is dead on. Discrimination (your word) is exactly what its all about. And your conflation of a weak point with a "love it or leave it" challenge also fits exactly with the mentality at a private club in jealously protecting their exclusivity rules. Npov,Blp and other policies promote quality; the fringe label does not and is nothing more than a slur to be overcome by any content that happens to be called it; i challenge anyone to identify any inappropriate content which can be addressed SOLELY through the fringe designation application...if it's inappropriate, there is always other policies which will apply. That's another reason to get rid of it; it serves no practical purpose at all; it's just an ego booster for anyone looking to throw around negative labels to appear discerning.

• I want to also say that I came to this page because of the,imo, sophmoric and ridiculous,imo, points raised in the presently ongoing attempt to delete an article about a guy named Delmart Vreeland. The argument for deletion is almost entirely related to grossly mis-applied "tinfoil hat" type of name calling. Trying to figure out where this type of Thought Police censorship was coming from, I find myself here, and now I am sure this is exactly where the issue needs to be addressed. Itabletboy ( talk) 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with such segregation, but in any case, your complaint is against the policy, not this noticeboard. Mangoe ( talk) 17:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have a look, I don't think it is a policy, it seems to be just a guideline, and I'd say as a guideline it doesn't warrant this noticeboard. Do all guidelines have noticeboards? Itabletboy ( talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Words to watch is also just a guideline. There are a number of noticeboards based on policies and guidelines. This board has proven its utility in managing content that has multiple issues at the intersections of Wikipedia policies on neutrality, verifiability and original research. WP:FRINGE is a well-established extension/clarification of WP:NPOV.

If you have problems with the policies/guidelines, or with the actions of any editors, take it up somewhere more appropriate. You're kinda beating a dead horse now... — Scien tizzle 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to be "throwing around negative labels" like Thought police either. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well since the majority here support the status quo,so be it, but I think you might want to reconsider from time to time this "fringe" category concept & my apologies about "thought police",I didn't mean it personally,just as how the "fringe" label seems to me. Itabletboy ( talk) 22:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

When everyone comes in against you, maybe it's time to rethink your position. Mangoe ( talk) 23:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not the best wisdom; I'm sure the Church told Galileo the same thing. ;) - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 00:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But pretty decent wisdom when everyone with a crack theory thinks they are Galileo and the offending orthodoxy is the church. Protonk ( talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

C.f. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Geez, SA, I thought you'd abandoned that stuff ages ago...

@ Itabletboy: don't let the responses here dissuade you - there are certainly problems with the way fringe issues are handled on Wikipedia, but it's mostly restricted to individual editors who fall into a blindered, unreasonable, and overly-determined category with respect to certain topic areas. WIkipedia needs to place limits on certain topics to keep editors from going nuts with them, but editors often forget that those limits cut both ways, and that advocating against fringe topics is as unencyclopedic as advocating for them. If you find people pushing skeptical advocacy on particular pages, go ahead and post it here: a lot of reasonable editors watchlist this noticeboard, and they will usually kibosh both kinds of advocacy. They are not usually the first to respond, however, so be patient. -- Ludwigs2 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The latest consensus on Galileo is that to a very great degree his travails were brought on by his rock-headed certainty and his tendency towards more or less gratuitous invective. If he were brought back to work on Wikipedia he would be spending a lot of time on WP:AN/I. And anyway, our purpose here isn't to deliver groundbreaking insights; it's to relate the state of the art. Mangoe ( talk) 01:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you keep an eye on this noticeboard, perhaps you'd like to user this userbox: {{ User wikipedia/FTN}}. Mangoe ( talk) 18:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How about one that reads "This user saw the ghosts of Shakespeare and Jesus ingesting Oscillococcinum while debating race and intelligence aboard a UFO piloted by Falun gong aliens at the Fringe theories Noticeboard"? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

done {{ User wikipedia/FTN-jokey}}. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 21:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This may or may not be a fringe theory, but I believe we have a new noticeboard header design at User:Netalarm/Fringe lab. I've removed (or someone else pretending to be me) the sections about specific types of fringe theories, as that should really go on the guidelines page, not on the actual noticeboard that reports incidents pertaining to those guidelines. If anyone wants to change the colors, feel free to do so, just remember to change them all. I believe I've cut down on the number of instructions to the most critical ones that actually pertain to fringe theories, so could someone review this before taking it live? Netalarm ^talk 00:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

good. As far as I am concerned, the header could also be as short as "go and read WP:FRINGE". -- dab (𒁳) 14:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't contributed to this board for a while because nothing much has come up in the humanities. I think the current version maybe emphasises pseudo-science too much. Yes, it's a very important lurking ground for fringe theories, but I'm sure there is plenty of crank history out there (to take one example) which is slipping under our radar. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That green is kinda pukey.. -- œ ^™ 15:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that shade of green is gross. But otherwise I think it is a welcome improvement! Change the color (Even to another shade of green) and I'm onboard. Protonk ( talk) 17:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, right? I think it's more like a @$^# color. I'm not too good with colors, so I'll need some help there. Netalarm ^talk 17:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The shade they used at AIV is ok. Or any of the schemes on color brewer. Protonk ( talk) 19:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion and that at Wikipedia talk:Advocacy/Noticeboard concerning a noticeboard proposal which surely overlaps with the work we do here. Mangoe ( talk) 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What has gone wrong with the archiving of WP:FTN? The MiszaBot tag says it's supposed to archive all threads that are more than ten days stale, but there are many threads there that are over a month old. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 21:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I just fixed it. Someone changed the counter tag from "25" to "25c". I changed it back. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was this edit by Elephantwood ( talk · contribs) that caused it. He hasn't edited in a couple of weeks so I won't bother with a note to his talk page. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 21:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Readers here might be interested in this post from OM. [4] -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 11:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a drag. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 22:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Quackguru has been topic banned from our little corner of wikipedia due to disruption. see [5] for notice, and here for discussion. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 15:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A section wasn't being archived by the bot for more than six months it seems. I've manually archived it into [6]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Um... I don't expect that is a problem... but which section? Your link is not working. Blueboar ( talk) 19:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Link fixed. It was created 6 months ago with no further comments but never archived by the bot. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For those who may not have noticed the mention in the AAT thread, Dmcq, apparently unhappy with the RfC, has taken his general complaint about noticeboard regulars to Jimbo Wales: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suppression_of_content_about_fringe_ideas. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That proposal is self-refuting. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The misuse of self-published books is often a problem in articles about or related to fringe theories. After several discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard involving self-published sources, we've started creating a list of self-publishing companies. The hope is that with such a list, it will be easier to identify when a book is self-published or if it's produced by a respected publishing house. Therefore, we've created two lists:

• List of self-publishing companies in article space for notable self-publishing houses
• WP:List of self-publishing companies in Wikipedia space for notable and non-notable self-publishing houses

We're off to a great start, but there's a lot of work to do. On one of the talk pages, there's a long list of 56 self-publishing companies that need to be intergrated into these articles. Please feel free to give us a hand. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now done. Please add WP:List of self-publishing companies to your watchlist and if you encounter any self-publishing companies not on the list, please add them. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the FTN automatic archive working correctly? Is the time on the archiving too long? IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice there is a discussion about the wording of notability requirements at WT:FRINGE. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{( talk| contribs)} 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a little bit off topic but better than messaging every FTN regular at once :), I've made a large amount of edits to FTN over the last year: [7]. I was curious about getting feedback from FTN regulars about my editing and actions in general and in relation to the board as part of an self review here: Wikipedia:Editor_review/IRWolfie-, feel free to leave comments. Highlighting weak points is very welcome, cheers IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Are these really intended for use in actual articles?

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#Headers_for_flagging_well-known_pseudoscience_topics

It strikes me that they summarize, warn, editorialize, make bold unreferenced claims, or act as a disclaimer--none of which seem appropriate outside of the article itself and most of them inappropriate even inside the article. I'm really just at a loss for what these are doing on Wikipedia. An editor recently tried to add the 'Quackery' one to the Chiropractic article (which seems pejorative to boot). I guess I'm wondering if any articles do/should ever use these, and if not, shouldn't we remove them from the WikiProject Pseudoscience page so as not to give editors the impression that they're appropriate? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 10:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Are these actually used anywhere in namespace? I lol'd at the boolean logic warning. Skinwalker ( talk) 11:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor who added the header to Chiropractic ( Mknjbhvgcf ( talk · contribs)) also added it, in the midst of a significant rewrite, to Narconon. But a Google search for the text of the header only turns up those two articles. I haven't checked the boolean logic one. :) I removed the header from Chiropractic. I think it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia for the reasons outlined by Ocassi. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What the heck? The 'Boolean logic' one is pure bollocks - it has nothing to do with 'pseudoscience' at all, and looks like an attempt to justify WP:OR on the basis that 'we think this is crazy'. The 'cold fusion' one is factually incorrect - that nobody has demonstrably achieved 'cold fusion' (excepting Muon-catalyzed fusion etc), and that hucksters and cranks have been making wild and undoubtedly pseudoscientific claims regarding the subject doesn't prove that 'laws' would have to be 'violated' for it to be achieved (rather difficult, since 'it' has never been formally defined anyway, at least as far as I'm aware...) And as for the 'medical' ones, since when has 'unproven' = 'quackery'? Any medical practice or device is unproven until it is tested - this would label all medical research 'quackery'. These 'warnings' are grossly inappropriate editorialising. If something is pseudoscience, we should say so clearly in the article, explain why, and provide the references to back it up. The headers should be deleted forthwith. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If they are intended for use in articles or not I don't know, but they sure should not be. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 13:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 14:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

First - before deleting material from another wikiproject, discuss the material on that wikiproject's talk page. User:Ocaasi placed a request for feedback at 11:03 UTC, and you ( User:Anthonyhcole) deleted it at 14:39 (UTC). 3.5 hours does not constitute suitable review time. 3.5 _days_ might.

Second, use the wiki's tools to find out if templates are in use (the text boxes removed were templates, and presumably still are). "What links here", in the left sidebar, should work much better than Google for finding them. If the templates were deleted, use that as a rationale rather than "this doesn't belong on Wikipedia" when removing wikiproject page content.

Third, if there's a template box or other tool that you feel does not belong on wikipedia, then discuss it with its creator (in addition to bringing it up on the wikiproject page). I don't recall offhand who it was that created the perpetual motion template (and the rest of those templates), but it would take all of five minutes to find out. I'd expect anyone who felt qualified to alter other wikiprojects to spend at least that much diligence.

It's entirely possible that the removal was justified - especially since some or all of the templates seem to have gone through xfd years ago - but you seem to be taking the most inflammatory possible way of doing it. Please don't do that. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 15:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They were not templates in the normal sense. The only way to use them was by copy/paste. And that is just yet another reason in a list of reasons to delete them. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They were originally templates in the normal sense, {{subst:}}-ed into the wikiproject page (for reasons you'd have to ask the original author of them about; I usually leave templates transcluded so that changes propagate). Some may still be intact; some may have been xfd-ed. In both cases, that information would have helped you.

Checking the page history would have told you who implemented these boxes and templates (so that you could have pinged them if they're still active), searching for the xfds would have told you the arguments made for and against them, and glancing at the wikiproject talk archive would have shown you the debates about their applications when they were originally proposed. None of that was done here. None of that would have taken much time or effort. Barring really blatant vandalism reversion, discuss first before messing with project space. The wiki will survive the few days' delay involved, and you avoid lovely threads like this one. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

...I've spent the time digging to save the rest of you the trouble. The list was added in 2006 by Ollj ( talk · contribs), apparently as an extension of this (archived) discussion regarding templates for perpetual motion articles. Ollj seems to have intended for them to be discussed further (based on edit comments) and then converted into templates, but no such discussion is present. Template versions might or might not have been made; if they were deleted, they won't be visible to non-administrators in Ollj's contribution list.

To put this in historical context (per the linked discussion), at the time, there were quite a lot of blatantly-fringe pseudoscience articles, and a lot of edit warring occurred by proponents of said articles to present them as more widely accepted than was actually the case. Various tools, including categories, infoboxes, and disclaimer templates, were proposed as a way to address this. The problem as a whole eventually resulted in the pseudoscience arbcom case. Findings 15 and 16 of that case endorse labeling pseudoscience as such (while 16 and 17 remind people not to go overboard on that).

Regarding the "boolean logic" box, HTML comments in that edit indicate it was supposed to be a joke (not a wise move on Ollj's part). -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 04:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I too think they are inappropriate. I'm with AndyTheGrump on this one. Get rid of them. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. They are not appropropriate for sn encyclopedia. The nature of the topic should be clear from the article itself. Paul B ( talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

And this is exactly the sort of conversation that should have happened before editing the page. WP:BRD isn't a license to skip discussion. Large WP:TROUT to Anthony for doing so. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the contentious ones which were recently added to articles (the 'quackery' ones) seem to have been added a year ago by a single contributor with no apparent discussion on the project pages whatsoever, [8], I think that WP:BRD should probably have worked the other way... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 05:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with deleting obviously stupid things. we don't have to spend weeks talking about it Bhny ( talk) 05:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I do disagree with you. While a Pseudoscience 'warning' header is indeed a strong message, it is topics where I think it is warranted, primarily medical topics. As perhaps the most important primary source of knowledge for the general public, we should take some responsibility. People in a vulnerable situation may not have the presence of mind to read through a long and possibly technical article and read up on the links. In the case of Narconon it may be people who have learned that one of their loved ones has a drug problems. Other examples are someone who has just learned they have cancer or AIDS. If we for the sake of the argument say the Bolean logic article was pseudoscience, it would be of little relevance in these cases, the "Vitamine B-17" is another thing all together. Now, it is buried in the Amygdalin article. Other possible uses would be Chiropractic or Homeopathy.

I see AndyTheGrump says that the use of such a header in an Encylopedia is inappropriate. I would say it is very appropriate in Wikipedia because it is an open project. It is hardly a secret that special interest groups do edit here, see e.g. the commotion surrounding Scientology. We should discuss under what circumstances such a header should be warranted, not dismiss it out of hand. Thimbleweed ( talk) 15:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please lay off the 'think of the poor misguided readers' arguments. If you want to propose that proper templates (rather than these half-baked ones which were evidently only ever intended as an option, and have been superseded by subsequent events) are created, do so. But first read Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles - there are several very good reasons why such templates would be contrary to the guideline, and it would clearly need a strong counter-argument to support Wikipedia editorialising in article templates. Frankly though, I think that such a proposal would be a non-runner from the start, and a complete waste of time. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the topic should be clear in the lede section, so there should be no need to read the whole article. It simply not encyclopedic to have such disclaimers. What next, warnings to member of religious groups that reading articles containing challenges to their views might imperil their immortal souls? Paul B ( talk) 18:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Having your world view challenged by reading about some other religion is not going to be an immediate life-and-death situation, starting treating cancer with "Vitamine B-17" very well may (the bloody thing sometimes turns to cyanid in your lower gut). And no, I won't lay off the "poor misguided reader" argument. It is all fine and dandy for us, healthy and apparently in no great distress to read through and analyze the articles, it is something quite different being troubled emotionally or physically (or both) while searching for information. The English Wikipedia is also by far the best built out, and a lot of non-native English readers go here for information, some with less than perfect English comprehension.

I agree the lede should ideally be warning enough, but the world is unfortunately less than ideal. Proponents of various forms of quackery also editing to get a "balanced article", so while an intentive reading will give you the gist of it, constant editing often manage to dilute the main points. Thus, I feel that a warning for a select few potentially (and clearcut) life-and-death articles should have a proper, centralized warning. Thimbleweed ( talk) 18:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Either propose new (proper) templates elsewhere, or drop the subject - the disclaimers were obsolete, malformed, and in one case apparently a joke. The 'quackery' one was inserted recently with no discussion whatsoever, and should never have been used. They violate Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles guidelines, as well as other guidelines and policies. If you wish the guidelines and policies to be ammended to permit them, you are free to do so, but this is not the appropriate place. And please stop insulting our readership with your fictional sob-stories. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Fictional sob-stories", may, you really are grumpy, aren't you? I have read the disclaimer policy now though, and will abide by it. Thimbleweed ( talk) 19:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If the article is written correctly no disclaimers should be necessary. WP:FRINGE requires the fringe subject to be put into perspective with the mainstream. Out of curiousity, is wikiproject pseudoscience even active? IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The article where it was used ( Narconon) is indeed clear enough as it is. It's just a matter of keeping vigilant and make sure it remain that way. Thimbleweed ( talk) 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that there are a few astrologers at WT:FRINGE trying to water down the guidelines (mostly based on attacking me). More input is welcome. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• To the person who removed my comment initially. This is the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is a result of the guidelines and is mentioned at the top of WP:FRINGE. This is the natural place to attract editors to the discussion. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And they're back again. It seems the discussion continues. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am writing a book about Wikipedia and one of the chapters deals with edit wars, and in particular 'science wars' on Wikipedia. By 'science war' I mean an edit war where the subject is some fringe or pseudoscientific belief or claim, and the war is between the supporters of the claim, and by the defenders of 'mainstream science'. Here are a few questions I would like to ask:

• Are there actually 'science wars' on Wikipedia?
• If there are, why do they occur?
• Who are the main participants? In what sense, if any, are there 'sides'?
• Are the wars declining in frequency or ferocity?

Feel free to email me, or leave a message on my talk page. Hestiaea ( talk) 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by a "science war". I wouldn't characterize anything as a "war" on wikipedia; this is an encyclopedia not a battleground. To answer your question, first some background: on wikipedia we give due weight to the views most prominent in the most reliable sources. In this context, true balance is where we don't artififically inflate the importance of a fringe theory by writing about it as though it were equal to the mainstream, "we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." ( WP:VALID, WP:PSCI) Fringe Point of view (POV) pushers typically aim to give extra legitimacy to their beliefs beyond their due weight. They often wish to present their beliefs as "science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." ( WP:PSCI) Very often these POV pushers believe they are being neutral, mainly because they misunderstand what neutrality means. Those who POV push are not unified. Amongst topics covered by WP:FRINGE, there are the astrologers, the global warming denialists, the creationists, conspiracy theoriest, Flying saucer believers, fringe medicine, fringe religions, fringe science and other fringe beliefs. They often are single purpose account editors who control walled gardens for a time. This point of view pushing is not unique to fringe science, it occurs in many articles and many topics where someone tries to aggrandize their perspective. These editors aren't here to build an encyclopedia, and so they are often topic banned or blocked for their disruption. It's not about defending science, it's about restoring the correct weight and neutrality to articles in accordance with their prominence. The exposition of fringe theories is in fact encouraged on their own articles, provided they are notable, because a neutral description of the fringe theory will already demonstrate the issues with it; no further editorializing or original research should be required. IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Why is it called 'POV pushing', and why are these people banned? You began by saying that there aren't any 'wars' and that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Or do you see it as a kind of policing, rather than a 'war'? I notice there is a barnstar on your user page which says "Thank you for your tireless work defending Wikipedia from those who would misuse it for dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional reasons". Sorry to be asking but I am trying to characterise the issue here. Is it a war, is it policing, is it gentle disagreements, or something else? Hestiaea ( talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

you should read WP:POV, WP:CONS and WP:EDITWAR. That should show you how things are resolved here Bhny ( talk) 17:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

and WP:POVPUSH. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest adding some controversial articles to your watchlist and getting some first hand experience, rather than trying to characterize the issue based on your interpretation of what editors have said. It seems like you may have a preconceived notion of what things are like, hence your initial leading question. With this sort of attempt at characterizing the issue, you are more likely going to end up with a caricature, and miss all the nuances. Also read all relevant polices which have been linked to in this discussion (including all my links in my initial response). IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That was the question I was aiming at. What are the controversial articles? Also I'm still confused why you say there aren't any 'edit wars' when one of the links is called WP:EDITWAR. You have a page called 'editwar'? Hestiaea ( talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you are quoting, because it isn't me. Read my comment again. An "edit war" is just a term for people who don't discuss and reach consensus, but revert each other. It's not a war in the sense you are talking about; some grand ideological conflict or whatever. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I was quoting you: "I wouldn't characterize anything as a "war" on wikipedia". But if you are saying that edit wars are not wars, that's fine. I had read about 'edit wars' in the mainstream press and assumed that they were 'wars' by analogy. But you referred to 'blocking' and 'banning'. Why do these blocks and bans occur. Do these disputes get acrimonious or heated? Hestiaea ( talk) 20:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The reasons why editors get blocked vary case to case. There is no one easy answer. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Some conflicts of this kind are detailed in Phoebe Ayers (2008), How Wikipedia Works, pp. 55–56, ISBN  9781593271763. Warden ( talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! But this book (p.384) says that 'an edit war is a content dispute', and refers in several other places to 'edit war'. Yet the first reply to my question said there are no wars on Wikipedia! This is very confusing! Hestiaea ( talk) 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps 'conflict' would be better than 'war', then? Hestiaea ( talk) 20:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV which said editors must "Avoid stating opinions as facts". But if my opinion is that the earth is round, or that anthropogenic global warming exists, or that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy is effective, can I not state these as facts? Should I say "Most scientists believe that the earth is round"? The article Earth begins "Earth is the third planet from the Sun, and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System. " Shouldn't this be re-phrased to say "Scientists believe that Earth is the third planet from the Sun, and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System"? This is terribly confusing. Hestiaea ( talk) 20:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. Why are you writing a book about something you don't understand? IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks, I have looked at WP:FRINGE and I think I understand now. On why I am writing a book about something I don't understand? Well, writing a book will help me understand, and sometimes it's better to have a book written by an outsider. Hestiaea ( talk) 20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

On your statement "Those who POV push are not unified", is that really true? Surely there are global warming denialists who share a broadly common viewpoint? What about homeopathy and other 'alternative' therapies? Hestiaea ( talk) 20:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that Global warming denialists don't share a common viewpoint with homeopathic practioners, or astrologers, or otherkin etc. IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)