Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories: Difference between revisions

Arbitration ruling on "pseudoscience" The Arbitration Committee issued several rulings in 2006 on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience": Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Booth Escaped

(discussion moved to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Booth_Escaped

WP:FRINGE and superminority theories such as Flat Earth

I've participated in discussions where it is believed that (roughly) "only superminority concepts such as Flat Earth theory qualify as WP:FRINGE". I've rejected this notion noting that there are a wide variety of ideas which are fringe, even without reaching the point of near-universal derision as Flat Earth theory. Any other editors care to comment on whether theories must be at the absurdity level of Flat Earth to be considered WP:FRINGE? 18:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that most of the people in those discussions did not actually read WP:FRINGE, and are assuming it says things it does not actually say. But to directly answer the question... no a theory does not need to rise to the level of Flat Earth for WP:FRINGE to apply. Heck, if you actually read and understand what WP:FRINGE says, you could apply it to completely accepted mainstream theories (seriously, try it). Blueboar (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar  :) BigK HeX(talk) 15:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Flat Earth is actually a rather poor example. The Flat Earth society has a lot of members - but it's pretty clear that people join because they like the anachronistic idea of belonging to such an iconic group rather than actually believing that the earth is flat. From following their forum for a while, it's clear that very few (if any) of their members actually believe in this stuff - even the hard-core types seem to be merely revelling in the production of weird explanations for why the earth seems round. I doubt that a single person there truly believes what they are saying.

Most of our fringe articles are at about the level of astrology and homeopathy - where there are probably tens of millions to hundreds of millions of ardent believers - yet with absolutely no scientific backing. It's hard to know precisely where the boundary is...but generally it's a "we know it when we see it" kind of thing.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless an article is actually about a fringe theory, it should be excluded from coverage. Tiny minority POVs should also be excluded. Only majority and significant minority POVs should be covered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A fringe position in terms of due weight is one that does not have a significant (if applicable academic) following. This is irrespective of it being absurd or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Fringe theories with too many variations.

A problem that I see showing up in several fringe theory articles (recently: Homeopathy and Indigo children - but also elsewhere) is that without a solid scientific method for testing ideas relating to these theories, they tend to have adherents disagreeing between themselves about what they believe. For example, in Homeopathy, we have complaints from a practicing homeopathist that we talk about the repeated dilution of "treatments" in water - when he claims that everyone uses alcohol now anyway - we can find sources within that community that support both claims. We have similar claims in Indigo children where some people write that their "indigoness" is a literal purple aura that enwraps the child and others write that this is merely a figurative description that derives from synesthesia in one of the early promoters of the idea.

In these cases, we end up with articles that somehow have to summarize what topic is all about - despite the sources within that community contradicting each other. Listing every possible viewpoint within the community is impossible and results in an incredibly messy article - yet stating that: "Proponents believe that Indigo children have an indigo aura" is only true for some proportion of the adherents.

It's relatively easy for us to come up with a coherent, well-referenced, science-based debunking of these theories - but it's almost impossible to say what the fringe theory actually claims for itself because there are just too many variants. Without cold, hard evidence to 'prune' all of these small branches - adherents are free to write any old thing that pops into their heads - resulting in this fuzzy/contradictory set of claims for their pet theory.

To pick another example: We can't only write "Homeopathy doesn't work <lots of refs>" - we also have to say something like "Homeopathy is the belief that repeated dilution of substances makes them act more powerfully". Except that it turns out that only some homeopathists believe that. Others claim that the more dilute the treatment, the more localized the effect is - so if you ache all over, you need a less dilute treatment of some homeopathic pain-reduction than you do if your the first finger of your left hand hurts.

It turns out to be extremely difficult to write a coherent story about something that's actually not true.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think for astrology the situation is even worse in terms of splintering of opinions and a lack of reliable sources to describe positions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep - same exact problem. It pops up everywhere - on Mood ring, the claim is that the stone in the ring changes color based on the mood of the wearer (it actually depends mostly on the temperature in the room) - but the manufacturers of such devices each provide a color chart showing what colors are caused by what moods, and no two of them agree - it's like nailing jello to the ceiling. So in the end, we have this slightly bizarre article where we explain the claim that the ring changes color with mood - but we cannot produce a table that shows which colors are claimed to have which effects. It's very frustrating. SteveBaker (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but I would ignore anything not covered by third-party sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NPOV

There is ongoing discussion at WT:NPOV#Articles about minority-POV holders that suggests to me that this page might be changed, right under the Jimboquote, from "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail" to "Articles which relate to controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail". Coverage is a function of what editors have inserted, relation is a function of how it actually stands IRL. But please centralize discussion at the link above, where a fuller rationale appears. JJB 17:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources: "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories: For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I have boldly removed the wording "or by a or by a notable group or individual" since clearly the important part is the serious and extensive discussion in a major publication to ensure notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a non-trivial change - you're actually eliminating a significant class of articles here - those that are widely known and discussed by huge numbers of important people - but which don't happen to have been picked up by a major publication. I'm not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing - but it's not a "be bold" kind of a change, we should discuss it.

That said, I'm not sure that the original text was contradictory: The first part says that "A fringe theory can be considered notable" under some set of conditions - not that it must be. The second part qualifies that by saying that it's not sufficient for the individuals or groups doing the discussing to be notable...which fits with the first part's qualification "...a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory". So my reading of these two statements is that if a person/group is both notable and independent and talks about the theory...or if it appears in a major publication - then that is sufficient to warrant an article here (providing there are WP:RS for all of that).

I do agree that some clarification is needed here...I'm just not sure this is the right clarification.

The question is: Are there significant numbers of fringe topics that aren't covered by major publications but which are being talked about by some other means (eg web sites, minor publications) by lots of notable, independent people. If not - then your edit is OK - if so, then we may have a problem with scope creep.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the intention of the guideline could be fulfilled if there is no independent reliable source discussing it: it just provides, at most, the opinions of a notable individual to add to the article. Notable individuals can't provide the sort of extensive reliable coverage that is desired from a reliably published work. If the notable individual discusses the fringe theory in a major publication such that their description of the fringe theory is reliable then the additional fringe criteria is satisfied anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What you are asking for is for the notable individual to engage with a fringe theory in a scholarly way. I think a much more likely scenario is for the notable, independent individual to simply rubbish the fringe theory without condescending to engage with it. I think that would be enough to establish notability. Wikipedia is not just about what is published in scholarly journals. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't really see a need for "... or by a notable group or individual". If the individual or group is notable, their views will be published. There may be a few very obscure fringe theories that have not come to the attention of the media... but not many. Fringe theories are perfect "public interest" topics for slow news days. Even if the tone of the news report is disparaging, or says the theory is ridiculous, that is enough to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This article's main page Wikipedia: Fringe theories specifically warns that "news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days" - so that wouldn't be sufficient to establish notability. But there must anyway be some evidence to enable the talk to be verified, e.g. a link to a transcript of an interview. Disallowing such sources on the basis that they would be covered anyway means that some primary sources would be disallowed in establishing notability. I realise primary sources are not sufficient in themselves to justify setting up an article, but a good thing about Wikipedia is that it often allows readers to see the primary sources for themselves. I think SteveBaker's formulation is correct (slight rewording): if the theory is talked about by a person (or group) who is both notable and independent, or if it appears in at least one major publication - then that is sufficient to warrant an article here. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason we ask for the extra criteria is for neutrality; without the mainstream coverage we can't be neutral. Having a notable person talk about the theory does not help us achieve neutrality. Having an academic source discuss the fringe theory in depth does. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need academic sources to show that a fringe theory is notable... a significant amount of coverage by "general public" sources can be enough. Yes, media sources are given less weight than academic sources... but that does not mean media sources are given no weight at all. If several newspapers have independently report on the same fringe theory in their various "News of the Weird" sections, all those articles together can add up to a clear demonstration that the topic is quite notable. (in fact... enough media coverage may actually cause the theory to become notable - as enough reports will mean that the theory has come to the attention of a wide swath of the general public). Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No it's not enough, that is contrary to the current and previous wording. It says "it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner", that is above and beyond WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, this is the particular sentence we are talking about in this section. The version before you changed it said: "if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory". Can we revert please to this previous version? It has been shown above that actually there wasn't a contradiction - but the wording was confusing so yes that should be changed. Also I think this tightening of the definition is unwarranted - because I think, as I've said before, Wikipedia is not just about what is published in academic sources. Possibly the mention of "serious manner" may be causing problems here. I take it to mean about being wary of "slow news" days etc., but I get the impression you may be taking it as meaning it must be discussed in a reputable journal rather than in a newspaper, which presumably you take by definition as not being a reliable source? All this sets the bar for fringe theories too high because few scientists would bother to engage with a fringe theory and fewer journals would publish such work anyway. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Aarghdvaark has it right... when it comes to notability, the sources do NOT need to be scholarly or academic in nature. If a fringe theory has been seriously discussed in an article from a mainstream news outlet, that article clearly demonstrates a degree of notability. If a proponent of a fringe theory has written a book about it, and that book becomes a best seller... those sales figures are an indication that a lot of people in the mainstream know about the theory... that also goes towards notability of the theory. Remember, notability has nothing to do with whether the mainstream thinks the theory is valid or not (and we can take it as a given that with Fringe theories, the mainstream does not think it valid). When it comes to Fringe topics, notability is akin to "fame"... what we are really determining is: how many people are likely to have heard of it (whether they believe it or not). Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No certainly not, and the current and past reading disagrees with that. It must be a major publication discussing and critiquing it. Secondly, the argument that "those sales figures are an indication that a lot of people in the mainstream know about the theory", has no basis in policy or guidelines, see WP:GNG for the standard reasoning for notability; significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:FRINGE adds to this by requiring that at least one source be serious and extensive in it's mention; above and beyond GNG. If the sources don't exist to establish that the article can be covered neutrally then the article can get deleted as well (and I've used that argument successfully at AfD). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the bit saying: "It must be a major publication discussing and critiquing it " in order to establish notability is WP:OR. I certainly don't get that from the past reading, which is why I asked you to revert - since you have IMHO made a bold change unilaterally to these guidelines. There's nothing about critiquing at WP:GNG for example. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That critiquing isn't mentioned in WP:GNG is the entire point of the extra notability related requirements. WP:FRINGE provides an extenstion onto WP:GNG, to ensure WP:NPOV can be met. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory" is hopelessly problematic. So if some random famous person talks about the theory that Barack Obama is a clone of Akhenaten [1] [2], then it suddenly becomes notable enough to have its own article? I sure hope not. I accept that the discussion does not have to be academic. If there is substantial and sustained media interest (not just a flash-in-the-pan slow-news-day matter), then that couild be sufficient. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the guideline doesn't mean that a famous individual can come up with a crazy idea - and suddenly there can be an article about it. It says that an "independent" and notable individual has to talk about it...and obviously we need WP:RS to show that they did indeed say that. So if some random individual comes up with the idea - and then it's talked about independently by some notable individual - and they write a book or an article or their statements are reported someplace - then we consider it reasonable for addition. But bear in mind, that WP:FRINGE doesn't trump WP:NOTE. If WP:NOTE says that it's inadmissible - then that's that. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, otherwise we will find ourselves in a useless discussion. I said nothing that remotely resembled the claim that guidelines state that if "a famous individual can come up with a crazy idea" we should discuss it. I said that the guidelines as currently written imply that if a "random famous person" commented on an existing fringe theory (one that he/she did not come up with), giving the example of the long-existing Akhenaten=Obama theory, we should have an article on it. As far as I can see none of what you say addresses that issue which is the wording that IRWolfie questioned in this section. That is what we should be discussing. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Example please?

I'm having some trouble making sense of this conversation. It's pretty clear that there's some situation in mind that has actually arisen, which this is supposed to cover. Can we pick one of these and discuss it please? Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

These are supposed to be general guidelines, so it would be problematic to make this about a specific case. However, I suspect that it was initiated by this discussion Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Turkey_Mountain_inscriptions. Paul B (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The case at Talk:Turkey Mountain inscriptions was going on at the same time, but actually this discussion was started because IRWolfie- changed the guidelines on this project page [3], and is now pushing for his version with serious and reliable manner to mean a source for notability has to be an academic source. To back up a bit, I'll try and summarize things. To establish that a theory (e.g. Barack Obama is a clone of Akhenaten) is a reliable fringe theory (oxymoron, but never mind) we need two things.

• First, the theory must be described by a reliable source, and all that means is the source cannot be a blog, or self-published, or YouTube, etc. (which rules out the examples above). It can be a book in which the author states his fringe theory, and what we get from that is the statement that author X believes fringe theory Y. This is a reliable primary source statement which only supports the statement author X believes fringe theory Y, nothing more - certainly not that the theory is either true or notable. It could also be in a newspaper report, in which case it is a reliable secondary source statement (with the caveat about avoiding slow news days, April 1st, etc.). But a reliable primary source statement will do to establish the theory exists even though Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.
• Second, we also need the theory to be notable. This is where the independent comes in, because if it has only been mentioned by supporters of the theory then it is not notable (which also rules out the example above). OTOH if the theory is talked about by a person (or group) who is both notable and independent then that establishes notability - regardless of whether the talk is in favour or against the theory. Of course, this talk needs to be backed up by a reliable source too - otherwise notability cannot be verified. I think the argument at the moment is whether this source has to be an academic source (i.e. a scholarly journal) as IRWolfie I think is asking for, or whether a non-academic source is sufficient, as Blueboar and myself think. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with most of what you just said, Aarghdvaark... but I need you to clarify one thing: You say: "...to establish that a theory is a reliable fringe theory..." etc.. I think I understand what you intended by this - but I think "reliable" is the wrong word ... Did you mean "worthy of having a Wikipedia article devoted to it"? Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep! Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's notability, not reliability. There is no such thing as a "reliable fringe theory", though there can be a fringe theory discussed in reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just a repetition of WP:GNG. WP:FRINGE establishes additional requirements, on top of WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what this discussion is about thank you. Since you have read my contribution to it, you should know that. I shouldn't have to repeat myself, and you shouldn't be confusing two distinct issues. A short phrase was removed: I think correctly. I have have also commented on the quite separate issue of whether sources need to be academic for an article to become notable. I do not think they do have to be, but as it happens I do think it should be said to be desirable. I have absolutely not idea what you mean by establishing that something is a "reliable fringe theory". That's just about as close to an oxymoron as one can get. What matters is whether a fringe theory is notable. That's the criterion. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you think this is all a bit obvious. I was replying to user Mangoe and I also did say the phrase "reliable fringe theory" was an oxymoron. I do agree a fringe theory needs to be notable, but what I was trying to show was that notability is just one stage of a typical discussion about whether a fringe theory is worthy of having a Wikipedia article devoted to it (e.g. see the Turkey Mountain inscriptions saga). Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that we're talking at cross-purposes about two different things.

1. As IRWolfie originally pointed out, our requirements are at best confusingly stated (my opinion) and at worst, downright contradictory (IRWolfie's position). This is undoubtedly true and ought to be uncontroversial. Hence we should rework those two sentences into something that clarifies the intent of the present guideline.
2. IRWolfie's chosen alteration of that confusing/contradictory wording definitely reduces the set of topics that should be considered for Wikipedia articles compared to the old wording. That is a much more controversial change - and should be discussed at length with a consensus !vote before we enact it.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Making sense of the discussion

I think people are conflating disparate issues here, and would like to clarify that situation... This policy addresses several issues relating to the presentation of fringe theories in Wikipedia:

1. Should Wikipedia have a stand-alone article about a fringe theory? This is governed by the concept of Notability. In this context the policy functions as an SNG for fringe topics. To show Notability, we must demonstrate that a source other than a fringe theorist (ie independent of the topic) has taken note of it and discussed it in some depth. That source does not have to be a scholarly or academic source... it simply has to be a "mainstream" reliable source. Media sources qualify. That source does not need to "critique" the theory, it simply needs to discuss it in some depth.
2. If the theory is Notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it... what should that article say about it? This is governed by the concept of NPOV, and its sub-concept of DUE weight. It is not our job to "prove" or "disprove" the theory... instead our goals are to: a) describe to the reader what the theory says, and b) inform them of what different people say about it. Note that the first goal is to describe the theory... it is necessary and appropriate to give a fair amount of weight to what fringe theorists say in order to do this. More weight than we might give the theory in some other context.
3. 'Should we mention the theory in other, related articles... and if so, how. This is also determined by NPOV... and by Due Weight. And again, context is important. The same theory may deserve to be given a fair amount of weight in one article... but no weight at all in another article.

Now... if we need to, we can discuss how these three distinct issues relate to specific articles or situations. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these are the three main areas that WP:FRINGE covers.

1. WP:FRINGE cannot overturn WP:NOTE - if WP:NOTE says that something is not notable then there cannot be an article about it, no matter what WP:FRINGE has to say. However, there is nothing to prevent this guideline from adding more qualifications for fringe articles - even though they may be notable (per WP:NOTE), it may be that they are also too "fringey" to be allowed (per WP:FRINGE). From that perspective, we don't need to restate conditions required by WP:NOTE - merely outline the additional burdens we apply to fringe topics.
2. What should fringe articles say? Well, I think we have that part of the guideline well nailed down. I would be reluctant to do more than tweak the wording. While it is important to explain what the theory is (which is often insanely difficult) - that cannot in any way trump the requirement to state the mainstream view front-and-center. If the mainstream says that this is bullshit - then that's what the article has to say - the views of proponents of the fringe theory need to be stated as "So-and-so says this" or "This group of people believe that...".
3. The extent to which a fringe theory can be mentioned in some other article should already be covered by WP:WEIGHT. I don't think we should say much about it here other than our existing clarification about fringe theories being discussed in other articles versus fringe theories with their own articles. We don't want to see flat-earth theory in Earth, although it's certainly notable enough to have it's own article. But it's reasonable to have a mention about fringe science and fraud in Oxyhydrogen because much of the discussion around this word is from fringe theorists and that represents sufficient 'due weight'.

Overall, I believe that we should defer to WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT where we can and merely layer the special needs of fringe articles upon those guidelines. I think we're doing OK on our content and due-weight guidelines - but clarification is certainly needed on WP:NOTE requirements.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Things aren't as clear cut as that Blueboar. Bear in mind that if an article can not be described neutrally, i.e because of a lack of mainstream sources, then we don't have an article on it. Example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donna_Eden_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie is right. The problem is WP:SYN. That means that the mainstream position cannot easily be outlined unless there is direct discussion of the theory itself. Fringe proponents can be masters of invoking WP:SYN, leading to the contradiction that fringe theorists can be used to "reliably" outline the theory and arguments for it, but mainstream responses cannot be used unless they are directly addressing the theory. For an example of this very problem see Talk:Turkey_Mountain_inscriptions#Counter-rebuttals_and_avoiding_SYNT_.2F_OR. This problem was partly addressed some while ago by the policy of WP:PARITY, which allows for non-academic mainstream sources in parity to fringe sources, but it remains an issue, and frankly I'm inclined to believe that WP:PARITY itself, as currently worded, contains contradictions. If the fringe theory remains only marginally notable, mainstream response may only be possible by a form of "synthesis" in which general historical/scientic etc facts are brought in to prove that Obama is not a clone of Akenaten. Paul B (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm at least convinced that if for instance the only source we have for a bit of Forteana is Charles Fort himself, that's a notability failure. We need outside treatment beyond "it's a slow news day" puff pieces. Therefore it should be generally be unnecessary to deal with the situation where there is only fringe material and no rebuttal, because we wouldn't accept articles which couldn't meet a higher standard of documentation. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I do sympathise with the view that we should be inclusive, and that people in theory at least should be able to come here to get an objective view on any topic, but that can only be possible if we can get policies across the board that will allow mainstream responses without falling foul of WP:SYN. If not, whereof we cannot speak fully we must remain silent. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Turkey Mountain inscriptions article is up for afd because of notability - and because the theory is not talked about by a person (or group) who is both notable and independent then it will probably be deleted (or merged). So I think the guidelines work as they were before IRWolfie's change. This removed the possibility of establishing notability if the theory is discussed by a person (or group) who is both notable and independent, leaving only the possibility of using academic sources. I think there is a consensus here that that is too big a change. I fully agree with SteveBaker that the sentences need to be reworked, but such that the guidelines allow the use of non academic sources to establish notability (as they did before). Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no such consensus, but rather a lot of confusion. I repeat what I wrote above: "The phrase "by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory" is hopelessly problematic. So if some random famous person talks about the theory that Barack Obama is a clone of Akhenaten [4] [5], then it suddenly becomes notable enough to have its own article? I sure hope not. I accept that the discussion does not have to be academic. If there is substantial and sustained media interest (not just a flash-in-the-pan slow-news-day matter), then that couild be sufficient." SteveBaker's reply missed the point. That phrase "a notable group or individual" implies that only one "random famous person", as I put it, needs to comment (albeit "seriously") on an extant fringe theory, however marginal or obscure, in order for any fringe topic to derserve its own article. I think that's too arbitrary and that the paragraph is better without that phrase at all. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

SteveBaker's reply did not miss the point. The original guidelines stated "[a fringe theory justifies a] dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory". IRWolfie made a bold (his description) change to "... in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of the theory". He has not achieved consensus so it should either revert to the original or to something which takes on board the points raised above, e.g. serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication - I can foresee this phrase being used to exclude media, despite people agreeing here that it should not be taken to mean only academic sources.

I mentioned above that I thought consensus had been reached in that "only the possibility of using academic sources ... is too big a change". Although you saw no such consensus, you yourself have explicitly agreed with it, as I presume IRWolfie does since he has undersigned your entry. Here's another fringe theory: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I started to look at the refs, but there are 243 of them, so I gave up - but I didn't find any academic sources there. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are no academic sources there, this article could be up for afd if we keep the guidelines as they now stand. That is because these are guidelines, so it is not what was meant to be said that is important but what is said. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed reply, but he most certainly did miss the point. Read his reply to my original comment [6]. He completely misunderstood what I said. I do wish editors would take the trouble to read what is actually being referred to rather than attribute arguments to people who did not make them. Your own argument is a separate matter. I addressed the point about the phrase "extensively and in a serious manner" (albeit condensed to the word "seriously"). So your reply again misses the issue. The phrase by "or by a notable group or individual" is a hostage to fortune, is unhelpful and is arbitrary. Let's take my example (Obama = Akhenaten). Let's say a "notable group" devote a webpage to refuting this in detail. What if the "notable group" are some wacko religious organisation who refute it to in order prove that Obama is actually a clone of Moses, not Akhenaten. Likewise, if the notable individual is some nut-job with similarly outlandish theories, we have fringe justifying fringe. The phrasing allows this. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference in the fields matters. For a recent historical event one would expect normal recent historical authorities, that is, newspapers and news magazines, and then after that books by responsible historians and political analysts. For something like the inscriptions we are into paleontology and archaeology, and that's the kind of sources we expect. When the only sources are "weird" (that is, falling outside of the normal sort) that's a sign of fringiness by definition. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the only sources are "weird", I would agree... but media sources are not "weird"... they are "mainstream" (even though they may occasionally report on the "weird"). They go towards establishing that a fringe theory is notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The point you may be missing though is that this isn't enough to ensure that a particular fringe theory article can be written neutrally and without undue promotion: i.e it can fulfil WP:NPOV. That is the only reason it is desirable to have extra requirements on the sources. The previous wording about having a notable person having discussed it, doesn't ensure the article can be written neutrally. Remember that WP:FRINGE came from WP:NPOV.IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why bring WP:NPOV into this discussion? It has already been said here that these guidelines build on stuff like that, so if an article is not neutral etc. it will have to change in order to be kept. Aarghdvaark (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is crucial to understanding why WP:FRINGE exists. It's where it originated from and what it extends. Note how the nutshell starts: "To maintain a neutral point of view ...". That is, the fringe guidelines exist solely for NPOV issues particular to fringe theories. If a fringe topic can not be treated neutrally because the sources don't exist which discuss it in a significant and serious manner etc then we shouldn't because we can't make the topic neutral based on the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Theory --> Subject

I made this change for the purposes of including organizations, publications, etc, under the fringe notability section rather than just theories but I don't feel it goes far enough in clarifying my point. How do people feel about clarifying further by specifying that it includes companies, organizations, publications, products, etc? Should we include an exhaustive list or clarify in a different way? Alternatively, are there objections to the change in the first place? Sædon^talk 00:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's appropriate. This policy should apply to whether a fringe-view-promoting organization is mentioned in other articles. However, the existence of articles on organizations promoting fringe views will still fall under the purview of WP:ORG. I've changed 'subject' to 'view' as I think that reads better and still retains the meaning, but feel free to edit as you see fit. LK (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a slight addition specifying organizations because I felt "view" has the same non-encompassing issue as "theory" or "subject." I don't think there will be any tension with WP:ORG, I would just like to clarify the scope of WP:FRINGE. How does it look now? Can it be interpreted to refer to products at this point as well or is anything further necessary? Sædon^talk 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've propagated the wording to a few other places in the article. As before feel free to edit as you see fit. LK (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the guideline is typically used to refer to fringe subjects or views in general, so the change makes sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Notability usually uses the word topic (the topic of the article, which might be a person, place, theory, philosophy, etc.) ... so perhaps we should use that word when discussing notability... "Fringe topic". Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)