Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories: Difference between revisions

Arbitration ruling on "pseudoscience" The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience": Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. 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

Poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ok the discussion above has been mostly side tracked by other unrelated issues. Now for a short poll to gauge where we are. Who agrees with this edit specifically: [1] and who does not? With reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Text to be added:

A Fringe topic is an article where a significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. This includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself.

An article on a fringe topic is an article where the most significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. These articles includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself.

Votes

• Support As proposer. It clarifies what a fringe topic is in separate sentences rather than trying to do it all at once. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I read the suggested change 3 times and I have no clue what it's trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I too find the wording very confusing. Based on the above discussions, I think IRWolfie may have a valid underlying point for us to consider... but the actual language of the proposal is so convoluted that I can not agree to the proposal. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the bar is being raised too high leaving very few acceptable avenues for notability so that it will be almost impossible for fringe theorists (other the creationists) to be deemed notable. The Guardian's Bad Science section is a case in point (see later comment). I am open to some extension of the guidelines that notability should be confirmed from sources outside the fringe field. This would be a stand alone sentence as fringe theories should be treated differently from fringe theorists. Kooky2 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I too find the wording confusing. I suggest trying to do without the word "article". Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Confusing wording, this is a change that we don't need. SteveBaker (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

The change is related to this proposal here Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Theory --> Subject. It's already clear what a fringe theory is, and it's already accepted that an article predominantly about or related to a fringe theory is subject to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability (see the text). What this seeks to do is replace the sentence fragment "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is ...". The first change is to use the agreed word "fringe topic" rather than "fringe subject". The second change is to try and explain what a fringe topic is in a dedicated two sentences rather than trying to do it in parenthesis as it is currently. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"A Fringe topic is an article [...]"... That is, "A [...] topic is an article [...]"... I'd say that an article can be about a topic, but it is not a topic (unless we try to write an article about an article)... I guess it should be reworded in some way... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How about, "An article on a fringe topic is an article where the most significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. These articles includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself." IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's better. But defining "An article on a fringe topic" without defining "a fringe topic" is still a bit awkward... Anyway, after this correction the problem with the highest priority is probably different. Under such definition "Skeptic's Dictionary" or "James Randi" might count as "articles on a fringe topic", as in those cases it seems arguable that "the most significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory" (the "relation" being criticism of such theories)... I wonder if there is an easy way to word the definition to distinguish between cases when "relation" is "supportive" (and yet "Majestic 12" is a fringe topic even if the fringe theorists do not praise that fictional "organisation") and contrary cases... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

From the second line; James Randi and Skeptic's Dictionary aren't "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory". @Kooky2: There is nothing here which extends the guidelines. The guidelines already says " that notability should be confirmed from sources outside the fringe field". Read the notability section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please give the link and exact quote to that guideline - I couldn't spot it on WP:FRINGE. It should be somewhere in the guidelines - ideally at WP:BIO. Kooky2 (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we are talking at cross purposes, I am referring to notability of people (not theories) and it does not state that that which is why we are discussing this here. Kooky2 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines of Wikipedia are not meant to be looked at individually, as if other guidelines did not exist. They are meant to be taken together. And this guideline (WP:FRINGE) is meant to clarify and "modify" what all other notability guidelines (including WP:BIO) mean. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, could you, please, answer the questions I have listed in the diff [2]..? It does look like you disagree with some of the statements that are listed there, but it is not completely clear, which statements are that (you do seem to agree with the statement nr. 2)... And it is hard to expect a fruitful discussion unless we all understand what exactly do we agree and disagree about, what exactly do we understand differently. For the part that user "IRWolfie-" mentioned ([3]) really is meant to exclude all "pro-fringe" sources when deciding notability. If that is not clear, maybe we should look for ways to express that better. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"From the second line; James Randi and Skeptic's Dictionary aren't "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory"."... Well, I know that and you know that, but the text doesn't really say that in a clear way... Technically, "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory" is just a list of some of examples that excludes nothing. Otherwise the guideline would not apply to books promoting fringe theories (they are neither organisations, nor people, nor concepts, nor aspects of any fringe theory)... Also, maybe "organizations, people" could be replaced by something like "supporters (both individual ones and organisations)"? And if we made modifications as in "These articles topics includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself, but exclude organizations and people debunking such theories.", this sentence would become a relatively good definition itself... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A restatement of the debate?

Correct me if I am misinterpreting the issues being discussed in the above threads... but... I think the underlying questions we must answer before we can formulate wording are:

• Can a person's (or organization's) connection to a fringe theory confer stand-alone notability on the person (or organization)?
• If so, under what circumstances?

Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No, why would it? It's not the connection alone, it's dependent on the nature of the coverage. There's nothing new in terms of guidelines in my proposed change rather than clarifying existing practices. I'm changing something which was described in paranthesis and put it into its own two sentences. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that if there is enough coverage of a person's connection to a fringe theory, the person might be notable enough for a stand-alone bio article? Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie - I checked Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column in the Guardian on the web. It looked promising, but from what I could see there are reasons why this is just another impossible avenue for fringe theorists:

1. Goldacre asks for submissions that have gone through peer review and publication in a scientific journal. This is not an option for fringe theorists.
2. As an MD Goldacre is primarily interested in medical theories.
3. Since Nov 2011, he appears to be having a break from his column to write a book.

Are there other newspaper columns along the Bad Science format that addresses fringe theories and their theorists? I note your comments about the Skeptical Inquirer - under your proposals, are there any sources acceptable to you that are not dedicated to debunking fringe theories? Kooky2 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"peer review and publication in a scientific journal. This is not an option for fringe theorists."

It's an option for everybody. You're basically engagin in Special pleading here. WP is not a platform for obscure fringe theorists to publicize their "theories", nor do we write articles on fringe theories based on the writings of their proponents. We rely on reliable independent secondary sources for material and to establish notability outside of the fringe community. While this may seem "unfair" and "unjust" to you, that's simply how the real world works, WP included. You seem to want to lower the bar for notability for those poor, oppressed fringe theorists. Also, sources which present fringe theories without debunking them are usually not reliable or of very low quality. Your basically talking about places where fringe theorists and their sympathizers can "present their case" without input from actual experts in the relevant field, so that that can get a "fair hearing" in the "court of public opinion". That amounts to little more than promotion and apologetics, which have little, if any, encyclopedic value. There are plenty of other outlets for fringe theorists to promote their wares.

Again, popular literature and journalism are not very reliable sources for science-related topics, as the journalists and their editors rarely have any meaningful relevant expertise or experience, and they don't have a good reputation for fact-checking, usually because they can't understand the facts that they are supposed to check. There are, of course, exceptions that can be used under WP:PARITY, but, as you are beginning to realize, they are usually devoted to debunking fringe theories. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Kooky2. If you look at the column you will see he gives coverage to fringe medical theories, including analysis etc. That contributes to claims of notability. With regards to "under your proposals, are there any sources acceptable to you that are not dedicated to debunking fringe theories", I've already told you yes. Read what I've said. Stop repeating things when I've said, above, that they can be acceptable depending on the nature of their coverage and the specific source. These aren't "under my proposals"; these are current practices. My attempted clarification of a sentence doesn't change anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie, I would much like to see the Bad Science column. But I still cannot see how Goldacre's particular coverage of fringe medical theories contribute to claims of notability of fringe theorists here. As I say he asks for papers published in scientific journals (before submission to him) which everyone agrees would contribute to notability anyway? Surely medical theorists in WP:MEDRS and medical practitioners in WP:BIO? Lastly, you appear to be up-to-date on this - is Goldacre's column still being published? I can't see any evidence on the web. I will try to address your other points elsewhere. Kooky2 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What he asks for doesn't really matter. If he gives critical coverage to a fringe theory, he increases its claims to inclusion. It's the same with a fringe theorist. If he critizes them for their support of a fringe theory that increases their claims to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that this example is redundant. A journalist whose debunking column no longer exists and who only accepts medical papers that have already been published in scientific journals is totally irrelevant to the application of your proposal. With your many thousands of edits in fringe theories, can you show some real examples where reliable major national newspapers feature fringe theorists in a serious and reliable manner? I am not saying that none exist, but I think they are exceptional since these type of journalists tend to address fringe subjects with ridicule and humour and not in a serious manner. Kooky2 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu... You state above: "Also, sources which present fringe theories without debunking them are usually not reliable or of very low quality." I have to disagree. It is quite possible for a highly reliable independent source to neutrally describe a fringe theory, without bothering to debunk it. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically possible, yes. But when you start examining the sources that actually exist, there are few of the type you describe that would qualify as reliable sources.

Also, you seem to be using the word "neutrally" in a way that does not conform to WP policies. Read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE very carefully. "Neutral" doesn't mean presenting both sides in their own words and leaving it up to the reader to decide. That would violate WP:GEVAL. We present fringe theories in the context of the mainstream theories, based on what reliable independent secondary sources written by actual recognized experts in the relevant field have to say about them. SOurces written by non-experts are worth a great deal less. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I know our NPOV and FRINGE policies well (I have been a contributing editor to both policies for many years now). NPOV says nothing about the neutrality of our sources (which can be either neutral or non-neutral). So pointing me to NPOV when I am discussing sources is off base. That said, a source that simply describes a theory, without either promoting it or debunking it is neutral. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the theory is not notable enough to be worth debunking in a serious source, is it notable enough to be worth describing here..?

Anyway, the problem with the fringe theories is that to describe them we have to get something that expresses the dominating "anti-fringe" point of view. In principle, a source can explain the "pro-fringe" and "anti-fringe" positions without taking sides explicitly, but such sources seem to be rare... Normal sources generally do try to say something useful (expressing a point of view) and not just imply it...

I guess it could be said that if we do not get the "anti-fringe" position from the source, the coverage in the source is not extensive enough for notability... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@Martynas - your question "if the theory is not notable enough to be worth debunking in a serious source, is it notable enough to be worth describing here?" is an interesting diversion. Some fringe theories are harder to debunk than others and indeed Karl Popper saw the lack of falsifiability as the criterion for fringe theories. How can anyone prove that Big Foot does not exist? Kooky2 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For our purposes (making the decision on notability) "debunking" the hypothesis of existence of some creatures would not require a definite proof that all Earth has been checked and it was nowhere to be found. Showing that the specific evidence that was claimed to demonstrate or suggest the existence of such creatures is fake or misinterpreted would also count as "debunking" and if someone would care enough to write about that in a serious source, that would show that someone independent of the fringe theory has "noted" it. And there is no requirement that the "debunking" must be done very well - just that someone would care enough to try and some serious publisher would care enough to publish that. So, get a couple of such cases and notability of that fringe theory becomes rather easy to demonstrate. Have the same "someones" discuss the author or supporter of that fringe theory at some extent as well - and it becomes rather easy to demonstrate the notability of them. Thus, for example, the notability of astrology, homeopathy, Nostradamus is not even disputed.

But once again, lest we end up arguing about things we actually agree about or using premises the other one rejects, could you, please, tell me which of the statements that I have listed above do you agree with..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Martynas - I get a sense that you are asking me a question here. I would request that you start a post with specific questions for me by addressing me by name as there are many people in this discussion and without a name, questions can seem as if they are addressed to someone else or every editor. When I am here, I will notice points that mention me and if not you are welcome to put a reminder message or, if it is not directly relevant to this proposal, to open a discussion on my talk page. Kooky2 (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I don't agree that your proposed text amendment makes no change to the existing policy. You are changing its remit and diluting its purpose by trying to suggest that the policies in these guidelines refer to persons who are associated with fringe theories, and therefore implying that notability criteria is in any way different from the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I can only repeat my earlier comment that what defines notability is not reliant on extensive coverage in academic or scientific sources, although that would help to guarantee it. It will cause too much confusion throughout WP to suggest that notability is more prohibitive for anyone with associations with fringe than would otherwise be the case. Obviously, any report of their theories or ideas automatically makes these guidelines applicable. Therefore I believe the wording is best left unchanged. In fact, I think the problem here is that it is only recently that the text was amended from specifically stating that it dealt with theories and ideas, to the incorporation of the words 'organisations'; and subsequently the attempt to iron out problems by changing the historical references to 'fringe theories' to now say fringe 'topics' or 'subjects' - trailing confusion as to what can be termed a 'fringe topic'. As I have stated before, a person is not a fringe theory, nor is a person's biography a 'fringe subject'. It can be a completely neutral and reliable account of well-estblished biographical facts. In any case I disagree that we few contributing editors can decide upon new wording for this policy which has implications on WP:BIO, without ensuring that WP:BIO is the place where these issues are clarified. A reference from WP:BIO back to this page is fair enough, providing the discussion has been explored and considered there, so that everyone is in agreement and has clear understanding of which policies apply and why. Logical 1 (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And here is where we get to the middle ground... WP:FRINGE can apply to a Bio or Org article... If we have a bio article on person who is significantly associated with a fringe theory, it makes sense for that article to mention the association... which means mentioning the fringe theory. As soon as you do that, WP:FRINGE applies. Now, that mention could be as short as one sentence... or as long as several paragraphs. In figuring out what is an appropriate amount of discussion, we look to WP:UNDUE weight ... we ask how much weight should we give the theory in the context of a biographical article. We need to be careful not to turn an article that should focus primarily on the person into an article that focuses on the theory he is associated with.

The flip side of this is the caution to not overly discuss the person in an article about the fringe theory. An article that is primarily about a theory should not bet bogged down with discussion of the people who are associated with it.

In both cases, notability is not inherited from one topic to the other... the fact that a theory may be notable for a stand-alone article does not mean a person associated with it is automatically notable enough for stand alone bio article. And the fact that a person may be notable enough for a stand alone bio article does not mean that the theories they are associated with are automatically notable enough for a stand-alone Fringe theory article. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all you have said. The point I have been trying to stress is that WP:Fringe is applicable on any page where there is discussion or report of fringe theories or ideas, so we don't need to say that it applies to persons, because no person can be a fringe subject (the reality of their existence is unlikely to be in doubt); it is their ideas and theories that are fringe or not. Let's say we have a biography on someone who is notable as the first astrologer to write horoscopes columns for well known newspapers in America in the 1930s. Let's assume that all the article gives is a brief account of this, along with details of when he was born, which newspaper he wrote for (and when), the reported sales figures, and perhaps the fact that he died suddenly at the height of his fame. I would say that since there is no discussion of his astrological beliefs - just straightforward biographical details, there is no concern for the promotion of fringe or undue weight. But if the page begins to explore his astrological beliefs then we are into WP:fringe territory. In this situation the person would not be inheriting notability as an astrologer, but would be notable as a signifcant public figure, whose activities brought a massive popularisation of astrology, impacting on 20th century western culture and the history of the press. That's the way I see it and I don't feel that there is any conflict between your view and mnine. Please correct me if I am wrong Logical 1 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we mostly agree, but use different terms to discuss it. I do have a quibble about your example.

In the case of someone who wrote the first to write a horoscopes column in a paper... a lot depends on what the sources say. If the sources focus on his contribution to the newspaper industry (noting how he adding a popular feature that helped to sell more papers) then the fact that his column happened to to be astrology related is secondary. In this case, WP:FRINGE would apply in the form of not giving undue weight to his views on astrology.

If, on the other hand, the sources focus on his contribution to astrology (noting how he made a contribution to astrology by making it popular with the masses) then it is his contribution to astrology is what makes him notable, and the medium of his contribution is secondary. In this case WP:FRINGE would apply more directly as his notability is more directly related to a fringe theory.

Now, all this assumes that there actually are reliable sources that substantially discuss the fact that he was the first to write a horoscopes column in the paper. If this is only a passing comment in the sources, then he may not notable enough for a stand-alone bio article. He might be worth a passing note in a history of Astrology article, or in a history of newspapers article... but not more than that. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Logical 1, he is being logical about this. Perhaps a paragraph in the guideline about this issue would be appropriate? LK (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing new in what Blueboar has said. So if Logical 1 agrees with it, I don't get why there is an objection to the wording (except on grounds of it being unclear or confusing). It was in fact the reason for my attempt at clarifying the text in the article. Fringe theories comes into effect when there is a connection to fringe theory, no matter the article. This has always been the case. It is in fact why I was adding the wording above; to clarify the connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My hesitation is with the idea of "connection"... connections can be trivial or substantial (or somewhere in between). For example, I would not consider our article on former First Lady Nancy Reagan to be a "Fringe topic"... and yet there is a connection to a fringe theory (She apparently believed in astrology and consulted astrologers). So, to what extent does WP:FRINGE impact that article? Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If we mention astrology we don't make it look mainstream, even in the Nancy Reagan article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that... but my concern is that people will take what you are saying and misuse it to argue that Nancy Reagan is herself a fringe topic (due to her "connection" to astrology)... and thus argue that we should not mention Mrs. Reagan in other articles where it would be appropriate to mention her. I know that isn't what you are talking about, but it is how others can misinterpret it.Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Another wording suggestion

Here is a new suggestion: Old Text

A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers.

Suggested text

Any article subject which is related to a fringe theory in a significant way, is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has also been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers.

IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I mention "significant" to indicate that a substantial amount of actual weight in the article will revolve around the connection to the fringe theory. So a fringe organization would fall under it, but not say astronomy where the sources give a small amount of weight to mentioning the connection to astrology in its article. I think mentioning a specific example in the text is a bad idea because it leads to a BEANS situation. The independent sourcing and the extensive coverage ensures that neutrality can be achieved, and that article is notable in the world at large and not limited to fringe coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that have to be "Any subject which is related to a fringe theory"? We don't have articles on articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, replaced. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The wording is more flexible and still leaves uncertainty about biographies of fringe proponents. From my searches, it appears that a lot of them are essentially entertainers and authors. I looked at an astrologer whose popular books were best sellers in the '60s and '70s and a psychic who was and may still be the main medium in a popular ghost hunting TV series shown in many countries. It could, and no doubt will, be argued in AfDs that their lives were related to fringe theory in a significant way. Yet neither of these individuals presented new theories, wrote papers nor have been subject to commentary in a serious and reliable way.

So the real issue here is to address biographies of fringe proponents which include controversial claims relating to their fringe beliefs. These claims must be accompanied by reliable sources that show its relationship to mainstream academic ideas in a serious and substantial manner. If this cannot be found and notability rests on such claims alone, then the subject is not sufficiently notable.

If you can find a wording that makes this difference very clear to editors, I will support your proposals. I believe that it will require an additional separate sentence that deals with biographies. Kooky2 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Er, could you, please, tell us the names of those men you use as examples and explain how they would count as notable entertainers in some detail? That is, which part of which guideline would apply and how? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Martynas - I din't name the examples as I didn't want the focus of this discussion to move onto the minutiae about the notability of any specific individuals. My point is that they are typical of a certain type of fringe proponent. The astrologer is Linda Goodman and the ghost hunter is David Wells (medium). For example, with David Wells, if a serious mainstream reference to his work cannot be found, under my proposal the wording of "Wells predominantly seems to be clairvoyant.." or "He only rarely channels spirits." would be drastically modified or removed. Then his notability should be reviewed accordingly. Whereas under this blanket proposal both these bios would be deleted without due consideration of other evidence of notability. Kooky2 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

The notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are no different than any other topic: the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources from promulgators and popularizers - such as the creator of a fringe theory - are not sufficient. References that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable 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" (see junk food news and silly season).

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That definitely works for me. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as clear and inarguable. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support The wording is clear. I cannot see any problems with implementation in a diverse field. Kooky2 (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This actually waters down the current requirement that a source cover it extensively. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• How can we justify having a higher standard here than in other parts of the encyclopedia? Everywhere else, the standard is "non-trivial/significant". Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Because we need to ensure neutrality is met, where for other articles, this isn't generally an issue. We ask for the extensive coverage, rather than just significant coverage in non-fringe sources, precisely because we expect the article to have the capacity for neutrality without resorting to original research. If a topic can not be discussed neutrally because of an absence of sources which provide that sort of coverage necessary, then we shouldn't have it. Essentially there are two issues, 1. Fringe sources don't demonstrate notability, as they tend to aggrandise specific topics and don't demonstrate true notability. 2. NPOV is required to have the potential to be met for all articles. That is, an articles must have the capacity to be neutral (even if it is not immediately realized). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic of this. How is extensive coverage guaranteed to be neutral when significant coverage is expected not to be? Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Extensive coverage and in a serious and reliable manner" seems to indicate to me that neutrality will be far more likely than merely "significant coverage". Current guidelines state that the coverage in at least one source must be extensive, serious and reliable. You want to replace that with just significant coverage. When we say extensive and serious coverage we are talking about a critical analysis which will show how the fringe topic is perceived in relation to the mainstream position. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per IRWolfie. The new wording significantly lowers the bar. Also, "reputable" news sources are any thing but reputable when it comes to reporting on science and science-related topics, especially psudoscience. Solid evidence is needed that the subject is extensively discussed within the mainstream scholarly commnunity, not just found "interesting" by popular journalists with no special competence or experience. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has shown that there are limits when attempting to set guidelines that go beyond the well tested existing rules in WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:RS. If a source for controversial material is not reliable, it will fail under WP:RS as sources should be appropriate to the claims made and in particular WP:NEWSORG “News reports may be acceptable depending on the context.” And the context here is notability. As has been clearly demonstrated with examples here, notability can be determined in ways other than scholarly journals and a few debunkers. Kooky2 (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• A "scholarly community" standard is going to cause problems. First, it's going to hurt us in fields where the quality of scholarship is poor by external standards. We've had a number of huge fights suppressing various bits of queer theory speculation (e.g. the homoeroticism of The Hardy Boys series, because we've often had to resort to editor criticism of the sources. In a lot of fields the most readily available criticism is in non-scholarly material directed at a knowledgeable popular audience (e.g. reference to Biblical Archaeology Review is standard in shooting down nonsense in that field). Second, I think it's going to be hard to justify that standard against the more lax standards adhered to in the rest of Wikipedia. Most of the material concerning 9/11 conspiracy theories, for instance, is published at an authoritative but not scholarly level. I understand the concern about the reputation of MSM reporting, but that's an issue of their competence even on non-fringe topics, and needs to be addressed on its own. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - it says "significant coverage" in A Quest For Knowledge's proposal, whilst the current version says "referenced extensively". I think those requirements are equivalent, but the new proposal is clearer since nobody is then going to complain about there being no references! And reliable sources are reliable sources. Requiring fringe theories to be discussed in the mainstream scholarly community just won't work because mainstream scientists for many reasons - time, distraction, threat to career progression, lack of interest - don't generally engage with fringe theories unless they begin to threaten things outside science, e.g. creationism, which would be notable without any input from the mainstream scholarly community. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream perspective on a fringe topic will always be required to ensure NPOV is satisfied. If the sourcing doesn't exist, then we can not have an article on the fringe topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

IRW - There is a distinction between what we look for in sources as they relate to notability (whether we should have an article on a topic), and what we look for in terms of content (what we can or should say within that article). Obviously, if the sources that discuss a fringe topic are limited to media coverage, that limits what we can say about the topic within the article... but that limitation does not mean we are unable to say something about the topic. It may only be a bare bones stub of an article, but at least we can have that. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, NPOV is not optional. If the only sources exist do not allow NPOV to be met they should be deleted. WP:WEIGHT: "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." If that can't be met without original research, then we shouldn't have the article as it can never be neutral. Also, the fact that something hasn't attracted a mainstream response, is itself a sign that something isn't worthy of note. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I read what you wrote and I am still not entirely sure to what extent do we have a disagreement about the intended meaning of the guideline... Could you, please, answer the questions I have asked the user "Kooky2" ([4])..? Maybe that would clarify things a little..?

For at the moment it is not entirely clear if you think that it is acceptable to have an article about a fringe theory (or something related) without its criticism... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Martynas, I will also look at your questions and answer if I can.

IRW, this proposal works because any guideline for all things fringe (theory, groups, products and people), has to separate questions of notability from questions of NPOV. They are different issues which serve different purposes and to try to mix them is unnecessary, confusing and will result in inappropriate decisions. These detailed rules should each address their particular issues at separate stages. I can only explain this in the form of a series of decision points about any fringe related article:

1. Is the article notable with significant independent coverage in reliable sources?

• No - the article is deleted.
• Yes - onto next question.

2. Is an explanation of the minority fringe view necessary for this article?

• No - the article can be published.
• Yes - onto next question.

3. Is there sufficient detail from reliable sources to compare it with the majority view?

• Yes - the article can be published.
• No - onto next question.

4. Is there any merit left in this article without an explanation of the fringe theory?

• Yes - the article can be published in a slimmed down version.
• No - the article is deleted.

Kooky2 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, you ("Kooky2") already answered those questions. You don't need to answer them again. That's why now I'm asking user "Blueboar" and not you. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Martynas - afterwards I realized I had answered your questions. It was hard to tell who you were addressing. Kooky2 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think my reaction to your questions are best answered by pointing to our article on Masonic conspiracy theories. This is a very notable topic, the idea that the Freemasons are in some way conspiring to rule the world is almost pop culture. And yet the coverage is extremely one sided. There are thousands of webpages and fringe books detailing numerous theories, but the mainstream remains silent on the topic. It does not bother to even try to rebut or debunk it. And yet I think we were able to write a very neutral article about it. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(unident) So, you (Blueboar) take the article [5] and claim that: 1) we have no mainstream coverage of Masonic conspiracy theories and 2) that this article is neutral? Sorry, but both claims are wrong. The article itself lists a book "Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies" - that looks like a mainstream source (at least the customer comments on its Amazon.com page would indicate that). And the article is not neutral. Now seriously, do you think it is neutral to give one sentence to the theory "That Freemasons have secretly plotted to create a society based on the revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity, separation of church and state" that is relatively serious, relatively well supported and rather complex and one sentence to the theory "That Freemasonry either aids or is made up of humanoid reptiles who control the world by replacing world leaders." that is laughable even by standards of conspiracy theories..? Not to mention many other problems that tempt me to add a "cleanup" tag there... So no, that's not a good answer. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. That article is scrupulously neutral... consisting of purely descriptive statements as to what the various conspiracy theories about Freemasons say, without any further comment... The article does not attempt to provide "evidence" that would prove the theories, nor does it attempt to provide "evidence" to debunk the theories (attempts to add such are quickly removed). The article makes no claims as to how nutty nor how reasonable a given theory might be. It is essentially a descriptive list of what the various conspiracy theories about the Freemasons are, written in a neutral tone and from a neutral point of view. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And what about the first point - that the mainstream coverage of the subject does exist?

Still, while you (Blueboar) have shown all evidence that the article in question is useless, uselessness is not sufficient for neutrality. For the WP:NPOV also includes WP:UNDUE. And it hasn't been followed in this article. Do you agree with that - or do you think that WP:UNDUE is not vital? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My appologies. you are correct... there is a mainstream source (you have to have at least one mainstream source, or the topic isn't notable). However, that source is definitely not the kind of academic level mainstream source that IRW was talking about (which is what I was referring to). In fact I would rate the "For Dummies" books as being along the same lines as "significant media coverage". They are on the reliable side of the line... but hardly high quality. Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I never implied limiting things to academic sources only. I even gave an example of reliable newspaper coverage earlier. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - the wording suggested by A Quest For Knowledge is clear and in line with WP's general policy requirements. I think it covers everything in requiring significant coverage in reliable sources. Logical 1 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (as written). Some additional "wordsmithing" is still going to be necessary. For example, the proposed wording starts with "The notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are no different than any other topic: the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". That's wrong. It is the general guideline but it does have exceptions. Some of them are (or can be) based on WP:IAR alone (for articles "Human", "Earth", "Language" etc.), in other cases we have other notability guidelines (though it is not entirely clear if they are meant to provide shortcuts or exceptions). Thus this part will have to be reworded - maybe like "The main notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are similar to the ones applied to other topics: in general, the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". And, perhaps, a clarification could be inserted next - something like "However, since there are common problems with getting the critical (mainstream) point of view on such topics, there are some peculiarities concerning the application of those principles.".

Second problem concerns "Sources from promulgators and popularizers - such as the creator of a fringe theory - are not sufficient.". Who exactly are the "promulgators" and how are they different from "popularizers"..? Furthermore, sources written by some journalists that do not seem to care (thus might not count as "popularizers"), but cover the material sympathetically also do not help us to write a decent article. Thus I guess something like "Sources sympathetic to the fringe theory or written by its supporters are not considered independent and do not count towards notability." would be a better formulation...

Third, "References that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.". Wouldn't it sound better with "On the other hand, [...]" inserted..?

So, in conclusion, the proposed text is not acceptable yet, but can be made so after some relatively minor changes. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your 'wordsmithing' suggestion for the first sentence.

Since this section is about the question of notability, it doesn't matter if the sources are positive or negative so long as they are reliable and independent. If the only reliable sources are ones debunking the theory then that can be adequate. I too, am not sure who are the 'promulgators and popularizers', though I see it is an exaggeration to go from the example of 'the creator of a fringe theory' to any independent body who makes a comment that could be interpreted as being positive.

Many fringe related topics do not require an explanation of the minority view as this can be done by reference to the the main article that outlines the theory. Unless we can address these articles and many other possibilities and without exaggerating NPOV, it is simply not viable to try to mix NPOV requirements with Notability in a way that applies to all fringe-related topics. Kooky2 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability is related to NPOV: first of all we demand enough good sources to be able to write neutrally. It's not like we have a very finite supply of paper and want to cover only the most important things (although willingness to improve the "signal-noise ratio" is one of secondary reasons for that group of guidelines).

But by now I doubt if we actually disagree. Recently you (Kooky2) wrote an "algorithm" ([6]) that looks very similar to what my text was meant to accomplish (maybe it would be a good idea to work it into the guideline as well..?). For if there is "any merit left in this article without an explanation of the fringe theory", there must be some source that describes the subject in a way that is not sympathetic to the fringe theory and does it in a sufficiently extensive way. Thus the subject judged notable in one case should be judged notable in another case too. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would, of course, favour inclusion of a simplified step-by-step guide. It covers all the options and I think it would help editors work through a maze of rules that govern fringe topics.

A few fringe articles will reach the final question "Is there any merit left in this article without an explanation of the fringe theory?" However, being notable and involving a fringe theory without mainstream response, these are the articles which could lead to repeated and extended AfD discussions until a new guideline is made. I can think of a few hypothetical instances:

• Where someone very famous develops a fringe theory that has not been taken seriously by mainstream sources. It's not unusual for a Nobel Prizewinner such as Linus Pauling's Vitamin C advocacy to follow a controversial fringe theory in their retirement years. (Pauling's huge profile as a scientist meant that his theories were debunked by mainstream views.)
• Or Jimmy Carter's report of a UFO sighting - which has been reported in a respectful tone in his Wikipedia Biography. If he now develops a particular theory about UFOs, his bio of course remains (being of the highest order of notability) but full inclusion of the theory would require a mainstream response.
• Throughout history there have been secret fraternities involving notable characters that have followed strange fringe beliefs (perhaps like today's Scientologists) which have only been reported in pseudo-historical literature. The 'frat' is worthy of an article because of their members and deeds, but details of their beliefs might be ignored.

But if the fringe theory is central to the article and though notable, it has not been addressed by critical or academic mainstream sources, the article cannot be published. For example, this might be a lowly smaller branch of a popular fringe belief. I think it would be misleading to state the reason that this article is not published is because it is not notable as it has already passed that test, but for Wikipedia's rules it could be described as simply not viable or not meritable as an article. Kooky2 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So, in short, the main reason of disagreement for you (Kooky2) is the word "notability"..? Well, I guess the word is not perfect, but at this point it is rather unlikely to be changed... Still, if you'd like to, feel free to look for ideas in the Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Just don't expect too much... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it boils down how to handle a fringe theory when it is notable in one sense (popular) and not notable in another (mainstream). We don't have a way of dealing with it. I have some proposals, but I need to hear from some of the three objectors if this is their principal objection to the proposed wording. Otherwise there is no point working on compromise suggestions if it is something else. So Martynas - is this your objection? Kooky2 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Kooky2, but even after some thinking I still don't get it - what (well, which) "objection" do you have in mind?

Anyway, there are many cases when something rather popular is not notable in the sense used in Wikipedia. For example, recently I was trying to write articles about voice actors of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for Lithuanian Wikipedia. I guess it is safe to say that they are popular (there are many blog posts about them etc.), but finding good sources is still hard - to the extent that I haven't written a single article... I don't see why things would have to be very different if the articles were about, let's say, astrologists and not voice actors. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What if someone creates an article about a fringe theory that is notable in that it has been published in magazines, major newsprint or even been on TV, but there has been no academic or critical comment? Would you put it up for AfD and what guideline would you cite? Kooky2 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Does "there has been no academic or critical comment" mean that all coverage has been sympathetic - let's say, the creator of the theory telling how great it is and a journalist (not a very competent one) nodding..? If so, then the AFD would be a good idea, citing both WP:N and WP:FRINGE (to show that there are sources, but they do not count). If not then, well, something might be different. It is hard to tell without a specific example... Yet, to take some example, I would consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life as "Delete" or "Merge". Would that answer your question?

Anyway, if the question is specifically about my actions, I doubt that I would actually reach AFD... For the article "Tibetan eye chart" it took me a couple of months just to escalate from tag "unreferenced" to "notability" ([7]) and then I did next to nothing until about a year later some mainstream coverage has been found... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I will look at the life before life AfD.

In the instance I put to you, by sympathetic (I mean neutral in real life terms) - simply reporting this is what they claim - you make up your own mind up rather than saying it's BS or great. So in this example, editors have no alternative mainstream view. Rather than questioning your personal actions, I was asking what guidelines would be available to close down this type of article. I think your answer - WP:N (I would think WP:GEVAL, WP:UNDUE & WP:PSCI in particular) and WP:FRINGE covers it and I would add WP:REDFLAG. If such an eventuality is well covered by the guidelines, is there any necessity to add anything to this notability proposal? Can you imagine any article that would result in problems with these proposals and if so, how and why? Kooky2 (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, maybe I'll answer in a separate section "What is covered by other guidelines?", for I have no idea how to unindent this without making something ambiguous... Also, the section is rather long... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie - would a second paragraph outlining guidelines for these possibilities give you the clarification and comfort you seek? Kooky2 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion as to what constitutes a Neutral Point of View. A simple descriptive statement outlining what a fringe theory says can be neutral. For example, suppose nutjob thinks you can generate electricity by harnessing the effect differences in the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter upon the Earth, as the two planets move closer or further apart in their relative orbital positions. The descriptive statement: "The Jovian Energy Theory is a fringe theory, proposed by Dr. Ima Nutcase, contenting that unlimited electrical power can be obtained by harnessing the differences in the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter upon the earth as the two planets move closer or further apart in their relative orbital positions" is quite neutral. The statement does not imply that the theory is true (or false)... it simply states what the fringe theory is. Now, let us assume that this theory is significantly covered by lots of media sources, but is ignored by the academic scientific community (as being patently ridiculous). It would pass our minimum criteria for notability, so we can have an article about the theory. Given the limitations of the sources, we may not be able to write much more than the above descriptive statement... but we can at least write that. We can at least create a stub article so someone coming across a reference to this "Jovian Energy Theory" can log into Wikipedia and find out what the hell the "Jovian Energy Theory" is. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You probably won't find a newspaper source that covers the source with credulity saying it's a fringe theory. It's calling it a fringe theory that is putting it into perspective with regards to the mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And that is why we have WP:Ignore all rules... yes, there will be some Wikilawyers who will argue that "You can not call something a fringe theory unless you have a reliable source that explicitly calls it a Fringe theory"... and they will point to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in an attempt to support their argument. But there is a fairly strong consensus that it is not POV or OR to call a spade a spade. Wikilawyering arguments can be dismissed if there is a consensus of editors who agree that "Never the less, it clearly is a fringe theory and to not call it a fringe theory would mislead the reader." Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is more likely that they will claim that their theory is not fringe (perhaps even sincerely). And they will find some paper (with magic words "peer reviewed") that "shows" that.

Anyway, if you want to override such vital policies as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research so often (would it be a good place to an essay Wikipedia:Wikiheresy? Yes, just joking.), you'd better write it in the guideline itself. For we cannot be sure that in all cases the "anti-fringe" editors will outnumber "pro-fringe" ones. The number of the editors who are willing to "patrol" the articles about fringe theories and keep them neutral is rather finite. And if we are going to let the local consensus override vital content policies, are you completely sure that we will not end up with "pro-fringe" consensus..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets a good cross section of society among its editors... if we assume that a debate over whether to call some theory "fringe" has been well advertized (so a few pro or anti fringe proponents can not dominate the debate) and there still isn't a consensus to call a particular theory "fringe", then we have to consider the possibility that the theory actually isn't fringe... It may be a "minority, but mainstream view". Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The entire debate would be based on original research in that case. If the sourcing doesn't exist you can't really try to neutrally present a topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if we will need to advertise all discussions (and that seems to be what you are proposing), the Law of diminishing returns will be demonstrated rather soon. We might as well advertise none of them.

Second, consensus can be judged by "vote counting", "strength of arguments" or some mixture of those two approaches. But if you leave nothing from WP:NOR and WP:V (as such large exceptions do), there will be nothing left to measure the "strength of arguments" with. Thus we end up with "vote counting" - and almost inevitable "canvassing" or suspicions of it.

Third, before the consensus can be judged, "negotiation" must happen. But without any basis for the agreement (policies without such large and arbitrary exceptions), short of "brute force", what is the point of the "negotiation"?

Fourth, this method simply doesn't work in practice. I already mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Souls. Well, how would you (Blueboar) close these discussions..? With different formulations of this guideline and with WP:IAR?

Fifth... Well, maybe four points will be enough for now. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You are both overstating the situation... no one is talking bout advetizing all discussions... because in most cases if something is a fringe theory, there will be a solid (if not overwhelming) consensus to call it a fringe theory. Yes there are always a few cases where some idiot wikilawyers about WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in an attempt to block people from calling a fringe theory a fringe theory, we can call for help (this one reason we created the WP:NPOV noticeboard.) And WP:Ignore all rules is just as much POLICY as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Anyway... we have gotten off track... we are currently discussing things that have nothing to do with AQFK's proposal. We should get back to that. Blueboar (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but we won't agree about any text considered here unless we will reach at least something close to agreement about the main content policies. After all, this guideline is a logical consequence of them. Unless, of course, it will be decided to go forward without a full agreement - but I don't think things are that desperate.

"because in most cases if something is a fringe theory, there will be a solid (if not overwhelming) consensus to call it a fringe theory." - are you speaking from experience (in such case, what is that experience?) or is that just a conjecture? And furthermore, what makes you think that a contrary consensus can't be formed by enough canvassing and "meatpuppetry"..?

"And WP:Ignore all rules is just as much POLICY as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV." - yes, I know. I wrote the Lithuanian version of it. And I already listed one way to use this policy in this discussion (about notability of "Earth" etc.). Thus, if you thought that those objections were based on ignorance of WP:IAR or its rejection, you were wrong.

I will note that you (Blueboar) didn't answer arguments about necessity of basis for agreement to get consensus and judge it. By the way, there is one more essay that might be related: Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact...

So, I hope that you will reconsider your position and then we'll be able to look for text that would be acceptable to everyone. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What is covered by other guidelines?

This section was started in answer to [8] (a question from Kooky2). I'll reproduce the question (without signature) for greater readability:

In the instance I put to you, by sympathetic (I mean neutral in real life terms) - simply reporting this is what they claim - you make up your own mind up rather than saying it's BS or great. So in this example, editors have no alternative mainstream view. Rather than questioning your personal actions, I was asking what guidelines would be available to close down this type of article. I think your answer - WP:N (I would think WP:GEVAL, WP:UNDUE & WP:PSCI in particular) and WP:FRINGE covers it and I would add WP:REDFLAG. If such an eventuality is well covered by the guidelines, is there any necessity to add anything to this notability proposal? Can you imagine any article that would result in problems with these proposals and if so, how and why?

First of all, most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are logical consequences of other policies and guidelines. In principle, with some creativity one could recreate much of Wikipedia's order from just three statements:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
• Wikipedia can be edited by anyone (at least to some extent).
• Edit warring is to be discouraged.

For example, second and third statements imply that articles should include only things that can be agreed by (almost) everyone - and this idea can be developed into WP:NPOV - and so on.

Still, it is better to have such things written down so that we wouldn't have to recheck the reasoning in the "heat" of dispute. Thus Wikipedia's policies tend to repeat the same (or similar things), include long explanations and are rather fragmented.

An example of that is the group of policies and guidelines that, as you mention, together could be used instead of this one (WP:FRINGE) to some extent. But I'd say that there is nothing wrong with having this guideline as well, to summarise the main things to be considered when writing about fringe theories. Now the addition... Actually, it is arguably meant to be less of an addition and more of a clarification. It can be seen by one fact: there are some misunderstandings, but almost all of us agree about almost everything, we just haven't found a very good way to formulate what we agree about (actually, the position of Blueboar seems to be the least close to the other positions - and it is not that extreme as such).

Now, about the source (though maybe we would need a different section for that). It is hard to work with such questions in abstract, without an example. For example, if the source repeats what is said by a fringe theorist without comment other than "Believe or not.", the source can be seen as non-secondary (we do not have any real commentary about a primary source - words of fringe theorist), non-reliable (well, non-authoritative; in a sense, the source acknowledges that by remark "Believe or not."), or non-independent.

Does that answer the question? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Martynas. I agree with most of your points. A minor clarification for anyone who has not followed the thread first, I never suggested (or intended to suggest) that the guidelines such as W:NPOV could be used instead WP:FRINGE.

This discussion is about the proposed wording for Notability suggested by A Quest for Knowledge with modifications by Martynas Patasius.

The main notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are similar to the ones applied to other topics: in general, the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sources from promulgators and popularizers - such as the creator of a fringe theory - are not sufficient. References that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable 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" (see junk food news and silly season).

My view is that the whole Notability section, which appears to have been created in good faith by IRWolfie, a few weeks ago in September, has turned out to be unclear, superfluous, impractical and misplaced within the article. If it contains any guideline or example that adds clarity and which is not duplicated elsewhere, it should be placed under the long standing Notability versus Acceptance section.

Since I doubt I would get consensus for this merger now, I am happy to work towards a compromise. Now the objections to the proposed text are that it is not strong enough to ensure neutrality without WP:OR. From discussions it is evident that neutrality has never been threatened as it is dealt with in great detail in WP:NPOV in particular WP:GEVAL, WP:UNDUE & WP:PSCI, in WP:REDFLAG and in other sections of WP:FRINGE. Why do we need to complicate Notability here in a way that does not reflect or even do justice to the complexities of NPOV? The results so far have been confusing, unnecessary and impractical.

So my proposal is that those who object to the new wording, put up a case why there should be additional wording and put forward wording that they would consider might be an acceptable compromise to other editors. Otherwise, I propose the paragraph is replaced with the new proposed text above and later the possibility of a merger of sections could be considered. Kooky2 (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If I go ahead and make this change, can I count on the support of other editors here? Kooky2 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It has my support. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, thanks for your support. Kooky2 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And I would not support it, because it still significantly lowers the bar for inclusion. WP is primarily an encyclopedia based on sources written by recognized experts. The proposed wording does not give adequate weight to these sources, and fringe porponents and supports will surely take advantage of that. In summary, a fringe theory that has not been addressed by the real-world scholarly community in a serious and substantial matter is truly non-notable, no matter how many fashion magazines, popular newspapers and other low quality sources write about it. We turn to the experts here, and the experts on fringe topics are real-world mainstream scholars, not popular journalists. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu, the bar was raised by IRWolfie about 6 weeks ago to a level that exceeds Wikipedia's existing guidelines and turns out to impractical, unnecessary and confusing. This is why we are discussing it. So we can understand your concerns, can you give real examples where fringe proponents will unreasonably take advantage of this proposal which are not already well covered by existing guidelines? I have provided examples where raising the bar would be a problem. Kooky2 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, wouldn't "the proposed wording for Notability suggested by A Quest for Knowledge with modifications by Martynas Patasius" be more like this?

The main notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are similar to the ones applied to other topics: in general, the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, since there are common problems with getting the critical (mainstream) point of view on such topics, there are some peculiarities concerning the application of those principles. Sources sympathetic to the fringe theory or written by its supporters are not considered independent and do not count towards notability. On the other hand, references that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable 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" (see junk food news and silly season).

After all, I proposed more modifications ([9]). Or did you mean "with some modifications by Martynas Patasius"..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your version works for me. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

and Martynas's version is definitely not OK with me... I especially object to saying that "Sources sympathetic to the fringe theory ... are not considered independent and do not count towards notability." This is not at all true. Independent sources can certainly be sympathetic (or unsympathetic) to the subject they cover. When it comes to Notability Wikipedia does not care whether a source is sympathetic to its subject/topic or unsympathetic to its subject/topic... only that it be independent of it. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, given that you do not seem to be extremely enthusiastic about WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:NOR, that is not surprising. I doubt that a compromise is possible on this point. Yet you said "I especially object [...]". Does it mean that there is something else..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You misstate my views... I am extremely enthusiastic about UNDUE, V and NOR... when it comes to determining article content. I simply do not think they affect Notability. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess in such case I misunderstood your views. Thankfully, such problems are correctable. But it doesn't look like your own description of your views is perfectly accurate - unless, of course, they changed a little recently. You say that you are "extremely enthusiastic about UNDUE, V and NOR... when it comes to determining article content", but recently you praised neutrality of an article that doesn't follow WP:UNDUE ([10]) and claim that it is acceptable to write that a theory is fringe even if WP:V and WP:NOR would indicate otherwise ([11]). As far as I can see, neither case has anything to do with notability, just with content.

Also, if you "do not think they affect Notability.", what principles is that guideline (WP:N) based on, in your opinion? Its current version ([12]) says (in section "Why we have these requirements"): "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.", "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and so on. Do you disagree with such statements, or do you interpret them differently? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Martynas, while the WP guidelines you list are workable and realistic, Blueboar is correct: your additional wording is hugely problematical. It is NPOV on steroids and should not be muddled into a section on Notability. The point is that Notability is presumed to satisfy inclusion and not a guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Therefore even if notability is satisfied the full WP shield of rules which govern neutrality remain in force. As you have already agreed there is no risk of inclusion of a rule-breaking article.

So why are we trying to rewrite the guidelines here? What we would all like to know is - Is the intention to make the terms stricter than the existing guidelines or just an attempt to try to repeat the existing guidelines?

I have already put forward a number of examples that demonstrate why this attempt is not viable so I won't rehash them all in full. However, I will give one example. Though it is still not clear from the wording, I believe IRWolfie and Dominus Vobisdu will argue that all "fringe-related topics" applies to biographies. Therefore according to their interpretation, they can successfully AfD any bestselling author or international TV presenter on a fringe topic simply because he or she has not been debunked. Yet anyone with some obscure fringe belief who volunteers to do the Randi million dollar challenge immediately becomes notable and makes an ideal straw man. Just like fringe theories, the self-styled skeptical world (Randi, Skeptical Inquirer etc) is a self-confirming in-universe. Since many fringe-related topics are not addressed by genuine academic sources with good reason, this vigilante group are simply inappropriate arbiters of notability for Wikipedia and not representative of mainstream critical thinking. Kooky2 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, once again I can't think of a way to discuss the notability of "any bestselling author or international TV presenter" in abstract. Please, give me some examples, with names and sources I could look at. Don't be afraid: I gave several examples here myself (a member of Constituent Seimas and all main voice actors of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic") and it didn't "derail" the discussion.

"Yet anyone with some obscure fringe belief who volunteers to do the Randi million dollar challenge immediately becomes notable and makes an ideal straw man." - perhaps, if it generates sufficient coverage. Well, this life isn't fair and Wikipedia must do nothing to make it any fairer (it is likely to cause more harm than good anyway). It's not fair that I can find no good sources about Tara Strong, but it doesn't mean that I must pretend that the sources I found are good enough.

"Since many fringe-related topics are not addressed by genuine academic sources with good reason, this vigilante group are simply inappropriate arbiters of notability for Wikipedia and not representative of mainstream critical thinking." - so, I guess it is safe to say that you would not consider yourself a major fan of those groups..? Good, making such things explicit does help the discussion. Anyway, if you think they do not count, what, in your opinion, is "representative of mainstream critical thinking" and good for judging notability?

"So why are we trying to rewrite the guidelines here? What we would all like to know is - Is the intention to make the terms stricter than the existing guidelines or just an attempt to try to repeat the existing guidelines?" - OK, so what did the previous versions of this guideline say, in your opinion? What is the "lawgiver's intent"? I believe that they say the same thing. For example, some "random" versions: [13] (the current one), [14] (18 February 2011), [15] (15 July 2010), [16] (1 October 2009), [17] (8 April 2008). The last of them still has the text "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be 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. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.". Similar, isn't it? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

First, a quick clarification. Are you saying by your examples (e.g. Feb 2011) that you are seeking to follow the existing guidelines or is your intent to make the guidelines stricter than before? Kooky2 (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Is my intent to keep the guideline as strict as it is, or to make it stricter? Well, neither answer sounds perfectly correct... I think that the things I propose keep it as strict as it is (and was long ago), only clearer. But it doesn't mean that it is my objective to keep status quo - whatever it is - at all costs. I want the guideline to be logical (logically consistent with other guidelines) and clear. I think that currently it is logical, but is not as clear as it could - or else we were not discussing what changes make it more strict and what changes make it less strict. Does that answer your question? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not entirely clear, but maybe it will become clear. The point is that in all the earlier examples you cited the statement was for fringe theories only and not for fringe-related topics as well. This extension was only added a few weeks ago. It was and is an attempt to make the WP rules stricter i.e. to raise the bar. Whether you believe this extension is consistent with other rules (which it is not), whether you think that the statement also works for fringe-related topics (which it evidently does not and you have not disagreed), whether it leaves WP pages exposed to an invasion of fringe theorists (which you have accepted that it does not), it is going beyond the scope of some well thought-out WP rules such as WP:NPOV that have been shown to work well over time. Kooky2 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You ask about my position. I saw this comment yesterday from Phil Bridger on a current AFD proposed by IRWolfie to remove another notable astrologer:

"I'm all in favour of ensuring that pseudoscience and fringe theories aren't presented as fact in Wikipedia, but we don't do that by eliminating coverage of people who support such nonsense or by imitating the way that pseudoscientists and fringe theorists ignore evidence that doesn't support their prejudices."

I agree with his impartiality and I think it is something that we should keep in mind in this discussion. Kooky2 (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought that you objected to the part "On the other hand, references that debunk or disparage the fringe topic can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." - that's why I tried to demonstrate that the same thing was in the guideline long ago. Now, as it looks, you object to the part "fringe and fringe-related topics" as opposed to "fringe theories"? Could you, please, list all your objections? Or, at least, as many, as you can think of at the moment?

Also, when I wrote that I think my formulation keeps things about as strict, as they are, first of all I meant the current version ([18]). After all, it's the version (with minor differences) that "Logical 1" kept reverting to ([19], [20] etc.). Also, no one objected to the "expansion" of the guideline during the discussion of the change ([21]) - by the way, Blueboar also participated in that discussion. And it was affirmed that whatever formulation was used in the guideline, the guideline was used as applicable to related topics anyway, so the change was essentially a clarification.

"Whether you believe this extension is consistent with other rules (which it is not), whether you think that the statement also works for fringe-related topics (which it evidently does not and you have not disagreed), whether it leaves WP pages exposed to an invasion of fringe theorists (which you have accepted that it does not), it is going beyond the scope of some well thought-out WP rules such as WP:NPOV that have been shown to work well over time."... Er, sorry, but I don't think I understand this sentence... It is a little too long... And what is "the statement" you are talking about?

"I agree with his impartiality and I think it is something that we should keep in mind in this discussion." - sorry, but I don't think anyone proposes to delete articles about all fringe theorists. No one is going to delete the articles about Nostradamus or Lysenko. And we all (well, with exception of radical inclusionists and the like) want to delete the articles about non-notable topics while leaving the articles about notable topics. We simply disagree which topics are notable. So, please, assume good faith, just like we assume you're editing in good faith. Try to avoid declarations like "proposed by IRWolfie to remove another notable astrologer" - as if IRWolfie thought that this astrologer is notable, yet tried to get the article deleted anyway. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

as an aside, the claims to notability where rather minor considering the lack of sources that actually exist about him. I'm not sure why Kooky feels the need to bring me up. I personally dislike it when editors insult others by implying what they did was because of some hatred of having articles about fringe people, whether that be at an AfD or elsewhere. It's a cheap shot. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I will respond to other points made later. But for now, I did not assume that IRWolfie was aware that the subject was notable when he put him up for AfD and I am sorry if that was inferred. The reason that I stated that he was notable was because this was the view of six editors and the decision of the closer and no other editor disagreed. Also, I cannot think of anything that I wrote that implied that you, IRWolfie should have a hatred of articles about fringe people as I have assumed good faith as to your motives. Nor do I consider that Bridger's quote is suggesting that you or anyone here is seeking the deletion of all fringe theorists - I think a cull would not be an unreasonable term. I do consider the decisions and comments at the recent AfD to be relevant to this discussion. Another editor commented "Keep per Bridger et al.; meets the established notability thresholds, but lately I'm seeing many articles being nominated as part of a wider trend of trying to exclude even any mention of certain whole schools of thought from this website. With arguments in magisterial tones, and hectoring of all dissent to be expected." I don't think these editors' comments are questioning any editor's good faith, but that the sincerely held and well motivated beliefs of editors can be misguided and sometimes out of touch with the aims of the Wikipedia project. Kooky2 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That was an editor who followed me from another discussion because I put up an article he supports for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I trust you realize the irony of your comment in this context as the implication is that this editor was not acting in good faith.;) However I can sympathize with that type of situation. Kooky2 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we work towards a compromise on this?

I have checked the history of the article back to January 2, 2007 [22] and the paragraph on notability has remained fairly stable for over five years. Here is the version as at the end of July 2012: [23] All modifications from early August including the addition of fringe-subjects, organizations or fringe-related topics have resulted in unforeseen problems:

1. Raised the Bar above well-established WP:FRINGE guidelines: It has raised the bar to include subjects related to fringe theory going well beyond a guideline that has been tried and tested over 5 years. It has probably extended the scope to include three times the number of articles.
2. Beyond the scope of existing WP Rules: As far as I know, there are no WP rules that justify this extension - if this article was not a guideline, I would say this extension was Original Research. The guidelines specifically address the presentation of fringe theories.
3. Lack of Clarity: The term "aspect of a fringe theory" or fringe subjects or fringe-related subjects are widely agreed by all parties to be unclear.
4. Not Necessary or Required: One argument presented for tightening the rules is that fringe theorists 'might take advantage'. However, this is about Notability which is not presumed i.e. Notability in itself does not guarantee inclusion. There are many other solid rules that govern inclusion of controversial topics: WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG. No one has explained how or provided examples to show how these existing rules will fail Wikipedia. Unlike the recent additions here, these rules have been well-thought out over many years.
5. Strict Rules designed for controversial theories are unworkable for related subjects. These strict fringe theory guidelines were written to regulate presentation of the controversial claims of fringe theories and are inappropriate and unworkable for less controversial issues relating to subjects outside the theory. For example, if the term like an aspect of a fringe theory is thought to include biographies of proponents of fringe theories, individuals who showcase notability by any other WP guidelines will be excluded. I have demonstrated this problem with examples to which no one has provided a counter argument. [24] &[25]
6. These are the main issues as I see them, there are also a number of smaller practical considerations and other editors may see other objections.

Kooky2 (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... so where is the compromise position? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No change? We can't reach an agreement and the conversation loses track often it seems. Perhaps now is not the time to try and clarify what's already there. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And which version represents "no change"? Kooky seems to be making the argument that it was the changes that took place in August that sparked the current debates... so do we roll back to July? Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No? It was my change afterwards which sparked the debate when the astrologer reverted it. the other piece had consensus earlier and there is nothing new there. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is how the current version compares with the July version:

10 Nov 2012 (modified for comparison with July version)

A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication or by a notable group or individual that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject - such as the creator of a theory and not the theory itself - should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable 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" (see junk food news and silly season).
Underscored words = words in July version
Struck Out words = words not in July version

30 July 2012

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. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable 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". (See junk food news and silly season.)

From last edit at 00:08, 30 July 2012 [26]

I calculate that there are seven (or possibly five merged) contentious points and all in the first sentence. IRWolfie, you are the main author of these changes. If you are prepared to work towards a real compromise between the two versions, I will support it. If not, I will push hard for a full reversion to what I consider the superior original version that has worked for over five years. So given the many issues raised, do you think there is a way we can compromise on these two versions and if so how? Kooky2 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Worked for 5 years? About a quarter of your edits are to this very page, outside of that you have made 113 edits to articles, so I am intrigued about how you know what worked in this area? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to scroll through the edit history showing the differences between each edit. Edits were rarely big here so it didn't take that long. Any guideline paragraph that has remained intact over 5 years must be working for editors. It has moved around different sections. I didn't recall seeing any edits before 2012 by you either. Were you editing this page between 2007 and 2011? Kooky2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Check again. I started editing fully at the beginning of 2011, but I made about 300 edits before that going back to 2006. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but almost all changes that you show are so minor that I have no idea how you (Kooky2) could find even two "contentious points", not just seven or five. The only change that can be seen as substantial was addition of other subjects. And that was not done by IRWolfie-, but by Saedon ([27]). The change was discussed (Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 16#Theory --> Subject) and, as far, as I can see, was universally supported. You seem to be the first and (so far) the only to object. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you only see two contentious points - that could make a lot of progress as we could use the July version as the basis and we need only address the two points. Re the August edit discussion - it turns out that there were flaws in the wording and this was discovered when the modified rule was applied. Kooky2 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only agree that stating one's position, while vital for negotiations, is not a compromise. Still, let's look at the objections:

1. "Raised the Bar above well-established WP:FRINGE guidelines" - not a legitimate objection. I am probably one of the most conservative Wikipedians, but even I cannot say that a claim that something is a change is a good objection as it stands. One can make something better by adding "It will result in short-term confusion." or something, but at the moment it doesn't seem to be a legitimate objection.
2. "Beyond the scope of existing WP Rules" - also not a legitimate objection, for the same reasons. Also, this objection seems to be contrary to the 4th one.
   • "As far as I know, there are no WP rules that justify this extension - if this article was not a guideline, I would say this extension was Original Research." - this is not an article. Wikipedia:No original research applies to articles, not guidelines.
   • "The guidelines specifically address the presentation of fringe theories." - well, that has been changed recently. And they were understood to concern related subjects too anyway.
3. "Lack of Clarity" - a more legitimate objection. But if the version you are talking about is not clear enough, I have proposed one that might be clearer.
4. "Not Necessary or Required" - very unclear objection...
   • "However, this is about Notability which is not presumed i.e. Notability in itself does not guarantee inclusion." - inclusion of what? Article itself? Some text in the article? Something else?
   • "There are many other solid rules that govern inclusion of controversial topics: WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG." - "WP:FRINGE" is this guideline. We are discussing it. The other guidelines only affect existence or absence of an article indirectly.
   • "No one has explained how or provided examples to show how these existing rules will fail Wikipedia." - are we supposed to show that other policies and guidelines are flawed or something? They have their place - so does this one.
5. "Strict Rules designed for controversial theories are unworkable for related subjects." - also not a very clear objection.
   • "For example, if the term like an aspect of a fringe theory is thought to include biographies of proponents of fringe theories, individuals who showcase notability by any other WP guidelines will be excluded." - once again, I have proposed a text that avoids this specific problem (non-notability of "part-time" fringe theorists who are clearly notable because of something unrelated to the theory).
   • "I have demonstrated this problem with examples to which no one has provided a counter argument. [3] &[4]" - no, you haven't. First, both links show the same diff. Second, those are not "examples". An example will have to be a real identifiable person with a name. Only then we will be able to look and see if some changes are necessary or if you are mistaken.
6. "there are also a number of smaller practical considerations and other editors may see other objections" - well, I don't think that has to be answered.

So, sorry, but I'm afraid that you will have to restate many of those objections or drop them. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your analysis of the points. The current wording doesn't change anything in practice, and the objections listed don't make a lot of sense. The guidelines are meant to reflect what wikipedians currently do, and I think it currently does. That is why there was consensus for the original change. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Martynas.

1. "Raised the Bar above well-established WP:FRINGE guidelines" If you feel that this is not a legitimate objection, it would have helped if you made this point when the main stated objection to earlier proposed changes from editors was that it would be lowering the bar or watering down the content. You have already stated that "I think that the things I propose keep it as strict as it is (and was long ago)". Now that I am proposing to revert to what it was recently and long ago, you are less enthusiastic. If you are a conservative Wikipedian, you must agree that if a guideline has worked without much change for five years, we need strong reasons to make a change and we must be sure that it is a clear improvement.
2. "Beyond the scope of existing WP Rules" You have made the point that you want the guideline to be logically consistent with other guidelines and that most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are logical consequences of other policies and guidelines and tend to repeat the same (or similar things). Would you support any proposal that is inconsistent with other guidelines?
   • "The guidelines specifically address the presentation of fringe theories." - "well, that has been changed recently." This is circular logic.
3. "Lack of Clarity" We can agree here.
4. "Not Necessary or Required" Are the stricter rules required to fill a gap through which fringe theorists are taking advantage? No. There is no justification.
   • "... Notability in itself does not guarantee inclusion." I thought you would recognize this from WP:GNG it refers to "inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
5. "Strict Rules designed for controversial theories are unworkable for related subjects." "- also not a very clear objection." Rules that work for theories don't work for other things like people. Is that clear enough?
   • "I have demonstrated this problem with examples ..." I apologize - here is the correct second diff. [28] These are not "part-time" fringe theorists and are not notable because of something unrelated to the theory. (I think we can agree that what is related to a theory is a gray area).

Ok - we can agree that raising or lowering the bar is no longer an argument (and I note IRWolfie agrees with your points) and that the final sentence must be an improvement while remaining consistent with Wikipedia's other rules. Then we can focus on my remaining three objections to the stricter extension that it is unnecessary, unclear and impractical.

Kooky2 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How on Earth did I miss you giving those names?! Sorry about that... So, I'll probably comment on other points later (this matter has waited long enough).

The first example you list is Linda Goodman. However, some sources have been found ([29]). For example, Cynthia Sanz, "Lost in the Stars", "People", November 27, 1995, Vol. 44, No. 22 ([30]) looks reliable, extensive and not "pro-fringe". Other two sources do not seem to be "pro-fringe" either. Thus she's notable under all considered variants of this guideline. See, the requirements are not that hard to meet.

The second example is David Wells (medium). But in this case the article ([31]) doesn't list a single source that would count as sufficient to demonstrate notability even if this guideline didn't apply (we only have something written by him and his employer). The current version also demonstrates some problems that happen when we do not have enough sources. "Wells predominately seems to be clairvoyant.", "He occasionally employs the use of tarot cards and scrying mirrors as aids to communicating with the spirit world.", "He only rarely channels spirits." - how do those "predominately", "occasionally" and "rarely" differ from each other? Adding those words without a secondary source that actually says so constitutes original research. And without them the statements are likely to be useless. Thus, unless there are more sources, I would conclude that he is non-notable, but would be non-notable even without considering this guideline.

So, it doesn't look like your examples demonstrate anything wrong with any version of this guideline that we are considering here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we work towards a compromise on this? - arbitrary break

Just a note regarding David Wells (medium)... I agree that the article would benefit from better sources, but as far a notability goes, doesn't he pass WP:ENTERTAINER (due to his multiple appearances on TV shows)? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping not to get too off topic with the details of these bios and I agree that the second needs severe editing. Maybe there is nothing left after editing, but if he is a leading 'expert' in two tv series shown around the world, there should be some reliable independent material to support his notability, but it may not be serious if that word is taken to mean only academic or critical. Maybe Blueboar's suggestion of WP:ENTERTAINER is correct - most fringe theorists fall into WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE or a mixture - would this supersede the guideline here? Also, what do think of this bio which IRWolfie does not consider sufficiently notable under his interpretation of this guideline for an article? Kooky2 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not say most fringe theorists fall into the category of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE... but certainly some do. Indeed this is a factor in my hesitation to accept the hard line stance taken by IRWolfie and Martynas ... They are looking at the issue of the notability of Fringe theories (and their proponents) purely from the POV of accademia. But we also need to look at the issue from the POV of pop-culture and entertainment. I think we need a compromise to deal with situations where academia ignores a fringe theory, but pop culture does not. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess it is now my turn to complain that you are wrong in stating my position. "They are looking at the issue of the notability of Fringe theories (and their proponents) purely from the POV of accademia." - well, the source from "People" magazine (it's a magazine, right?) does not seem to be "academic", but I did count it as sufficiently good. "I think we need a compromise to deal with situations where academia ignores a fringe theory, but pop culture does not." - it depends on the meaning of "pop culture". We can write an article if we have, let's say, critics who discuss the quality of acting of the fringe theorist. We cannot write the article if all we have is acting itself, advertisements and the like. Thus my proposal is meant to rule out the "pro-fringe" sources, but not the sources that concentrate on something else, for example, acting, finance etc. Is that clear? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your position. If you have not done so, please read WP:ENTERTAINER... to show that someone is notable as an entertainer, we don't need to cite critics who discuss the quality of an entertainers acting (although doing so would make for a better article). All we need are sources that verify that the person "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Once that is established, we can have at least a stub article. We can then expand the article based on the acting itself... by descriptively summarizing his role in the program (per WP:PLOT). Similarly, if he is notable under WP:CREATIVE we can neutrally describe the contents of his work (again per WP:PLOT) once we have established that he meets WP:CREATIVE. That said... What we can not do is present analysis of his work without sources (positive and negative). Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not what PLOT says, per WP:PLOT we shouldn't have the article if there is no analysis: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already clarified that this is not my position above, can you stop please repeating that this is my position. If someone is an entertainer, even if a fringe belief entertainer, and also incidentally say an astrologer, there notability stems from them being an entertainer, not a fringe proponent and it is highly likely a neutral article can be written. i.e I think Marcia Moore is notable for ketamine advocacy and her disappearance while incidentally being an astrologer and interested in the occult. There are no academic sources that I can see, and I still think she is notable and an article can be written neutrally. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, my apologies if I have misunderstood anyone's position.

Given what you say, I think we can reach a compromise... it sounds like what need to iron out is not whether we can have an article on a fringe topic that pass a pop-culture notability criteria (you are agreeing that we can), but clearer instruction on what to do when a Fringe topic passes such criteria, (ie how to write such an article... Something to guide article writers to understand what type of material should, and should not, be included in such an article). Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that those issues of content are effectively covered by the rest of FRINGE and NPOV, and outside the scope of the notability section. i.e it should be discussed in a separate section otherwise we will lose track again. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with IRWolfie here, and have to say that I'm a bit fed up with seeing my position and that of other editors repeatedly be mischaracterized. That being said, I would be against using any such article as a coatrack to present or promote otherwise non-notable fringe topics that the subject may have been associated with. And yes, I certainly do believe that real academic sources are far superior to pop-cultural sources, and that the latter have to be used with considerable caution, most especially with regard to topics related to science, medicine and serious academic fields. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to explain, my misunderstanding stemmed from statements like: "Well, if the theory is not notable enough to be worth debunking in a serious source, is it notable enough to be worth describing here" and "there must be some source that describes the subject in a way that is not sympathetic to the fringe theory and does it in a sufficiently extensive way. (both made by Martynas) and "Mainstream perspective on a fringe topic will always be required to ensure NPOV is satisfied. If the sourcing doesn't exist, then we can not have an article on the fringe topic." (made by IRW) I took these statements as indicating they were both saying that pop-culture sources were not enough to demonstrate notability. I again apologize for my misunderstanding of their view, and I am glad that they agree that pop-culture sources can (sometimes) be enough to demonstrate notability of a fringe related topic. Given that, I now think our respective views are not as far apart as I initially thought.

I completely agree that academic sources are far superior to pop-culture sources, and should they exist we should use them. However, the absence of academic sources does not mean we should not have an article,,, because (sometimes) an acceptable article can be based on pop-culture sources (which may be neither sympathetic nor antagonistic towards the topic). We seem to agree on that. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I still believe that the original July wording is superior for reasons explained, but if reversion is not widely supported at this time, I won't object as recent comments suggest that there is still scope for editors to use common-sense in judging unique borderline cases. Kooky2 (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, Kooky2, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules can still be applied, should a need arise. Anyway, may I ask one more question? Would you prefer the current version ([32]) or the one that was proposed by "A Quest for Knowledge" with my modifications ([33])..? I know that you do not really like any of those, but which one looks "less bad" to you? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Martynas, this is always a tough question - the lesser of two evils. (This comment is intended light-heartedly). I don't have an answer yet, but I do share Blueboar's opinion (below) about the use of the word 'sympathetic' as it can be interpreted to be 'anti' rather than neutral. If a secondary source is reliable and clearly independent and it is not supporting a fringe-theory claim or an article dedicated to a fringe-theory, then this should count towards notability. If you can find wording that reflects this without compromising the stricter guidelines for fringe theories, then I will support a switch to your proposal. Kooky2 (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, when I wrote about scope for editors to use common-sense in their judgement, I was not referring to ignoring all rules. What I meant was that we have to trust that editors will continue to interpret the evidence according to the claim, the subject and the context balanced by their interpretation of the underlying principles and spirit expressed in the guidelines. Kooky2 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to answer for Kooky... for myself, I prefer the current version over your modifications of AOFK's proposal (however, I prefer AQFK's unmodified proposal over the current version)... I especially have a real problem with one sentence in your modified version, where you say: "Sources sympathetic to the fringe theory or written by its supporters are not considered independent" ... The word "sympathetic" is problematic. This could be construed as saying that a source must be antagonistic to to the theory to be considered independent, and that simply is incorrect. Are you perhaps trying to say that "Source that actively promote a fringe theory are not considered independent."? Blueboar (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy, and no, it can't be construed as saying that a source must be antagonistic to to the theory to be considered independent. Also, sympathetic sources need not "actively promote" a fringe theory. They may also do so by providing a platform so that fringe proponents can promote themselves, or by ignoring or minimalizing mainstream views, thus creating a walled garden or mutual adoration society type environment where only in-universe views count. I would strongly object to your restriction of non-independent sources to sources that actively promote a fringe theory. In-universe sourcing is a major problem with fringe articles, and I would be strongly against any wording that would lower the bar even the slightest bit for such sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you asked me where the main difference lies in our positions. It is precisely with sourcing. I appear to be much more fastidious with regard to sourcing on articles related to scholarship, including fringe and pseudoscholarly topics. When real-world scholarly sources can't be found, I stop and think whether it's worth mentioning the topic at all before even considering using non-scholarly sources like pop-lit or popular journalism. And in-universe sources are flat out as far as I'm concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... we obviously have a very different definition of "sympathetic"... Question, so that we can better understand each other's views: would you consider an academic journal that agreed with parts of a fringe theory (but dismissed the theory as a whole) to be "sympathetic" to the theory... I would. Would you consider an in depth newspaper article that outlines a fringe theory without comment as to its validity or lack of validity to be "sympathetic"? I would not. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The first question is too vague, as many fringe theories incorporate non-fringe ideas. As for the second, it might be independent (i.e. not sympathetic), but it would probably not be reliable. Popular journalists rarely have the expertise necessary to report reliably on such topics, often base their reporting on material supplied by fringe proponents, on in-universe sources and extremely low-quality sources culled from the internet (including Wikipedia!), and rarely bother to consult with truly qualified experts in the field, usually relying on some local junior college science teacher. Frankly, science reporting in the popular press is deplorable and at best for entertainment purposes only. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking Coast to Coast AM as a source which is poor for showing notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... but reliability is a distinct issue from independence. Lets explore another example... suppose the Discovery Channel runs a half hour documentary about how someone is searching for the Lake Kumquat Monster (resoundingly considered a fringe topic), and concluded with "Is there really a Monster in Lake Kumquat? Perhaps, perhaps not... but Dave Smith thinks so, and plans to continue his search next year." ... I would call that "sympathetic"... but I would also say that the Discovery Channel is an independent source. Furthermore if the Discovery Channel thinks Dave Smith's search is worth devoting an entire half hour of its programming to, I think most people would consider the Lake Kumquat Monster notable. Blueboar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Independent, but so far below our reliablility requirements that it's a moot question. Doesn't contribute much, if anything, to the notability of the fringe theory or its spokesman as notability is determined on the basis of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No offense, Blueboar, but I think you had better read and re-read our sourcing and notability guidelines over again. You seem to be conflating notability with some vague idea of popular appeal or reknown. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did re-read notability and in a nutshell, it states "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time,". Clearly this is not limited to elite intellectual groups - even though we as editors (who are essentially nerdy types including myself) mostly ;) aspire to that group. So it may be that you DV are conflating reliability with notability. Reliability depends on context and should be appropriate to the claims made. Reliability in connection with a mainstream counter to a fringe theory claim should be of the highest order (scholarly or critical material) while reliability of a source that supports notability of a fringe proponent should be independent and reliable but not necessarily scholarly or critical. If the guideline here is going to mix theories with theorists and notability with reliability as editors appear to wish, this important difference should also be made clear in the guidelines. Kooky2 (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Strawman. You're countering an argument that I did not make. And notability is absolutley dependent on and inseparable from source reliability per WP:GNG. Without reliable sources, there is ZERO notability. Your "world at large" quote is not license to use unreliable sources to establish notability for theories, proponents, or any other subject here on WP. Nor is "not necessarily scholarly or critical". Your distinction between fringe theories and their proponents is artificial and arbitrary, and is inconsistent with our policies.

I'm guessing, but you apparently think that the Discovery Channel in Blueboar's example above is in some way a reliable source that can be used to establish notability. On what basis? They have no expertise, competence or reputation for fact checking at all. There is no conceivable reason to believe that anything they find worthy of coverage accurately reflects significant attention by the world at large. Their sole purpose is providing entertainment. Why should their opinion on a topics notability be accorded any weight at all? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The straw man here is your argument that I advocated unreliable sources or 'without reliable sources'. You have ducked the argument. I request that you address my comments "Reliability depends on context and should be appropriate to the claims made." Do you agree or disagree and if so why? Kooky2 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's what is called "wikilawyering" - taking a sentence out of a guideline and using it against the principles behind the guideline itself. In the current version ([34]) the words you (Kooky2) were citing are actually followed by "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention.". It clearly contradicts your conclusions. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, every rule has to be applied within the general framework of the rules according to the context. However, the underlying principle of WP:N is "notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...". How this is done is by WP:N considering "evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." And this is qualified by WP:RS which among other guidelines including the following:

Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This guideline seems sensible and well considered. I would like to ask you (Martynas) the question that Dominus Vobisdu has not yet answered. What I want to know is whether you accept the basic principle that reliability depends on context and that the sources should be appropriate to the claims made and if not why not? Kooky2 (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason I have not bothered to respond to your question is that I don't consider it germane to the discussion at hand, and I haven't the faintest clue what you are trying to get at. Please elaborate, but concisely and on topic. Also, I agree with Martynas that you are wikilawyering and cherrypicking. Stunts like that reduce your credibility. Another problem is that a lot of the things you say seem to be tangential to the matter at hand, and can give the impression that you are looking for loopholes rather than working toward a formulation that would ensure the highest quality of the material here on WP. I hope that's not the case, and a more forthright, transparent, concise a to-the-point formulation of your arguments and questions would go a long way in alleviating such concerns. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep calm - sometimes when editors think they are in a hole, they resort to accusing other editors of doing what they do themselves - in this case: wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking, not being transparent and seeking loopholes. I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels. If you have trouble putting your cards on the table, don't complain that your views are being mischaracterized.

However, I think I can safely assume that you do accept the principle that reliability depends on the context and that sources should be appropriate to the claims made as it is embeded in WP:RS. Or put it another way, like every editor here, you would demand that any claim that contradicts mainstream science would require the most strict levels of reliability. But do you demand the same high level of reliability from sources for a less controversial claim such as a fringe proponent was a keynote speaker at a conference or presented a TV series or married someone? If not please explain why as I have trouble understanding this. I trust that question is clear enough and clarification from you would help me understand your viewpoint. Please keep in mind that I (or any other editor) don't want to have to make any assumptions about your position on this. Kooky2 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, different sources count as reliable for different claims. But that mostly comes into play when the article content is being written. When we judge notability, the source only reliable for a claim that someone married someone is useless. If that's all it is reliable for, we don't have significant coverage. Thus, to make things shorter, sources reliable for next to nothing are generally called "unreliable".

"Keep calm - sometimes when editors think they are in a hole, they resort to accusing other editors of doing what they do themselves - in this case: wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking, not being transparent and seeking loopholes. I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels." - well, if you will not elaborate and show us some evidence, this part might even count as a "personal attack"... You might note that when I told you that you were taking a sentence out of context, I have shown which sentence it was and demonstrated that it was misinterpreted (by adding a following sentence). Also, I did my best not to say or imply that you misinterpreted the guideline on purpose. Now, if you think that someone else does something like that, please, give some evidence as well. Otherwise an apology to "Dominus Vobisdu" might be in order... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree that context is important, which is why I set out the 'Context Matters' guideline paragraph in full. If I felt that a guideline quote was out of context, I would not be unwise enough to use it knowingly as it would undermine my point. Kooky2 (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kooky2: No, you absolutely may not assume that I agree with you, and stating that I do was exceedingly uncivil of you. Also, you asked me repeatedly to take the time to answer your question, and when I told you that it was vague and asked you for a clarification, you said "I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels". That is not only uncivil, but downright insulting, as if your time is valuable and mine is not. If you are not going to be concise and on-topic, further discussion with you on this topic is a waste of my time, which I do value far to much to engage in vague, general and philosophical discussions on the subject of the article with no apprarent purpose, rather than concrete proposals to improve the policy in question. As for the rest of your answer, yes, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, that is, "multiple high-quality sources". That is what WP:EXCEPTIONAL is all about. If your want to be taken seriously in a discussion about our policies, it would help if you spent some of your precious time to read and understand them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I humbly apologize to you or any editor if you have taken offence by anything that I have written. When I wrote "I won't elaborate as it is a waste of pixels" I meant that I was not going to elaborate on what I see as a diversion - which is arguing about your accusations - which I felt were out of line, inappropriate and off-topic. I only want to discuss the guidelines and not get into a side argument which serves no one. I am sorry if my questions make you feel uncomfortable, but I don't believe they were unreasonable. Kooky2 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm impressed by your sincerity, and look forward to working productively with you. Two thumbs up! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment topics can be notable. That's the problem. A fringe theory can be covered for its entertainment value and that coverage can make the theory notable. The discovery channel may not be a reliable source on zoology, but it is a reliable source for determining whether something is notable for its entertainment (pop-culture) value. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. There is no "it's reliable for saying what is notable" quality to a source if it is not reliable as a source for what it covers. A reliable source is defined as one with a reputation for fact checking, if you think something does not have a reputation for fact checking for the information you are interested in, then why would it contribute to notability claims? I would consider a newspaper which reliably covers an entertainer in significant detail to be an indicator of notability, not a newspapers that unreliably covers someone. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"suppose the Discovery Channel runs a half hour documentary about how someone is searching for the Lake Kumquat Monster (resoundingly considered a fringe topic), and concluded with "Is there really a Monster in Lake Kumquat? Perhaps, perhaps not... but Dave Smith thinks so, and plans to continue his search next year." ..." - yes, such sources do exist. "I would call that "sympathetic"..." - yes, so would I. "but I would also say that the Discovery Channel is an independent source." - and the Communist side in the Korean war said that Soviet satellites like People's Republic of Poland were neutral (it was sent to Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission). Yet would you (Blueboar) really count such states as "independent" of the Communist side..?

Likewise, we should look at the source. The source as such is not "Discovery Channel", but the documentary. Is the documentary like that independent of the fringe theory? Well, how could it be, if it is little more than supporters of the theory speaking, with "Discovery Channel" adding the introduction and "Perhaps, perhaps not..."? It even seems arguable that it is not a secondary source.

"Furthermore if the Discovery Channel thinks Dave Smith's search is worth devoting an entire half hour of its programming to, I think most people would consider the Lake Kumquat Monster notable." - and "if the Discovery Channel thinks Dave Smith's search is not worth of a serious discussion (even in a documentary that is supposed to talk about it), I think Wikipedia would not consider the Lake Kumquat Monster notable because of that". Anyway, do you agree that such a source is worthless to us? I'd say that it is not even good enough for opinions of fringe theorists - it might be better to take their own writings.

And, of course, the word "sympathetic" was meant to exclude such sources.

Now, "The discovery channel may not be a reliable source on zoology, but it is a reliable source for determining whether something is notable for its entertainment (pop-culture) value." - well, does the documentary include the actual sentence "This theory is good entertainment."? No? Then it's not a source for it (certainly not a reliable one). If you want to discuss a fringe theory as entertainment, you need a source that actually discusses it as entertainment - some sort of a writing by art critic or someone like that. A source that simply uses it for entertainment is not enough. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I have to agree with Martynas. If a fringe proponent is an entertainer in their own right, then we have notability guidelines that apply for that, and the Discovery Channel episode you mention does little to satisfy those. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had drifted away from talking about proponents in my Discovery Channel example... my point was that a fringe theory can gain mainstream media coverage due to the fact that the executives think it has entertainment value. That mainstream coverage goes towards establishing that the theory is notable enough for an article. When it comes to establishing notability, it does not matter what a mainstream media sources says about a fringe theory (whether sympathetic, neutral or antagonistic)... what matters for notability is the fact that the media source has no connection to the theory (or theorist) and that the source covered the theory in depth.

Suppose there was a fringe theory saying that a mysterious creature (known as "Kumpie") exists in the depths of Lake Kumquat, and that I wanted to write an article about it. Before I even write a word, I need to determine whether this "monster" (or at least the theory that this monster exists) is notable. To do this, I go out and look for mainstream sources that have discussed the monster (or the theory that it exists). At this point, it does not matter what these sources say about the monster ... all that matters at this point is: are there mainstream sources that have discussed it (beyond a passing reference). We are not (at this point) sourcing any statements or verifying any facts... we are simply looking to see whether the topic has enough coverage in mainstream sources for the topic to be deemed notable.

Now... suppose I discover that the Discovery Channel devoted a half-hour program to the search for the "Lake Kumquat Monster". The Discovery Channel qualifies as a mainstream source. It is completely unconnected to the theory (and thus independent). The coverage level is more than just "slow news day" or "news of the weird" level coverage... they talk about the theory in depth and in a serious manner... all of which goes towards establishing notability.

We now get to the issue of reliability... reliability depends on context. The same source can be reliable for verifying one statement, and completely unreliable for verifying another. While the Discovery Channel would NOT be reliable for a statement such as: "The lake Kumquat Monster exists and lives in the depths of Lake Kumquat", it IS reliable for a statement such as: "Some people believe that the lake Kumquat Monster exists and lives in the depths of Lake Kumquat", or "The Lake Kumquat Monster is purported to live in the depths of Lake Kumquat"

As long as I keep this distinction firmly in mind, I can now write a stub article... perhaps:

• The Lake Kumquat Monster refers to a theory that purports the existence of a sea monster living in the depths of Lake Kumquat. This theory was the subject of the Discovery Channel's 2012 program "Kumpie - The search for the Lake Kumquat Monster" <cite discovery Channel>.

Now, I admit, that isn't much of an article... but as a stub, it is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We look for the coverage in reliable sources, not just any source. If the source isn't reliable for the coverage, I don't see how it could be considered a reliable source for notability purposes. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

But it is reliable for the coverage.... pay attention to the context... the claim is that the Discovery Channel covered the topic, and a citation to the Discovery Channel doing so reliably verifies that claim. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And why would the fact that the Discovery Channel cover the topic make the topic itself notable, or be signifcant at all in and of itself? Why would their opinion that the topic is notable carry any weight? Do they have any demonstrable expertise in the topic so that we should pay attention to what they say? Do they have a solid reputation for fact-checking and editorial review in regards to the topic so that we can trust what they say? Did qualified experts in reliable secondary sources review this broadcast and conclude that it represented coverage of a notable topic? Just because they thought that their target audience might think that the topic was amusing has no bearing on whether it is notable or not? How is this any different from a silly news of the weird type story? What evidence do you have that the topic was notable to anyone except those of the Discovery Channel staff that decided to produce the broadcast and the otherwise insignificant wanker who they got to "star" in it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverage by the Discovery Channel does not make it notable... it demonstrates that it already is notable. The Discovery Channel is not going to go through the time and expense of producing a program on a topic that isn't going to be of interest to its viewers. It's that interest that makes the topic notable... indeed a topic can be notable because people find it so interesting (just as a sitcom can be notable because it is humor, or an action drama can be notable because people find it thrilling. etc.) As for the distinction between my hypothetical Discovery Channel program and a "news of the weird" story in a news paper... the difference is in the depth of coverage. The typical "news of the weird" story will not cover the topic in much depth. The program I propose in my hypothetical does. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you a related question... I hope we would agree that if a topic is the subject of an article in an academic journal, we can call the topic notable... Why? Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably it's a reliable source for the topic and it is presumably well cited for the topic it covers. I presume the journal has a reputation for fact checking. Ideally multiple articles should exist. Unlike what was said here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_is_.22multiple.22_sources.3F I think we do require sources to exist to write stuff to pass WP:NOTE. Let me quote WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that is what makes the journal a reliable source for article content ... what I am asking is a different question... why do we say coverage in an academic journal is a valid indication indicates of notablity?

Here's a more specific (and real life) example... take a look at our article Champ (cryptozoology)... and look at the sources used in that article. Would you say that this fringe topic is not notable? Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To me it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... so how did you come to that conclusion? Every single source in that article is either a media source, or "sympathetic" of the theory. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with IRWoflie, here. Based on the sources provided in the article, I would have to vote to delete this at AfD, if, based on my own search, I had no reasonable expection that multiple reliable independent sources could be found. The only sources here that are reliable for establishing notability here are the two CSI sources, and even then, they are really only one source. The ABC Morning Edition source is a news of the weird slow news day type of story, and the VOA source is for entertainment as well. Neither represents serious journalism, and neither does very much for establishing notability. The article needs a major reworking, most of the sources are completely unreliable and need to be deleted, most of the content has to be shitcanned as unsourced and unsourceable, and additional reliable sources need to be found, both to establish notability and supply content. A possibility is the Bartholemew book linked to in the external links. From what I see on the page, that would be the only thing holding me back from voting "Delete" on AfD, and then only by a hair. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that most of the sources are poor: [35] mostly just quoting people, no analysis. [paranormal-encyclopedia.com] accept contributions from the public, seemingly with some editorial oversight; I don't consider that a reliable source (but don't give credit [36], very strange). I don't trust the visitors center [37] for history. This website is also trying to create an air of mystery: [38]. "The Search for Champ", more creating an air of mystery tourist information. [39], seriously? I notice it links to [40] for more info. I think the CSI source is good, there is also Coleman, Benjamin Radford, Joe Nickell ; foreword by Loren (2006). Lake monster mysteries : investigating the world's most elusive creatures. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813123943.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (university press). There's coverage in "Adventures in Paranormal Investigation", by Nickell as well. So yes, all the same person, but good sources none the less. Enough for a strong foundation to an article. I'm fairly inclusionist when good sources can be unearthed to directly write about the topic, more than my AfD voting record makes it look. I might rewrite it from scratch myself. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that I was restricting my evaluation to the sources currently in the article, as requested by Blueboar, and assumed you had, too. My bad. My actual decision would, as I said, on whether my search turned up any promising new sources, and I even pointed out one possibility in the ELs. Good luck with the rewrite! You'll probably stir up some deep water, though, and I expect the Champ fans to chomp down on you. Watchlisting and waiting for the fireworks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of the article references alone it would be probably a close AfD. Whether one CSI ref is adequate for showing notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'm in agreement with most of the points made by Blueboar, though I wonder what is being achieved by this now very prolonged discussion, which appears to be going round in circles. What I liked about the proposal made by A Quest For Knowledge was its clarification that the notability guidelines cover the issues related to notability in depth, and that these are not subject to amendment according to whether someone works in mainstream fields or fringe fields. Notability is established in its own terms and can be qualified by sources that are deemed reliable for what is being reported. It is not necessary that they have a reputation for establishing mainstream fact, unless we are presenting information that touches upon what mainstream or fringe theories claim. So yes, Blueboar is right, coverage by the Discovery Channel may not be adequate for verification purposes but it does demonstrate notability. We should keep WP:NNC in mind – the criteria that determines notability does not apply to article content. Equally, the guidelines that govern the treatment and explanation of fringe views are not expected to be applied to the determination of notability. In my opinion the most useful edit that could be made to this page is the statement proposed by A Quest For Knowledge that: "The notability requirements for articles on fringe and fringe-related topics are no different than any other topic". His proposal seemed to get a lot of support – I'm not sure why it was so quickly dismissed. Logical 1 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for getting us off track with the discussion. Thanks for reminding us of the purpose of this page... discussing potential edits to this guideline. I will repeat what I have said earlier... I have no problem with AQFK's proposed edit. I do have a problem with the suggested amendments to it. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Wrong on all counts. The Discovery channel selects topics for their programs based solely on their (sometimes erroneous) judgement about whether the topic might be entertaining to their target audience, not on whether the topic is notable or not. And their target audience bases their judgement of the level of entertainment the program delivers on it, well, its "entertainment value", whatever that is, and not on the topics notability (although notability may, or may not, be among their criteria for what is entertaining). Depth of coverage doesn't even enter into it.

And you're wrong about the second example, too. The fact that a topic is covered in a peer-reviewed source does nothing to establish notability. It is only when, as IRWolfie rightly points out, multiple reliable sources provide substantial (there's your "depth") coverage of the topic that we can conclude that the topic is notable. One sparrow does not a spring make. And the reason for that is that that is evidence that demonstrably qualified experts in the relevant field consider the topic significant enough to examine and report about, regardless of whether they accept or reject it. It matters very little whether other people discuss it or not, because their opinions do not matter in the slightest.

And that's just the minimum. I've written, translated or edited over 500 peer reviewed articles, and 10 peer reviewed books, but few of the topics covered in them would qualify as notable except among scientists interested in those topics, and certainly not to the "world at large". For example, one series of articles dealt with how infection by tapeworms causes cell death in the intestinal lining in pigs. Relaible? No question. Interesting? Hell, yes. If you are a microbiologist or veterinarian. Notable? Yes. Much so, as the articles were widely cited and reviewed, and even brought in enough funding to add two academic professors to the university staff. Notable to the word at large? Bwaa haaa haaa, you've gotta be kidding me!

On top of that, some topics are only notable for a short time, after which they become not-notable again, or are notable only in a limited geographical area. There has to be evidence of sustained and persistent coverage, which is what NOT#NEWS and BLP1E are about. And it has to me more than trivial, routine, tangential or local coverage. The pothole problem in Syracuse, NY, may generated tons of in-depth news coverage by reliable, but this is not evidence that it is notable to the world at large, or that anyone will even remember it ten years from now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And as for AQFK's edit, I oppose it, because it invites cherry-picking by fringe proponents. It's not exactly true, either, because our requirements for sources to establish notability for fringe topics are stricter, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and also because we have a major problem with promotion by fringe proponents and supporters here on WP, a large part of which consists of spurious claims of notability, which we are well within are rights to evaluate with heightened scrutiny. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal you (Logical 1) noted doesn't seem to be very useful, because (ironically?) during the discussion we found out that we do not seem to agree about the meaning of "notability" in general as well... Now, of course, I think that you, Blueboar and Kooky2 are completely wrong when you say that notability has nothing to do with content. The section itself is called "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article", not "Content has no impact on notability". The main part of the guideline is the explanation "Why we have these requirements", and it clearly says that it is because of content. There are cases when we cannot meet all main "content" policies at the same time - causing paradoxes, if you wish. In such case we say (paraphrasing Stalin): "No article - no problem.". That's more-or-less the idea behind the notability guideline.

But anyway, I don't think that any of us is going to change his mind any time soon. Thus it might be that we will have an RFC - or something like that. Before that, it would be nice to get two proposals - one from each side (with additional notability requirements and without them). But there are many proposals - and the current text of the guideline as well. Thus, maybe we could decide which two proposals are we going to choose? For example, from the opposing side (that supports wider notability for the fringe topics) I would choose the proposal given in [41] and for the side that I support I would choose the text given in [42]. Would it be reasonable if everyone else made choices of such kind as well..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... I haven't discussed content at all, never mind claimed that notability has nothing to do with content. I agree with you on that, and am an ardent "Stalinist": "No article - No problem". I was also thinking of bringing in some other opinions. Don't know whether an RfC is the best move, though. I'll have to think about that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick point of clarification: WP:EXCEPTIONAL has nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is policy provision about article content, not article existence. In other words, WP:NOTABILITY determines whether Wikipedia should have an article about a given topic. It does not determine what that article says. Article content is determined by our content policies, of which WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV are the most predominant. The only overlap that I can think of off the top of my head is the definition of a reliable source. HTH. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got that, because it's not in the policy. Notability is based on substantial coverage in multiple RELIABLE independent sources. If a source does not qualify as reliable per WP:EXCEPTIONAL or any other criteria, it cannot be used to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's in WP:NOTABILITY:

“ On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article...These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And how does any of that contradict what I said above? Or support your claim that WP:EXCEPTIONAL has nothing to do with notability? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a clarification about notability: Multiple sources are generally expected WP:NOTABILITY, but at least one is required (this project#Notability), so multiple sources are not required? Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that discrepancy, too. "At least one" should be changed to "multiple" to be consistent with WP:NOTABILITY, to close that loophole. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: The part where you said that "requirements for sources to establish notability for fringe topics are stricter, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL". WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about article content, not notability. You're conflating two different concepts (content and notability). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is about the reliability of sources, for any purpose. I see nothing in the whole policy that could possibly be construed as indicating that the policy limits source reliability to content. WP:NOTABILITY Specifically mentions source reliability as a criterion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: No, WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not about "any purpose". It's only about claims within an article:

“ Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. ”

It says nothing about notability. In fact, there is only one sentence in all of WP:V about notability and it says:

“ If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ”

That's it. That's the entire section about notability in WP:V. See the sections Wikipedia:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Wikipedia:V#Notability if you don't believe me.

@Aarghdvaark: Our policies and guidelines aren't entirely consistent with each other or even with themselves. WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple reliable sources. The sentence to which you refer in WP:FRINGE#Notability indicates that only one source is required. This is one of the issues that I attempted to fix by requiring multiple reliable sources.[43] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I've explained why several times. I've considered your reasoning carefully, and I still can't see anything in the policy which supports your position. This is obviously getting nowhere, so I'll bow out for now and let others comment.

As for the wording issue, I would strongly support changing the wording of the article to reflect the wording in the notability policy, namely change "at least one" to "multiple". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as numbers go... a lot depends on what the sources are. One source can sometimes be enough to demonstrate notability... but most of the time you need more than one. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so, in your (A Quest For Knowledge) opinion, when the notability guideline speaks about coverage in reliable sources, what exactly does it mean? After all, any source is reliable for something - at least for statements of form "Source says X.". But then, what is the point of adding the word "reliable" to the guideline? Could it be that, for example, only statements that the source is reliable for are to be "counted" when deciding if the coverage is "significant"? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@Martynas Patasius: Wikipedia defines a reliable source as a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While it's true that most sources are reliable for their own claims, (i.e. 'Source A claims B' (which is entirely different than 'Claim B')), that's not what WP:N means by 'reliable' in this context. So, if "Crank A" posts an entry on "Fringe Theory X" on their personal blog, that's not evidence of notability. If BBC News publishes an article about "Fringe Theory X", that's evidence of notability. Does that answer your question? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, with the added note that we are really talking about two distinct things here... reliably sourcing content (facts and opinions) is distinct from reliably sourcing notability. We use slightly different reliability criteria when verifying facts and opinions than we do when demonstrating notability. For example, if the claim of reliability is that a fringe topic has become a TV trope... then TV industry sources that discuss the topic in terms of it's "tropiness" are reliable. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of a paradox. You have reliable sources that say that a topic that is notable enough to have its own article but no reliable sources for any content. There isn't much use for a blank article. The only fact you could put in it is that the source says that the topic of the article is "tropy", and why, which isn't of any encyclopedic value, as things that are "tropy" today might be completely forgotten by the time we write the article.

The error I see here is that you are conflating newsworthy with notable. Newsworthiness is a lot more transitory. Not everything that is newsworthy is notable. In fact, the vast majority is not. And not everything notable is newsworthy. There is a fundamental difference in the aims of a new source and an encyclopedia. That's why we have WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E.

Then there's also the matter of who says that the article is notable. A report about a fringe topic in Science or Nature is far better evidence than a report in a newspaper, as it demonstrates that it is part of the discussion among qualified experts in the field. A newspaper ability to gauge this is far less reliable for establishing notability. First of all, it's gotta get that story out in a couple of days, so they often do a slapdash job. A submission to Science or Nature takes about six months or more from submission to publication. One Nature paper I helped prepare for publication took more than a year, during which time multiple experts from several countries worked on draft after draft after draft to satisfy the reviewers. That greatly affect the depth of coverage.

Let's put it this way: when we got the word that the Nature paper was accepted, we broke out the champagne, as does just about everyone involved when an article is published in Nature. Do you think that happens with many stories reported in news sources? Occasionally, perhaps, but I'd find that hard to believe that was the case for the "tropiness" article.

Not everyone's estimation of notability carries the same weight. Nor does the same person's estimation carry the same weight in all places. For scholarly topics, including fringe and pseudo-scholarly topics, the opinion of the editorial staff of a peer-reviewed journal carries a lot more weight then the a single expert when he writes in a self-published book or sham journal. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, such "paradoxes" where Wikipedia's policies do not work well (and contradict each other) are exactly why we have the various notability guidelines (and exceptions for cases where we have no "paradoxes"). And that is the main part of the guideline - not the "nutshell". It explains the "lawgiver's intent".

Thus the Blueboar's assertion that "We use slightly different reliability criteria when verifying facts and opinions than we do when demonstrating notability." is wrong. And the example given doesn't support that assertion. "For example, if the claim of reliability is that a fringe topic has become a TV trope... then TV industry sources that discuss the topic in terms of it's "tropiness" are reliable." - if such sources are reliable for sufficient coverage, then they are good enough to demonstrate notability. But, of course, we need the secondary sources that actually discuss the fringe theory in the context of popular culture and not just examples of the theory's use. By the way, it has little to do with "fringeness" - it is simply avoidance of "Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing" and applies to non-fringe topics as well. So, the documentary about some "monster" by "Discovery Channel" (that we were talking about) doesn't count - unless it is really about art (yet, is "Discovery Channel" a reliable source for topics related to art?).

And, of course, if someone will get really good sources about "tropiness" of fringe theory, those sources are not going to discuss the theory itself sympathetically (I doubt if they would discuss it - as such - at all) - thus, at least "my" variant of this guideline will not prevent it (the trope) from being considered notable. It still leaves the question if the trope and the theory are the same thing.

That should also answer "A Quest For Knowledge" (by the way, thanks for taking your time to answer - [44]!). "Wikipedia defines a reliable source as a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - good. "So, if "Crank A" posts an entry on "Fringe Theory X" on their personal blog, that's not evidence of notability. If BBC News publishes an article about "Fringe Theory X", that's evidence of notability." - well, does "BBC News" actually have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when we talk about this topic..? Thus "reliably sourcing content (facts and opinions) is distinct from reliably sourcing notability." sounds strange: if we interpret the notability guideline in this way, it does not help to avoid the "paradoxes"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit of Notability section overshot the mark, affected the Nutshell lead para

In the revision as of 04:06, 27 August 2012, Saedon revised the sentence

A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is.

to say

A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is.

This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Archive_16#Theory_--.3E_Subject. In that discussion the change was to be made in the Notability section, and subsequent very extensive discussion above has continued on the Notability section. Placing it here in the nutshell was not discussed, and is inappropriate. (What gets larded into the parentheses next? Fringe people, publishers, ...?) If there is no objection, I will revert this change.

There also seems to have been a consensus to say "fringe topic" rather than "fringe {view|organization|author|publisher ...}". Should we follow through on this? Occurrences of the phrase "fringe theory" would be unchanged, so this would not further affect the above reversion. Bn (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that begs a question... Prior to the August changes (and the subsequent discussions) the scope of this policy page was limited specifically to Fringe Theories ... Since that change, the scope has now been broadened to Fringe Topics (which includes fringe authors, organizations, publishers etc.) the question is... does this change in scope have consensus or not?

If so, perhaps we need to go further, and change not just the nutshell, but also the title of the policy (moving it to WP:Fringe topics). If not, then we need to reach consensus on exactly what the scope of this policy is.

So... the first thing I would suggest is a well advertized RFC that asks something like... "What is the intended scope of WP:FRINGE? Should it be limited to fringe theories, or should it be broadened to include fringe topics?" The answer to that will settle what the policy should and should not say. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, let's see... The discussion happened in Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 16#Theory --> Subject...

• There were 7 participants (Saedon, Lawrencekhoo, IRWolfie-, Blueboar, SteveBaker, Mangoe, Aarghdvaark).
  • Not a single of them objected at the time (neither did you).
• Users discussed different wordings "fringe subject", "fringe topic".
• IRWolfie- stated that "the guideline is typically used to refer to fringe subjects or views in general, so the change makes sense.".
  • This statement was not even challenged - actually, you personally answered him and only proposed to use the word "topic" instead of "subject" ([45]).
    • That probably means that changing "fringe theories" to "fringe topics" was not much of a change, it just made the guideline clearer.

So, well, I guess that it would mean that the change has clear - almost overwhelming - consensus.

Still, did your position change, and, well, if it did, why..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. That "fringe view (or organization)" should be changed to "fringe topic". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll change it. Bn (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) However, I misspoke saying it was in the nutshell; it's in the lead paragraph. Bn (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(responding to Martynas) My question isn't whether there was a consensus among the seven editors involved in the discussion ... but whether the change discussed (and implemented) reflects the broader consensus of the entire community. I suspect it does... but we won't know until we ask (which is why I suggest an RFC). More to the point... assuming "topic" does have broad consensus, we then need community input as to what is and is not included in "topic". A consensus among seven people is not really a large enough consensus upon which to base what may be a significant shift in the scope of a policy like this. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"A consensus among seven people is not really a large enough consensus upon which to base what may be a significant shift in the scope of a policy like this." - do you think that there is "a significant shift in the scope"?

"More to the point... assuming "topic" does have broad consensus, we then need community input as to what is and is not included in "topic"." - well, you proposed the word yourself. What did you mean by it then..?

Yes, I think there was a significant shift in scope. And it does not matter what I think the word "topic" means... what matters is what the community thinks it means. That's why I suggest an RFC. Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And, since that is essentially a question about your past position, I'd like to repeat another question: did your position change between that discussion and this one? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a guideline and not a policy, right?

I have some thoughts about this, not having been present for the August discussion, but I want to know if I should wait for the proposed RFC. If it goes here, we should probably open a new section.
Bn (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if we do an RFC, it should go in its own section. Since I am the one suggesting it, I will post it unless someone objects... is the wording OK with everyone? Does it present the issue neutrally etc.? Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The originally stated (and presumably intended) scope of WP:FRINGE is fringe theories. Rather than “intended” how about “proper” or “appropriate”? Also, talk of “fringe topics” may be difficult to clarify and may lead into muddles. It is the fringe theory that by association evokes the judgement that e.g. a writer is “fringe”. Arthur Conan Doyle's convincement about fairies is fringe but that does not make him fringe, nor does Newton's involvement with alchemy, and so on to Michel Gauquelin, John Addey, William Benham, Jack Parsons, …. So how about:

What is the proper scope of WP:FRINGE? Should it be limited to fringe theories, or should it be broadened to include topics associated with fringe theories, such as authors and organizations?

Bn (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That would not be neutral, as there is disagreement whether the change in the wording reflects a "broadening" of the scope. I see it merely as a clarification of the scope. Try again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I can be impartial observer in this, as I don't really have strong feelings either way, and haven't cared to comment until now. I'll post the RfC below. LK (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the scope of WP:FRINGE

Which articles should be within the scope of the guideline WP:FRINGE? How narrowly or broadly should this guideline apply?

Should it be construed to apply:

• 1. Narrowly: The guideline should only apply to theories and viewpoints, e.g. autodynamics, astrology, homeopathy, holocaust denial; including 1b. products and services associated with or promoting such views, e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, homeopathic dilutions, conversion therapy, scientology e-meter.
• 2. Broadly: The guideline should also apply to organizations, media and periodicals whose main purpose is to promote such views, e.g. British Homeopathic Association, Discovery Institute, The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD), Creation Research Society Quarterly; and 2b. people whose main claim to notability is the promotion of such views, e.g. David Icke (lizard people), David Irving (holocaust denial), David Balsiger author of The Lincoln Conspiracy.

LK (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly: The purpose of the guideline is to make it harder for fringe proponents and supporters to use WP as a platform to promote their theories, which logically includes self-promotion and promotion of fringe proponents. Fringe proponents and supporters have often taken advantage of this loophole in the guideline to justify coatrack articles on themselves, and to proliferate the number of articles on themselves. Changing the wording of the guideline from "fringe theories" to "fringe-related topics" would close the loophole and help curb such promotional activity. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Broadly for the reasons just given but also because if these aren't included we end up with articles that with reliable sources describe their subjects as fringe but that wouldn't be included within this guideline, which IMHO would make us look silly. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the guideline is broad so as to eliminate articles about fringe topics we end up with articles about fringe topics that the broad guideline fails to eliminate because they're reliably sourced? Bn (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If the guidelines aren't broad enough to include organizations, media and periodicals and of course people, we will end up with articles on fringe subjects that aren't within the fringe guidelines. Is that clearer? Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• broadly "Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Identifying_fringe_theories We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. " The broad application is appropriate as FRINGEy issues appear broadly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Broadly... but... One of the things that this guideline used to do well was outline when and how it was appropriate to discuss Fringe theories. Slow instruction creep seems to have diminished if not actually removed that aspect of the guidance. If we are to broaden the scope of the guideline to cover any and all fringe related topics, I think we need to once again make this aspect of the guideline more prominent. A lot of editors already misuse this guideline ... this guideline does not and should not ban fringe topics. Instead of focusing on the exclusion of fringe topics... it should focus on explaining the appropriate ways to include fringe topics. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Broadly, per Blueboar. We need to make it clear that we do have articles on fringe views, but we present those views as fringe, we do not transgress UNDUE; we write for NPOV not SPOV (sympathetic POV). KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, good points Blueboar. Does this policy not just expand a guideline on the policy of WEIGHT? Essentially, Fringe details the "extreme minority" viewpoint described by Jimbo as I see it. In the case of this RfC, is there an example where Narrow applies and Broad doesn't? For example, if homeopathy (Narrow) was insufficient enough to be presented in a mainstream article on Pharmacology, why would the British Homeopathic Association (Broad) be any different? If the article itself is about homeopathy, then British Homeopathic Association should be allowed in that article. I'm trying to see the distinction. I also worry about how this policy is often applied to non-scientific articles as an attempt to circumvent NPOV, for example, in politics where it's the norm to describe opponent positions as extreme, leading users to debate about if a viewpoint is broadly supported by scholarship. Morphh ^(talk) 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. The RfC is about whether FRINGE should apply to the article British Homeopathic Association itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Narrowly. An article on an organization, publication, or person that is associated with a fringe topic stands or falls on grounds of notability. Treatment of the fringe topic within such an article must be balanced with full representation of its relationship to the corresponding mainstream views, per NPOV. Mention of such an organization, publication, or person in another article can only occur as part of discussion of the associated fringe topic, the proper subordination of which is covered by a narrow construal of the guideline.
  

The thrust of this is to put more reliance on policies and reduce the ‘instruction creep’ that Blueboar notes. Bn (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And if we have no sources which give a relationship to the corresponding mainstream views? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are no sources affirming the relationship, then how do you know that the given topic corresponds to the mainstream view that you believe it corresponds to? Wouldn't it require original research by the editor to make such a connection?

Note that my position here is to apply FRINGE to the fringe theory wherever it occurs, hence, broadly in that sense, but if the theory is mentioned in, say, an article about a proponent of that theory then the guideline applies to the discussion of the fringe theory; it does not apply to the proponent. There are no fringe people. The fact that a publisher publishes books about a fringe theory does not contaminate them with ‘fringiness’ any more than publishing science books makes Wiley scientific. Like Random house or Pearson/Penguin, they may publish on fringe topics as well as a great many other subjects. Hence, narrowly in that sense. Discussion has been equivocating between at least these two senses. Bn (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"If there are no sources affirming the relationship, then how do you know that the given topic corresponds to the mainstream view that you believe it corresponds to? Wouldn't it require original research by the editor to make such a connection?" - if there are no good sources, the topic is "not notable" and we are not going to have an article about it. No article - no original research. Problem solved - by the part of this guideline concerning notability. But only assuming that the option "Broadly" is chosen. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about a subset of sources, namely, those that affirm a relationship to a view that is presently mainstream. Alchemy is generally regarded as pseudoscience. SFAIK there are no sources affirming that alchemy has some kind of current relation to chemistry or metallurgy, e.g. as a subfield or as an application technique, but there are reliable sources about alchemy as a philosophical system of historic and cultural importance, as a symbol system studied and made use of in Jungian psychology, etc., and there is no question that it is notable. Bn (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Questions for the proposer: Does the present format of the Guideline WP:Fringe (or Wikipedia:Fringe Theories as it is currently known) apply to every fringe theory, view or claim in any WP article? Or does it apply only to Wikipedia articles about a fringe theory (with the exception of the Notability section extended earlier this year)? Is the first proposal to narrow the scope of the guideline to articles about fringe theories (and products) only? And is the alternative proposition, to expand the scope so that the guidelines apply to all topics that are primarily fringe-related even if the article includes no fringe claims as these are addressed in other linked articles? Kooky2 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Inclined towards broad interpretation One of the issues here involves widely adhered-to pseudosciences such as astrology which have their own substantial communities. How much does prominence within the the astrological community, for instance, warrant an article on an astrologer? One broad interpretation would expect MSM or similar notice outside the community, so that for instance Sydney Omarr gets an article without relying on sources within the astrological community, but almost all other modern astrologers do not merit articles because they have no notability outside the community. I'm inclined to take this approach because the alternative is to figure out how to assess fringe literature for notability when we are largely not accepting it for other purposes. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There are many cases where notability is entirely relative to a given field. Few have heard of Stanley S. Newman (not Stan Newman the puzzle creator) or Henry Hoenigswald outside of the field of linguistics. The recourse then is to trust the literature of the field and the judgment of editors who have expertise in the field. In the example used above, there is no question of the notability of astrology as a field, and there is a substantial technical and even scholarly literature. Bn (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The question then becomes, "what is the literature of the field?" The judgement of "those in the field" is not free from review from the outside: I'm not a geologist, but I can tell what's genuine geological scholarship and what is young earth fringe material. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's a task for RS, not for FRINGE. The young earth literature probably mentions and references the literature of geology but if the standard works of geology mention young earth views at all they will identify it as fringe. Bn (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Narrowly: It should be confined to subjects, primarily scientific, where the theory in question can be compared to an objective standard. Logically, it should be narrower in scope than V and RS. It is too often misused as one more pass at circumventing NPOV guidelines on non-scientific articles when V and RS requirements have already been satisfied. Ignocrates (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Broadly if I understand correctly... Everyone agrees that we treat theories with due weight, which means that fringe theories are barely mentioned if at all. But you're asking if someone who promotes a fringe theory might have a comprehensive article about their views and their significance? That would be the ultimate backdoor, and violate the spirit of the policy. I'm not confident I know how to deal with someone who says something so boneheadedly stupid as to have dozens of scientists, academics, and other experts write tons of articles about how completely outside of reality they are. But I think that would be a case of a person who is technically "notable", but where we wouldn't really have anything constructive to write about them. Call the policy WP:BLPIDIOTS. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Suppose someone puts up a bio article about their hero, the proponent of a weird theory. Assuming it passes WP:NOTE, then under WP:UNDUE, they will have to tolerate it being contextualized wrt mainstream theories in a way that they might not regard as flattering. In the extreme case, where the views are so sui generis as to make such contextualization difficult, simple reportage has for most readers the effect of self-ridicule. The article on David Icke may illustrate this point. Bn (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: "Their hero?" I am sorry, but hero worship is to be performed on fan websites, not encyclopedias. As for David Icke, is he the follow who thinks he comes from outer space? Well, BMU. Just BMU, ASAP. History2007 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are in violent agreement with me. “Hero” refers to the attitude of the (imagined) follower who writes an admiring bio of the promoter of said weird theory. Just as you reject hero worship, NPOV rejects the hero-worshiping qualities of such a bio. I think David Icke's utterances are difficult to put in relationship with any mainstream views because they are so far out there, but just reporting them neutrally amounts to ridiculing them. Bn (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly-ish. To quote WP:FRINGE, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents". Regardless of whether we are discussing fringe theories, the proponents of such theories, or organisations which in turn promote such theories and their proponents, the criteria is the same: that they are only 'notable' in as much as they are deemed worthy of note by those not promoting the theories, and they only merit as much WP:WEIGHT in articles as the non-promoting mainstream gives them. David Icke's 'shape-shifting lizards' fringe theory is notable in Wikipedia terms because it, along with Icke's other wackiness, has been the subject of considerable media attention. If some otherwise unknown fringe theorist comes up with a counterproposal that rather than lizards, the powers-that-be are in fact sentient mobile fungal colonies, it will be entirely non-notable, if no more implausible, unless and until it gets noticed by the non-fringe mainstream. It really matters little whether one is discussing the sentient-fungus theory, the sentient-fungus theorist, The Sentient-Fungus Quarterly Review or the Society for the Promotion of Sentient-Fungus Theories - it is all fringe, and unworthy of note unless noted by outsiders... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Narrowly. There are editors who are trying to apply FRINGE to an ever-growing list of articles. I saw IRWolfie- argue recently that psychoanalysis is "fringe," though it's taught in medical schools and practised by senior psychiatrists. Allowing this broader interpretation would mean people might try to label as "fringe" people such as Theodore Shapiro, professor emeritus in psychiatry and pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medical College; and John Bowlby, formerly director of the Tavistock Clinic. Yes, that would be ridiculous and would never stand, but that doesn't mean someone might not try it (though I'm not suggesting IRWolfie- would), resulting in hours or days of having to argue about it just because this page had over-extended itself.

  The point of FRINGE (and common sense) is to make sure that bizarre views don't make their way into articles about mainstream positions. But it is being used to remove material about people (even in articles about those people) who have views that deviate from the mainstream, in the opinion of some Wikipedians. That is, they're interpreting this guideline to allow them to engage in original research. So long as it's being interpreted this way, the guideline should not be extended at all, or as Blueboar argues it should make clear that its purpose is to explain how to include certain types of material, not how to exclude it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Since you are mentioning me in connection to Psychoanalysis, as I pointed out to you at the time when you asked; Nature and Science both say that it is far from the mainstream. These are top tier science journals. You have not addressed this point. Homeopathy and Naturopathy are practiced in Universities, hospitals etc etc. Does this make them not fringe too? It's not original research to realize that some sources are of better quality than others. They each have many practioners. This is a red herring anyway, since it has no connection to the current discussion. The point of FRINGE isn't just about "bizarre views don't make their way into articles about mainstream positions", I suggest you actually read these guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a red herring if it's a position you're still defending, that psychoanalysis is "fringe". Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry, a standard psychiatry textbook, writes that psychoanalysis "has established itself as one of the fundamental disciplines within psychiatry" (2007 edition, p. 190). Instead you focus on articles written by people who don't like it, and insist that anonymous Wikipedians, armed with those articles, should override what is actually taught in some of the best medical schools in the world, and practiced in some of the best teaching hospitals. If this proposal were to succeed, you could (in theory) insist that biographies about senior psychiatrists be labelled as "fringe" because they are also psychoanalysts. I'm writing "in theory" because that would never be allowed, which shows that this proposal doesn't pass muster, because it could never be put into practice.

  People like David Icke (the world is ruled by giant lizards) are already covered by this guideline; we don't need to add anything extra that specifically focuses on individuals. But people will support an extension to cover the lizard man, not realizing that some of the people who want the extension might try to apply it to regular physicians and academics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• If it were established that psychoanalysis were a minority but not fringe position, then it would not matter whether a narrow or broad interpretation were applied in that context. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly. This guideline is meant to show how other policies and guidelines are to be applied while dealing with fringe topics (most importantly, when the topic in question is mostly ignored by serious sources). Some of such guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Now why would we apply one set of rules to an article about the fringe theory and a completely different set of rules to an article about, let's say, a book proclaiming this theory? In this discussion two main arguments in favour of "Narrowly" seem to have been made so far: 1) the guideline might be misused, 2) the guideline often repeats what other guidelines say. Unfortunately, they seem to work against each other: a clearer guideline is harder to misuse (and sometimes clarity does require repetition). Also, those objections do not seem to be specific enough: other guidelines are also misused (for example, in far too many many cases someone who complains about "hounding", actually complains about something that the guideline does not condemn) and they often repeat other guidelines (for example, one of the main parts of almost any "special" notability guideline often repeats what is said in the general notability guideline). And it is not clear why stating that this guideline applies to articles about, let's say, books proclaiming fringe theories, would be supposed to lead to misuse of the guideline. Thus I'd say that the option "Broadly" is much better than the alternative. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Very Broadly. It is well known that 7-8 years ago, Wikipedia's growth was largely driven by users who were mostly idealists who had dreams of building a "real encyclopedia", but in time, as the number of page views increased, the number of opportunists who saw this website as a means of self-promotion grew. The price could not be beaten. WP:FTN is witness to the fact that these days everyone with a keyboard, a modem and a fascination with lunatic fringe items can just start an article, or edit existing articles to say something about the amazing cyborgs that live in the caves on Mars, or something to that effect. It takes effort to Afd these, and if the standards are too lax, many will get through. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Very Narrowly. Because an encyclopaedia should not be judgmental about the existence of something (even if it has no scientific or academic support), only judgemental about the veracity of the subject. So while Wiki should accurately portray the views of fringe subjects with the normal caveats that apply to fringe theories etc., it should not restrict the information provided about the fringe subject. Any person or organisation should be excluded because while their subject may be fringe, the existence of an organisation or someone who has come to the public notice due to the fringe subject are themselves not fringe – because they actually exist even if their topic is questionable. A lot of mileage is made about the need to prevent self-promotion of fringe subjects or people associated with fringe subjects but this is already Wiki policy and only needs to be enacted in relevant situations. Furthermore, a fringe subjects needs to be notable in the same manner of any other subject. A web article or self-published book on a fringe subject is not notable. In my experience, there are many frenzied editors with a born-again religious intensity involved with attacking fringe subjects, including people and organisations associated with the fringe subjects, which does Wiki no good because if a member of the public wants to know about psychics bending spoons, they should at least be able to read something about it without only be told it has no scientific value or support or having nothing at all provided by Wiki due to its fringe nature. I have perceived a censorship effort by many editors wanting to prevent information on fringe theories, or associated people and organisations, being provided by Wiki – is this beneficial or detrimental to Wiki? Terry Macro (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Response/Comment: The reason it is detrimental is that the presence of far out and fringe items discourages serious scientists from bothering to enter serious science into Wikipedia, for they will say: "why bother?" The more Wikipedia looks like a lunatic fringe website, the less likely it is to attract serious scientists who will see it as a rummage sale of semi-literate material. That is the harm that is built into fringe. History2007 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This risk is managed by WP:UNDUE. Bn (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Response: No, it is not. WP:Undue deals with ratios, the ratio here should be A/0. Any, and I mean any. presence of lunatic fringe makes Wikipedia look like a joke. Personally I find the most laughable aspect of WMF operations to be the attempt to sell Wikipedia:Books in printed format. Would I ever, ever, ever buy a printed Wiki-book on physics and give it to a young reader to read? No way. It could be so full of errors and fringe material to teach him errors long rejected by the scientific community at large. He could fail exams that way, set back his career, etc. Why not buy a physics book published by John Wiley? If one wants to support WMF, one just donates not buy these error prone, fringe laden books on physics that no scientist has checked, and some fringe pusher could have populated. This entire lax attitude and the "risk can be managed" mindset makes the scientific articles in Wikipedia look like sad jokes. Go to any respected physics department, walk the corridors, stop a professor and ask: "Would you recommend a book based on Wikipedia as a way to learn physics?" His laughter will likely be heard all over the corridor. History2007 (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed re extracting textbooks from any encyclopedia — but if such books (exploiting a copyright gap) were themselves peer reviewed and edited, they could be valuable even to Wikipedia. OTOH nor would the physics professor recommend a book based on Encyclopedia Britannica, or Physics for Dummies. Conversely, remember Feynman's 1964 experience reviewing math textbooks.

The guideline disagrees with you (and so do I) if you're saying that there should be no mention of any fringe subject whatsoever anywhere in Wikipedia. This is not a reasonable requirement for any encyclopedia. Readers can have excellent reasons for wanting to know what a conspiracy theory claims, for example, or that a particular politician espouses that theory. In the sciences there is generally a clear demarcation between sense and nonsense, but outside of strongly disciplined subject matters perceived reasonableness is a graded phenomenon. Bn (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone holds the position that no fringe subjects should be covered on Wikipedia (it would make Wikipedia a dull place for sure :) ). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't one of self-promotion, it's of promotion by advocates of the fringe beliefs. You are an astrologer, and it appears that you belief that astrology is science. You will undoubtedly always find a neutral coverage of astrology and related people/organizations unsatisfactory because it would present astrology without treating it like a science. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed that astrology is science and I believe that Wiki is totally correct in placing astrology in the fringe theory bracket because to my knowledge (correct me if i am wrong) no reliable or accepted research (by academia)has proven that astrology is a science (to date at least). I don't find neutral coverage unsatisfactory but neutral coverage must address the two sides. The reader of say the astrology topic should be presented with the scientific view on astrology (provided it is reliably sourced) but also many readers will want to know what astrology is as presented by astrologers (for whatever reasons)and if Wiki cannot do this they will go elsewhere. It is totally understandable that most academics consider astrology to be nonesense but that does not prevent the general public wanting to know about many areas of nonesense such as the world coming to an end on 21st December 2012. Regardless of whether a topic is nonesense or not from the academic viewpoint, notable people and organisations associated with nonesense topics are suitable for an entry in an encyclopedia. In my dictionary an encyclopedia is defined as " a book or set of books giving information on all branches of knowledge,... ". Encyclopedias should be 'comprehensive'. Even if astrology is classified as nonesense, the subject is packed full of information and has a history stretching back thousands of years and is therefore of great interest to anathropologists, archeoastronomers, cultural historians etc etc. Terry Macro (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Existing policy already allows the full history of astrology etc to be discussed (e.g History of astrology). We don't need to lower the sourcing requirements; there are plenty of books on the history. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that History2007 is an astrologer as you say, and I see no evidence of special pleading in what he has written. But regardless of that, UNDUE is not about self-promotion, it's about balance, and so long as coverage in Wikipedia articles is in due proportion the personal beliefs of editors who achieve that balance are irrelevant. Even astrologers can be honest participants in our work toward NPOV, and ad hominem categorization is not helpful. Bn (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Havens! Moi? Astrologer? Good Heavens! I did write MPG/ESO telescope, but it was not for reading the palms of the stars. He was calling Terry a stargazer, not yours truly - he has seen my views too often on these issues: I think astrology (and almost all fringe) is pure nonsense. Anyway, this discussion is beginning to eat time like Pac-man, as most crowd-sourced discussions do, so BMU, BMU... I am out of here. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Bn, I am "almost sure" that IRWolfie- has meant user "Terrymacro" and not "History2007". Look at the indentation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess there was some kind of delayed update from the server … the entry by Terrymacro was not visible to me when I wrote and the comment aligned with those of History2007 and Bn above it, and I knew he didn't mean Bn.

But I hold to the main point of my comment: who says it doesn't matter, and what their beliefs are doesn't matter, if what they say is a genuine contribution to NPOV. A theory can be fringe, but a person cannot. I've known quite a few people who gave credence to ideas that I thought were fringe but those people were eminently reasonable in other respects. FRINGE is not an infectious disease, and it's not a tar brush. This notion of contagion is a kind of Puritanism that to my mind is inappropriate. Bn (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not implying that they aren't reasonable, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly There is no way to separate this guideline from the related articles. Application should be across all articles; a narrow application would too easily lead to associated articles turning into coatracks, I fear. Yobol (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Narrowly per SV. I've seen people try and shoehorn things (a la COATRACK) into not-current-consensus beliefs still widely held on the premise that FRINGE demanded that we inform people that certain ideas were Not Mainstream. If every not-current-consensus belief article comes with a "Warning: may contain evil!" tag, then NPOV is pretty much out the window, and we have this incestuous spiral between RS (if it treats a FRINGE topic seriously, it must not be one), and DUE (no real RS? No space allocated to discussing it) that would, at its extreme, make a mockery out of NPOV. Our job is to present neutrally and fairly, and resist both puffery and debunking, and let the readers make up their own mind. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but your response appears to have no direct relevant to the particular question being asked. You refer to "not current consensus belief article", but I'm not sure if we are discussing the same thing. The issue is whether we apply the guidelines to articles about fringe adherents, fringe concepts, and fringe organizations, and not just the fringe theory itself. It is not about extending the scope to treat major alternative views in the same way as pseudoscience. As an aside, if a topic is not mainstream, it seems important that the article should reflect it's actual status and not be written as though it were mainstream; to avoid being misleading. That doesn't mean adding disclaimers, but it should be self evident as the article should be conveying what the sources do. If there are no RS on a topic, I'm not sure how you propose to discuss it in an article without OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Very broadly per DV, Dougweller, History2007, et al. WP:FRINGE is mainly a description of how to properly apply NPOV to fringe claims, and it would be odd to restrict that only to articles where the fringe claim is the article subject. A false statement about a living person is a BLP violation regardless of the article subject; undue fringe promotion is an NPOV violation regardless of the article subject. I will also make a stronger version of Yobol's statement and say that fringe-associated articles will turn into coatracks.

Several of the comments above me seem to be attacking FRINGE itself, rather than addressing its scope. The main theme seems to involve concerns about the exclusion or minimization of valid encyclopedic material - which if true is a separate issue independent of policy scope. That said: the purpose of FRINGE is to protect Wikipedia's duty not to misinform, e.g. by UNDUE coverage. In an ideal world, FRINGE would be superfluous to NPOV. I hardly ever cite it in discussion; I cite UNDUE instead. We don't have lengthy descriptions of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in Barack Obama. The ideas are explained in the relevant articles, with appropriate qualification in order that Wikipedia's editorial voice is not making statements that are inflated, misleading, or provably untrue. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Narrowly – Since I agree with many responses to Broadly, either I or they are misunderstanding the terms of reference. Wikipedia:Fringe Theories should address all controversial fringe theories, views, claims and “proclamations of its adherents” in a very broad sense within any article not just those that are exclusively about the theory itself. So this includes an organization, product, service or an individual that promotes a fringe theory or any disguised attempt to promote a fringe theory with a WP:COATRACK article. Perhaps this should be made clear in the guideline.

If you read WP:FRINGE – even just the sub-headings, it is specifically written for fringe theories and claims. The guidelines are either inappropriate or irrelevant for content which does not include a controversial claim for entities like organizations or biographies. We should not have to thrash out the arguments about creationism or astrology or climate debate in every biography of a fringe proponent – a linked reference to the fringe theory is in many cases sufficient. This is no loophole as non-controversial biographies of fringe proponents are still subject to WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:NPOV or WP:V.

We cannot exclude a notable holocaust denier on the grounds that inclusion in Wikipedia is a platform to promote his or her warped views. Or an astrologer like Sydney Omarr can be notable under WP:BIO, WP:N, but adding the requirement that he must have been “referenced extensively in a serious and reliable manner” is taken literally by those who seek to eliminate popular fringe subjects from Wikipedia. These editors insist that only scholarly, peer reviewed or debunking sources are acceptable. I am here because I have seen the recent (Aug./Sept) broadening of the WP:FRINGE notability section applied by a couple of editors to a series of inappropriate AfDs of biographies of fringe proponents culminating in a Snow Keep here.[46] Broadening the scope of WP:FRINGE will lead to editors culling a great many relevant articles that would otherwise be notable, attract popular interest and are an essential part of the rich diversity of an Encyclopedia. Kooky2 (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry, your first sentence about "within any article" runs against the long standing statement by Jimmy Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." quoted in the WP:Due section. You then seem to be building the rest against that. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Response: I think we are on the same page on this point. What I am proposing is that if a fringe theory is to be presented on any page on Wikipedia other than through an internal link to the main fringe article, then WP:FRINGE applies to the wording. Wikipedia:Fringe theories should not apply to content that does not present controversial theories unless the article is dedicated to presenting a Fringe theory. Kooky2 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that our votes point in different directions... I wonder. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Response: History2007, I don't understand how the possibility of subordinating or excluding a topic contradicts the assertion by Kooky2 that this NP:FRINGE guideline “should address all controversial fringe theories, views, claims and “proclamations of its adherents” in a very broad sense within any article”. The consequences of using the guideline, and the policies on which it depends, might be to subordinate or exclude the topic, but that would come after the guideline was used to address the issue.

BTW, that (avowed) paraphrase of what Jimmy Wales wrote omits some important context. If you look at the original in a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list, he was talking about original research. Whenever original research is indeed the issue, WP:OR is the appropriate and sufficient tool.

St. Jimbo also said (and this, too, is paraphrased in NPOV with some loss of context):

[...] Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

How do we identify those “some cases”? The criteria for deletion are in policies, especially WP:NOT and behind it WP:RS. I agree with Blueboar that we must clearly distinguish reliability from notability, and (as paraphrased by SlimVirgin) that the purpose of FRINGE is “to explain how to include certain types of material, not how to exclude it.”

What is a ‘singular view’? A bit farther down in that email, Jimmy Wales says it is

[…] a view [that] is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and […] dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists. Usually the creative alternative-physics types will readily agree that virtually no mainstream physicists would agree.

So a ‘singular view’ is defined by its (few) advocates in terms of its conflict with a mainstream view.

A second thing about the quotations above is that they clearly concern standalone articles. Mention of one topic in article on another topic can require somewhat different treatment. Bn (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Final comment I could respond again and again. But as I said above, this discussion is eating up time now. I do not agree with you, but I have voted, explained before and time to deal with real life, and stop arguing against articles about the existence of 8 legged cyborgs in Martian caves. Whoever believes those articles deserves them. That is the justice of it in the end, I guess. Good bye. History2007 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an RFC, not a poll. I think everyone agrees about articles on fringe topics (those cyborgs). Broadening to articles about people and things that are associated with fringe topics (authors, publishers, organizations) has less agreement. Bn (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly If an individual's (or an organization's) notability is based on a fringe theory, their article should also fall within the scope of WP:FRINGE. Miniapolis (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly Where there is an issue with giving undue legitimacy to a fringe theory it doesn't really make sense to make a distinction between whether it happens to be about a/the fringe organization, proponent or theory, or aspect of the theory. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Question for those who wish broad interpretation: Where do we draw the lines? If we are not careful we could go too broadly, what we say could be used by POV pushers to squash legitimate minority views. For example... suppose a historian has fringe views about the death of Richard II, but holds legitimate minority views on the subject of Henry VIII... I am concerned that someone might point to WP:FRINGE and say "because he is fringe on Richard II, we can omit his views from the article on Henry VIII". Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the policy suggests no such thing, the problem does not arise. We don't label everything that a holder of a fringe position believes as necessarily fringe, obviously. This would be counter to common sense, never mind policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The question is a general question and does not apply just here, but also applies to the general distinction between "majority vs minority" , and "minority vs fringe" views. In cases where there are clear WP:RS sources providing an overview of the field that state what the majority, minority and fringe views are, the issue does not even arise. In those cases, the labels provided by the WP:RS sources will over-ride Wiki-editor surveys of the field. In many cases suitable searches can find the sources for that type of scholarly overview - it is a question of doing the searches. In cases where no such WP:RS scholarly surveys are available, WP:CON applies, of course. History2007 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the current RfC, which is not about fringe mentions in mainstream articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly, and with a heavy dose of common sense. Any implication that FRINGE "doesn't apply" to articles where the subject is not the fringe topic itself is an invitation to those who would game the system. The biographies of living persons policy provides a useful comparison, in that it covers all biographical content, even if it appears in an article that is not technically a "biography". There is no distinction between "Joe Bloggs is the president of XYZ University, and he stole $1 billion from its endowment" and "XYZ University is a four-year college headed by Joe Bloggs, who stole $1 billion from its endowment". There should also be no distinction between "Wongo juice cures cancer" and "Jane Floggs is the inventor of wongo juice, which cures cancer". szyslak (t) 18:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Editing error fixed by szyslak (t) 19:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

True... however, there is a distinction between:

• Wongo juice cures cancer and
• According its inventor, Jane Floggs, Wongo juice cures cancer.

(Assuming that the theory that Wongo Juice actually does cure cancer is fringe) It would be inappropriate to include the first statement in any article. However, It would be quite appropriate to include the second statement in the article on Wongo juice. A related distinction would exist between:

• "Jane Floggs is the inventor of wongo juice, which cures cancer" and
• "Jane Floggs is the inventor of Wongo juice, which she claims cures cancer"

It would be quite appropriate to include the second statement in the Jane Floggs bio article. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the points you made here. My real point here is that biased FRINGE content that violates WP:UNDUE, etc. is equally unacceptable regardless of whether the article happens to be titled Wongo juice or Jane Floggs. szyslak (t) 20:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't understand the point of this question. WP:FRINGE is essentially a sub-guideline of WP:NPOV, and NPOV applies to all articles. Broadly speaking, NPOV defines 3 categories of viewpoints:

1. Majority
2. Significant minority
3. Insignificant minority (or fringe)

This guideline is supposed to help editors deal with category 3. I'm not sure if actually does that (and maybe the guideline needs to be rewritten) but again, I don't understand the point of this question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well... half of WP:FRINGE is a sub-guideline of WP:NPOV... the other half is a sub-guideline of WP:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

True, that's a good point. Well, actually, one section (out of 8 or 9) is about notability. How about we solve this problem by deleting that section? Well, maybe not, the examples section is good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - the question is ambiguous. I have asked the proposer for clarification. Many editors who have supported that the scope of the guideline WP:FRINGE should be applied broadly have put forward a case that is not in dispute and one where almost everyone here agrees. Of course it is and it should continue to be applied to all articles.

However, this is not the issue that has been discussed on this talk page over the past few months. The debate has been about whether the notability of fringe-related subjects, such as fringe organizations and fringe biographies should be subject to the same terms as fringe theories as set out in WP:FRINGE#Notability in addition to WP:BIO and WP:N. This question should be raised at an RfC so the discussion can be settled. Kooky2 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree and think that the RfC should be restarted with a very clear question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, The question that I wanted to ask in this RFC is: "What is the intended scope of WP:FRINGE? Should it be limited to fringe theories, or should it be broadened to include fringe topics?" This question is not directly tied to the notability issue that others are talking about (although the answer would probably affect it)... it was inspired by my own re-evaluations of an edit that was made back in August (at the time, seven of us discussed this issue and seemed to reach a local consensus, but neglected to seek broader community input). Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if the RfC had asked that question, the answer is the same: WP:FRINGE is predominantly part of WP:NPOV and NPOV applies to all articles.

Regarding the notability issue, a good RfC question to ask is "Should the notability guidelines be different for fringe-related articles, and if so, how?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blueboar, I'm not sure I understand the difference, in the sense that I don't know what the practical application might be of that distinction. The only thing I know is that some editors use FRINGE to remove information from biographies of people they disagree with, calling their ideas "fringe" and therefore not allowed on WP on any page, not even in articles about adherents. And this proposal would seem to allow them to do that. But I don't think people supporting the "broadly" option are aware of that, or at least it's not obvious that they're aware of it, so restarting the RfC with a very clear question would be a good idea. Otherwise the outcome is likely to be contested and/or the closing editor will not know how to read the consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to SV: I don't know which examples you're referring to, but when a dedicated article for the fringe theory exists, it seems that the biography should contain only a summary. Plus, if it's the case that something has no reliable sources describing it, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

In response to AQFK, I don't think the notability section is unique either. The only difference is that it's common for fringe topics to have many unreliable sources discussing a topic but no or few reliable ones, and so that issue is emphasized in this policy. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think slim is referring to this rather extended discussion Wikipedia:RSN#Robert_Almeder. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any particular article. Arc de Ciel, whether a biography should contain a summary or more detail of a subject's views has to be a matter of editorial judgment on the page. It's not good to try to decide these things centrally in advance, especially not when people will use the guideline as an excuse to remove material they don't like, no matter how much a reader might find it interesting. That always has to be the bottom line -- what the reader is likely to find interesting (within the limits of NPOV, V, NOR and BLP). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, what the reader finds interesting is not the deciding factor. We aren't here to appease the audience; and sometimes they might even find what they see objectionable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• No scope WP:FRINGE should be consigned to the dustbin. WP:NPOV is more than adequate. (a) There is no scientific definition of "fringe" (b) its interpretation is purely subjective resulting in editors being the arbiters of whether an article or idea is so labelled (editors become a primary source as a result of WP:SYNTH, i.e. their own opinion) (c) While "fringe" may mean "minority", it has pejorative overtones and hence is highly controversial, but requires no WP:V with WP:RS (d) Why do we focus on fringe science, and not other "fringe" subjects (e) no other encyclopaedia considers "fringiness" (f) science does not distinguish between highly specialised subjects and "fringe" subjects (f) Editors do not follow the guidelines anyway (I followed the guidelines to check a textbook to use as a reference and found unanimous WP:RS supporting non-fringe, but was overruled by an editor's opinion without a single WP:RS) --Iantresman (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: An important point has been raised here. WEIGHT can be viewed as a continuum, and FRINGE is often used to apply a threshold of acceptability to that continuum. The problem occurs when FRINGE is used on a sliding scale to include someone's "mainstream" theory while excluding others. If it can't be applied using an objective standard, it shouldn't be used at all. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hum, this account is a little different of how I remember it. Readers interested in the full story can read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Iantresman. Ianstresman claimed that a certain book didn't include certain fringe ideas, and he was topic banned under the provisions of the "Fringe theories" arbitration case. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly It covers a broad range of disparate topics ranging from outlandish historical theories to psedoscientific theories of everything. Often those promoting the theories are notable only in that context. Some of the journals, for example Progress in Physics, are virtual web-based publications without proper peer review, administered by those promoting fringe views. The fuzzy or blurred edges of fringe topics more or less dictate taking a broader perspective. The range of topics on FTN is a good imdication of that. Things have tightened up in the past five or so years, however, with more stringent application of BLP policies. That has resulted in problematic largely self-written bios being deleted, an example being Florentin Smarandache. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The broad/narrow dichotomy has two senses between which our discussion blindly equivocates. My initial position was narrowly. This restatement of it articulates that distinction:

• Broadly (sense 1): Yes, it should apply to fringe ideas in all articles, not just in articles specifically about the fringe ideas.

• Narrowly (sense 2): It should apply to fringe ideas, but not to people, organizations, etc. that are associated with fringe ideas. In an article about an organization whose main purpose is the promotion of a fringe idea, yes, the fringe idea should be contextualized with mainstream views so as not to give it undue weight. But to say that the organization itself is fringe, or must not be given undue weight, is kind of nonsensical (the question is, is it notable), and the desired effect on the article about the organization is achieved by applying the guideline to the fringe idea that the organization promotes.

If the RFC is restated, I hope this ambiguity can be clarified. Bn (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, maybe you should strike out the bolded "Narrowly" that stated your previous position..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC random break

Comment on the hidden harm of narrowing fringe items: As I said, I will not participate in point for point discussion here any more, but I happened to think of a table and the the "it can be handled" mentality expressed here based on the flatly incorrect "editor time is infinite" assumption. It reminded me of how when that mindset gets applied to fringe it exacerbates a larger problem which most Wikipedians are unaware of: the shortage of human resources. Unless policy is strengthened against fringe elements getting pages, etc. the level of junk accumulated in Wikipedia will continue to go up due to the hidden decline in content monitoring. I became aware of it when an academic writing about Wikipedia showed me the table embedded below:

Table of Wikipedia editor presence by edit frequency

Date (A) Article count (B) All users (C) editors (D) frequent editors 01/01/2002 19,700 333 158 24 01/01/2003 96,500 1,170 504 117 01/01/2004 188,800 4,144 1,500 297 01/01/2005 438,500 16,509 5,906 878 01/01/2006 895,000 58,244 25,317 3,332 01/01/2007 1,560,000 181,420 51,158 5,100 01/01/2008 2,153,000 316,811 44,901 4,543 01/01/2009 2,679,000 432,451 42,637 4,347 01/01/2010 3,144,000 538,830 39,907 4,060 01/01/2011 3,518,000 633,576 37,564 3,802 01/01/2012 3,835,000 725,452 34,940 3,560

The key ratios in the table above are C/A and D/A: number of regular editors (with over 100 edits per month) over the number of articles which have grown from 2 to 4 million (and growing at 30,000 a month), as shown by the following computations:

Computation of the decline in page monitoring

2007: 51158/1560k = 32.7 editors for every 1,000 articles for midlevel editors 2012 34940/3835k = 9.1 editors for every 1,000 articles for midlevel editors 2007: 5100/1560k = 3.2 editors for every 1,000 articles for frequent editors 2012 3560/3835k = 0.92 editors for every 1,000 articles for frequent editors Ratio since 2007: 32.7 /9.1 = 3.5 for midlevel editors Ratio since 2007: 3.2 / 0.92 = 3.4 for frequent editors

So in 2007 there were "3.3 times more regular editors per article" than in 2012. That is a very rapid decline. If the door to more fringe is not shut, that will exacerbate the problem, and will show in terms of neglected articles.

A few years ago, in his thesis "Wikipedia: A quantitative analysis" Felipe Ortega predicted the untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, which in time will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month and slowing down the reviewing process in Wikipedia. Thus "fringe pushing by coatracking" will continue to eat time like Pac-man and will just exacerbate the trend for regular editors wearing out and even walking from fixing articles, as well as discouraging academics from even touching Wikipedia for they often see it as a chaotic, fringe laden website, and not a serious "encyclopedia" in the sense that a university student could be told to rely on it. That is a serious hidden harm from entries on fringe items. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you, History2007. So what is needed are

1. Clear and unequivocal criteria for identifying what is fringe, and what subject or subjects they are fringe to. (Fringe is a term of relationship, not a quality.)
2. Clear criteria for distinguishing that subset that has so little support that WP:NOTABILITY can eliminate them.
3. UNDUE so that an article or a mention in an article reflects properly the relationship between the fringe topic and that to which it is fringe.
4. More editors addressing the problem of fringe topics. ;->

The most important and most difficult task of this guideline is defining what is fringe. The bulk of the guideline text just points to policies and either says "go read the policy and do what it says" or paraphrases it, though in some places it gives more detail, e.g. in the case of notability it gives more detail on how to resolve the problem of few reliable sources. If the main reason sources are rejected as unreliable is because they publish a fringe idea there is a risk of circular reasoning.) Bn (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a proposed approach to this that might reduce wheel-spinning controversy. Don't rely entirely on the editor's common sense as to what is fringe. The editor can say "here's a reliable source (or reliably sourced article) that contradicts what this proposed article/section says" and then if there's enough notability proceed to state the contradiction as NPOV relationship. Bn (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to play devil's advocate here, and address BN's four points from the "inclusionist" perspective...

1. Clear and unequivocal criteria for identifying what is fringe is impossible... because fringeness is often blurred and depends on context. For example, is Bigfoot/Sasquatch a fringe topic? From a scientific prospective, yes... but as a pop culture icon, no (and as a fictional character, Sasquatch is no more a fringe topic than the Geico Gecko, or the Pillsbury Doughboy).
2. No... what is needed is clear criteria for distinguishing which subset have the minimum support necessary so that WP:NOTABILITY can include them.
3. UNDUE so that a mention in an article reflects properly the relationship/relevance between the fringe topic and the subject/topic of the article in which it is mentioned.
4. More editors who understand when and how to address fringe topics appropriately (it isn't necessarily a problem to do so).

Note... I am intentionally being overly "inclusionist" here... my actual stance is that there is a balance... so I come out somewhere in the middle. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your amendment of (3) suggests that UNDUE applies only to mentions in an article but not to articles as a whole. But UNDUE says “In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint …&rdquo etc. I assume the omission was an oversight. Therefore:

3. #UNDUE so that a mention of a fringe topic in an article reflects properly the relationship/relevance between the fringe topic and the subject/topic of the article in which it is mentioned; and so that an article about a fringe topic includes mentions of the mainstream ideas that it contradicts in such a way as to reflect properly the relationships/relevance between the fringe topic and those mainstream ideas. Bn (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we're closer than may appear.

1. Yes, fringe is a relationship (“depends on context”). Talk of ‘fringeness’ as a quality can obscure that essential fact and devolves too easily into people being offended and unable to cooperate. No action can be taken without identifying specific contradictions with mainstream views. And yes, in a strongly disciplined subject matter with explicit definitions that must be conformed to or you are no longer in that subject matter (the paramount example is a science), sense/nonsense is well defined, but in other domains the perception of what is reasonable is a graded matter.
2. Thank you! Yes, of course, the emphasis should be on inclusion. Especially in dialog with proponents editors should frame the proponent as an ally rather than as an adversary: “Look, we have this problem. Work with us to fix it. What is written here contradicts these reliable sources (or a reliably sourced article). This article/section needs to say so.” I know a lot of good editors work hard at doing this.
3. Yes, we can probably assume that “that to which it is fringe” is the subject of an article. (Exceptions are conceivable.) Could work the other way, of course, where the mainstream idea is mentioned in the fringe article.
4. Yes, there have to be more editors who understand the when and how and who furthermore actively apply their understanding to the influx of questionable material. Bn (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's look at that list:

1. "Clear and unequivocal criteria for identifying what is fringe, [...]" - would you count "Fringe view is a minority view that tends to be ignored rather than argued with." as a "[c]lear and unequivocal criteria"? If you would, "fringeness" of other types of topics can be found out by using common sense (a book is "fringe-related" to the extent that it has been written to promote views that are fringe etc.).
2. "Clear criteria for distinguishing that subset that has so little support that WP:NOTABILITY can eliminate them." - in a preceding discussion I have "proposed" a formulation that seems to be rather clear ([47]). In short, remove the sources sympathetic to the fringe view, and see if the rest of the sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability in some way (using all relevant notability guidelines).
3. "UNDUE so that an article or a mention in an article reflects properly the relationship between the fringe topic and that to which it is fringe." - good. Of course, we do have it.
4. "More editors addressing the problem of fringe topics. ;->" - no. The correct formulation should be "More editors addressing the problem of fringe topics reasonably well.". We can do without the ones that do it badly (Wikipedia:Competence is required etc.).

And about the "circular reasoning" - the main problem that is addressed by this guideline is that for some fringe views we have no good sources (or little good sources) that actually argue with them in sufficient detail. Such views are simply being ignored. This guideline is meant to prevent the other policies from forcing us to describe such views as if they were universally agreed with when in fact they are almost universally disagreed with. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

On the last point: can you clarify the seeming contradiction between "universally disagreed with" and "no sources that argue with them"? Bn (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this "contradiction" is the main reason why we need this guideline! But, of course, it is not really a contradiction. Let's take something very fringe. For example, I vaguely remember some writing that took some similarities between some foreign and Lithuanian words and tried to demonstrate that, er, Lithuanians were great in some way (although I do not really remember the conclusions). As far, as I know, no one took this writing seriously enough to write a rebuttal. Thus, technically, no writing in existence oppose this theory - or, in other words, all writings in existence that address this theory support it. However, if we actually asked anyone, we'd find out that no one (with exception of the author and, perhaps, some of his friends) actually supports the theory - everyone considers it to be nonsense unworthy of attention. But no one took the trouble to write that down. As you can see, there is no contradiction. And that's the case when this guideline should come into play. Is it more clear now..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that the purpose of this guideline is to take care of this corner case. Is that really what you mean? Anything that fits this description is at best of marginal notability. For this example have been considered notable, some of the supporting RS must have been independent of the subject. Bn (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You asked me to show how there is no contradiction with some of my statements. I have given you an extreme example that should make it obvious (by the way, could you please confirm that now you see that there is no contradiction?). It doesn't mean that only this example exists. The problem is that "some of the supporting RS must have been independent of the subject" is not well defined without this guideline. To get another example, we have a book promoting a fringe theory. And then we have a review of that book in some "pro-fringe" journal. Is that an independent source? Why or why not? It is not an unrealistic scenario: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life. If we are going to count such sources as independent, then, quite predictably, we end up with an article that praises the book - when it is not exactly universally admired... But is there anything in other guidelines that lets us to count such sources as not independent..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point now. And yes, ‘independence’ is not always easy to judge, although OTOH often it is not so difficult. But I still am averse to the tar brush effect: this periodical/publisher/person/organization has published something on a fringe idea, therefore the periodical/publisher/person/organization is fringe, and therefore whatever they publish is not a reliable source. I recognize the extreme that you identify; do you recognize the extreme that I am identifying? What advice in the guideline will promote appropriate balance between these extremes? Bn (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that, while not always accurate, "this periodical/publisher/person/organization has published something on a fringe idea, therefore the periodical/publisher/person/organization is fringe, and therefore whatever they publish is not a reliable source" is a relatively good heuristic in general - assuming that this "something" (that has been published) was sympathetic to the fringe theory and not critical of it. Statements supporting the fringe theory are generally taken to be false (otherwise the theory wouldn't be fringe), and proclamation of things that are generally understood to be falsehoods tends to be incompatible with reputation for fact checking and accuracy (being a reliable or "authoritative" source)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) “minority view that tends to be ignored rather than argued with”: Yes, and in general if the literature of topic F refers frequently to the literature of topic M but not vice versa then topic F has an appendant relationship to topic M.

(2) “remove the sources sympathetic to the fringe view, and see if the rest of the sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability in some way (using all relevant notability guidelines)”: The specific rewording that you offered [48] did not get consensus. As Blueboar put it “ Independent sources can certainly be sympathetic (or unsympathetic) to the subject they cover. When it comes to Notability Wikipedia does not care whether a source is sympathetic to its subject/topic or unsympathetic to its subject/topic... only that it be independent of it.” Reframing this as though in dialog with a proponent, an editor could say that they need to find RS discussion of the topic by people who are not active in creating or promoting it. It has to have been noticed outside the immediate community of interest to be accounted notable. Such notice may sound sympathetic or not, and still be independent.

(4) is obviously outside the scope of this guideline. Where should it be addressed? Has some form of recruitment been tried, analogous to the fundraising drives? Per discussion above it should emphasize behavioral guidelines e.g. BITE, FAITH, EQ. And BTW use of shortcut names as abbreviations amounts to an in-group jargon that is daunting to newbies. WP:Editors doesn't give or point to any introduction to this, so it's sink or swim on the talk pages.

Bn (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"The specific rewording that you offered did not get consensus." - yes, it didn't. At that discussion, that is. However, the arguments used to support its rejection tend to be used to support the option "Narrowly" here. And it doesn't seem to be supported by a broader consensus. Of course, it is not the only wording that is compatible with option "Broadly", but then again I am going to be content with many of them.

"(4) is obviously outside the scope of this guideline." - well, you added it here... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, History2007 did. (in the “RFC Break” just prior to the list) Bn (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-issue. I can't understand why there is even a question here. The guideline starts with the ArbCom definition, which clearly sets out four categories of ideas that might be thought fringe. Then it carries on with a load of common sense, good practice and re-statement of existing policy, that could be beneficial to any article. Take, for example, Heterodox economics, an "alternative theoretical formulation". I suppose a broad definition of "fringe" would rule it in, and a narrow one would rule it out of scope. A lot of time could be wasted on arguing its pros and cons on talk and project pages. But actually it really doesn't matter either way - and shouldn't matter to us. People can just carry on editing it, finding good sources for what these economists think, and writing the sources up with due care. All else is advocacy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"I suppose a broad definition of "fringe" would rule it in, and a narrow one would rule it out of scope." - no, in this case "Narrowly" and "Broadly" do not mean anything like that. In a sense, the question is "Does this guideline apply to some books?". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Or, more importantly... does the guideline apply to people? Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

More importantly? Er, so, does it mean that you personally believe there is a reason to apply it to books, but not to people? I'd like to stress that "personally", since by now I am not sure when you tell your own position and when you are speaking as "devil's advocate"... In one case above you did say "I am going to play devil's advocate here" explicitly ([49]), but I am not sure if that's the only instance... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, "more importantly" means I (personally) think the question of whether WP:FRINGE applies to people is more important than the question of whether it applies to books. I have not (personally) made up my mind on either question. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah... Well, it explains why I wasn't able to find out what consistent position you defend - in a sense, you do not have a consistent position, but are still exploring. Thank you for explanation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, in your example, you suggest that heterodox economics might be excluded from a narrow scope and included in a broad scope. I agree with Martynas Patasius that this is a misunderstanding of the RFC question. Your comment and example evoke a different and also valid question about the extension of the guideline beyond hard sciences to less ‘hard’ fields that may be considered science or not, depending on who is doing the judging. Broadening in that sense has already taken place, willy nilly.

The ArbCom definition concerns pseudoscience. The guideline has already been broadened to other kinds of subject matter, and that's where a lot of the stickier difficulties lie. The guideline concerns not only ideas that are considered pseudoscience but also those that are considered fringe in a broader but less well-defined sense. I think probably almost immediately it was taken to include as well products and services seen as promoting such ideas; in any case, that is also part of the RFC's formulation of what a narrow scope means. I think this status quo is what that first part of the RFC refers to. We have a narrow scope now, limited to fringe ideas (and implementations of them); do we want to broaden it.

In the specification of what a broad scope means, this RFC asks if it should also include the people, publishers, organizations, etc. that are seen as promoting the ideas.

Confusion persists among us about these several senses of broad and narrow. Bn (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Bn (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC random break II

• Broadly mainly because of things presented above, but I'll restate them. The policy on fringe theories is meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not been mainstream or reliably sourced. If we narrow the definition of an article that the policy applies to, we are allowing articles to pop up that aren't construed in this policy that really shouldn't exist. For example, if we disallow the Puppies Have Five Legs association, but allow an article on its founder because it's founder doesn't apply under FT, then we are effectively allowing a huge loophole for those who want to use Wikipedia for promotion of non-notable or non-factually accurate things. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is one of the reasons I think the RfC should be restarted with a clearer question. Whether we have an article on Puppies Have Five Legs will depend on whether sufficient secondary sources exist to support it, and whether we have a separate article on the founder will depend on the extent to which secondary sources have written about his or her life. It won't depend on anything this guideline says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly - wikipedia is seen as a free publishing platform for those holding marginal views to gain recognition and establish acceptance of their viewpoints, anything that can help curb the abuse is good. Davémon (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Question. Lawrence, I see people saying narrowly or broadly depending on different interpretations of your question. Could you clarify exactly what the RfC is asking in relation to people? You propose that FRINGE "should also apply to ... people whose main claim to notability is the promotion of such [fringe] views ..." and you give a number of examples, including David Irving. The existence and content of our article on Irving is governed by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTE (or specifically its subpage, WP:BIO). What difference would inclusion within the scope of this guideline make to that article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an issue that the community here needs to resolve. In the discussion preceding the RfC, editors disagreed about whether this guideline should apply to only theories, or to fringe topics broadly construed (including organizations and people advocating fringe theories). Editors also disagreed about whether this guideline should apply to the articles about those organizations and people, and supplement other policies like WP:NOTE and WP:NPV in those articles. The person(s) who closes this RfC should address this issue in the closing statement. LK (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering the size that this RfC will probably end up, I would prefer a 3 admin close. Any objections? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lawrence, what would it mean exactly to apply WP:FRINGE to a biography? You offered David Irving as an example in your RfC question. Can you explain what difference it would make to that article if it were, as a result of this RfC, to fall within the scope of FRINGE?

  As things stand, I don't see how the the RfC can be closed, because it's not clear what is being asked, and it's obvious from the responses that people are confused about what they're agreeing to, or disagreeing with. Can it be rephrased and reopened? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Broadly with the help of NPOV and UNDUE and a regular dose of WP:FTN, the fringe theories noticeboard. I think if you keep an eye on the noticeboard, you very quickly come to what is called sensus fidelius of WP, the sense of what is fringe and what isn't, what belongs and what don't belong. Common sense in any other word. The RfC does ask about coatracking and self promotion. There is a clear need to keep an eye on these issues; however the existing parameters of FRINGE are enough to monitor this. Whiteguru (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Broadly. The usual problem with our coverage of fringe topics is that, when the only sources are themselves credulous fringe publications, we can't cover the topic in the neutrality that we require, which should include a clear and sourced statement of the fringe nature of the topic. This applies to organizations equally as well as to theories, and even more strongly to BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Broadly For example, it needs to cover the theory (ancient astronauts), its proponents (Erich von Däniken), and its books (Chariots of the Gods). In a narrow interpretation, WP:FRINGE could be ignored when describing the proponents and their books, independently of how fringe they are. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• And it needs to covers topics that are mentioned in fringe theories. For example, von Däniken claims that the Piri_Reis_map in based on information from aliens. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a no-brainer. Follow the ArbCom decision -- aka Broudly. The wording makes it very clear that it applies for all coverage of fringe topics, and certainly the same principles of NPOV policy that apply to fringe theories would apply to fringe topics in general and mainstream topics that end up covering fringe topics within articles about larger topics. We don't just stop following NPOV policy because the article title isn't specifically about a fringe theory. Those who want to interpret it narrowly are basically just making a not too transparent attempt to undermine it by wikilawyering. (I at least have to give credit to the editor who outright said it should be abandoned, as at least there was no subterfuge in motives there.) DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC Restated

In August, the scope of this guideline was changed from discussing Fringe theories (defined in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field) to discussing fringe topics (including the individuals who advocate fringe theories, the books they write, the organizations they form, etc.) This change has now been challenged as taking the scope of the guideline too far. The question we are dealing with is: Should the scope of the guideline be fringe theories or should it be fringe topics? Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you post the diff to the change? I think it would be helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the diff is [50]. The discussion was from 8/27 to 8/31. Bn (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. That's hardly a neutral phrasing of the question. Very prejudicial, in fact. Drop the second sentence entirely. The rest needs work, too. And why are you basically starting a second RfC when the consensus in the above is pretty clear? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe part of the confusion lies with terminology? There's no such thing as a fringe topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Weak. A fringe topic is any topic related to fringe ideas and their proponents. It't not that ambiguous. If you wanted to be clearer, you might use "fringe-related topics". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but if we replace "fringe topics" with "fringe-related topics", does not the confusion go away? Maybe this is what caused the problem in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no objection at all against changing "fringe topics" to "fringe-related topics". If it reduces ambiguity, go for it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am restating because several of the comments asked for it. In what way is my restatement prejudicial? A change occurred last August, and it is now being challenged. Is that not accurate?

As for the new suggestion of "fringe topics"-->"fringe-related topics"... Can people or organizations be considered fringe-related topics? That is the basic question that prompted the current challenge to the August edits. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course fringe-related topics refers to fringe proponents and organizations. There is absolutely no ambiguity there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I would strongly oppose the suggested change. A perfectly mainstream person/organization (such as a University professor, or a professional association) can support views that are considered fringe without being fringe himself/themselves. This guideline should be about when and how to discuss ideas... not when and how to discuss people. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The concern is not about persons who are otherwise notable, like Linus Pauling, but about persons whose supposed notability is inextricably tied to a fringe idea. The primary concern is (self-)promotion and (self-)aggrandization, and multiplication of articles on fringe topics to make monitoring difficult and frustrate AfDs. Sorry, but there are a LOT of people who come to WP to promote themselves or fringe ideas they support, or to use it as a platform to publicize their own "research", and they quickly become masters at gaming the system. The loophole here is one that they often attempt to exploit. Also, there is no contradiction in being a well-respected mainstream scientific authority by day (meaning when one is subject to peer-review) and a barking mad fringe crank when "off the clock". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Then that's an issue for the notability guidelines, not this page. It makes no sense to talk about "fringe" people. They are either notable or not. If Holocaust denial is fringe, what would it mean to say that David Irving (an example used in the RfC question) is fringe? Lots of sources have written about him and his ideas, and their material (I assume, not having looked for ages) is rightly repeated in the article. What actual difference would it make to the editing of David Irving if he were, or were not, to fall within the scope of this guideline? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If a significant amount of the individuals notability revolves around his fringe theory work then it should be expected that the reliable sources should exist to put the views into perspective with the mainstream position. If the fringe theory work is only getting a trivial mention and doesn't contribute significantly to the notability, then it's less of an issue. Also note that FRINGE already has things to say about notability: Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Take someone like Alex Jones (radio host)... a well known and clearly notable fringe conspiracy theory advocate... The article appropriately discusses some of the conspiracy theories he is known for advocating, but it does not bother to "put his views into perspective with the mainstream position" because there is no need to do so. There is no need to "debunk" his theories in this article, because the article is not about his theories... it is about him (and it is appropriate to discuss someone's beliefs in an article about that someone). Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. When writing about David Icke, should we put his views in perspective? ("The overwhelming consensus of mainstream scientists is that human beings are not giant lizards from another dimension.") The point is that when we write about people, we repeat what reliable sources have written about them, and to whatever extent "debunking" is needed, it will be in those sources. The notability, sourcing, neutrality and original research policies/guidelines (including BLP) determine content in bios already; there is no need for FRINGE to impinge. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, looking at the article ([51]) I wouldn't say that "[t]he article appropriately discusses some of the conspiracy theories he is known for advocating"... Given that it's probably the first time I heard about him, I find little information about the fringe theories in question. If, as you seem to say, first of all he is notable as an advocate of fringe theories and not for some other reason (I have no idea if it is so), then giving so little information about those theories clearly violates WP:UNDUE. And if there was more information, it would become necessary to explain that those theories are not universally supported - and, perhaps, why. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Then that's an issue for the notability guidelines, not this page." - among other things, this page is a notability guideline. That's why it has a chapter "Notability" ([52]). And the discussion preceding this RFC was about notability. Thus different versions of "rules" might make little difference to articles about clearly notable "fringe theorists". But it would make quite a difference where notability is less obvious. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Anything that affects the notability guideline should be discussed on that page, and if needed changed there. It's not good for offshoots to spring up, because inconsistencies develop, and it's often only the people who focus on those offshoots who comment. So we end up with guideline ghettos and people not speaking the same language. The content policies, NPOV, V, NOR, and BLP, apply to all articles on WP, including all bios, as does NOTE bearing in mind that it's a guideline. (I'm not sure what the AfD you linked to signifies.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SV, this nicely articulates a concern that I have had. As much as possible this guideline should refer to and rely upon the policies on which it depends. From 40 years of experience as a writer and editor and manager of same I can affirm that duplication invites inconsistency. Bn (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Anything that affects the notability guideline should be discussed on that page, and if needed changed there." - so, just to be sure, you think that Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (sports), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Notability (books), Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and other "Subject-specific guidelines" (as shown in Template:Notability guide) should also be merged to Wikipedia:Notability?

"I'm not sure what the AfD you linked to signifies." - the nominator in this AfD has argued: "Fails our notability for books. In short, the only reviews are done in locations where the credulous have patting-each-other-on-the-back parties. The Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Philosophical Practice, and PsycCRITIQUES are fringe journals who cannot be established as independent with respect to this guideline." ("this guideline" links here, to, well, this guideline). If this guideline does apply to books, the argument is correct and the article would have to be deleted (the users who argued "Keep" ignored this argument). Otherwise the argument is incorrect and the article would have to be kept. That's the difference that this RFC is supposed to make. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to address your point about the notability subpages, they're meant to be consistent with the main guideline, just as MoS subpages have to be consistent with the MoS. Are you saying that FRINGE ought to become a subpage of NOTE? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Just to address your point about the notability subpages, they're meant to be consistent with the main guideline, just as MoS subpages have to be consistent with the MoS." - and..? This guideline is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia:Notability. That guideline demands independent sources, this one explains what sources are not independent when fringe topics are considered. There is little room for inconsistency here.

"Are you saying that FRINGE ought to become a subpage of NOTE?" - no, I am not. I suppose it is possible to split this guideline and call one part "Wikipedia:Notability (fringe topics)", but, since it is going to say the same thing anyway, I don't really see what difference would that make. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the cited reviews is in Philosophical Practice 2.2 July 2006.131-135. The reviewer is Dr. Naomi Thomas. She is quoted at the beginning of (the abstract of) an article on epilepsy as follows:

“If you are exposed to radioactive toxic waste there are case reports of people developing super-powers; but lymphoma is more likely.” Naomi Thomas, paediatrician and philosopher

That doesn't sound terribly credulous or back-patting.

The journal is published by the American Philosophical Practitioners Association, an organization for those who apply their training in philosophy to psychological counseling. Though they have been around for at least the 7 years of the journal's publication, and 'philosophical counseling' has been around since the 1980s, and although they have been noticed at least once in the Washington Post, they may not be considered notable; but they don't appear to be organized for the purpose of promoting fringe theories. Nonetheless, the fringe tarbrush condemned them in the eyes of at least that editor who originated the AfD. Bn (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That would have been a nice argument for that discussion (incomparably better than just ignoring the nominator's argument), but it doesn't matter here that much. I only use it for demonstration of "what difference does the question of RFC make". If you think that some source doesn't fit, simply imagine a world where that source wouldn't exist - that would be enough for demonstration. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the relevance of any of this. If there are reliable sources for a bio, per the policies, it doesn't matter whether Wikipedians regard a person as mainstream or fringe. Whether a bio exists and how it's written won't depend on anything this page says, so I'm still not clear what the RfC is proposing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC is proposing anything... it is an attempt to gauge consensus Re the scope of the guideline... that consensus will help us with a language choice: should the policy use the term "Fringe theories" or should it use "Fringe topics" (or as has now been suggested "Fringe-related topics")? "Topics" implies (at least to me) a broader scope than "Theories" does. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question. How would extending FRINGE affect an article like Rupert Sheldrake? He is a scientist with a very mainstream background, who has developed non-mainstream ideas, whose books are bestsellers, and who is written about a lot by secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• • For that matter Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin have no scientific respectability whatsoever, yet they're very notable... AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I think we should also consider how a change to WP:FRINGE would affect articles on fringe ideas/topics that have nothing to do with scientific acceptance... let's not forget that WP:FRINGE also applies to fringe ideas/topics that relate to other academic disciplines (history/pseudohistory for example) as well as fringe ideas/topics that don't fall within the scope of any academic discipline (conspiracy theory for example), ... how would extending WP:FRINGE affect our bio article on Robert Lomas, and how would it affect our article about one of his books: The Hiram Key? Or an article like Anti-Masonry? Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Proposal: The motivation for broadening the scope appears to be to help editors resist inclusion of articles or topics about people, organizations, etc. that are associated fringe ideas. In practice this too often devolves to a tussle of judgment.

To cease being dysfunctional, this guideline must define fringe by objective criteria for two reasons. First, relying on the subjective 'common sense' of individual editors is weak ground to stand on and invites controversy. It's insufficient bulwark against fringe proponents. Second, in what way is a wikipedian editor's 'common sense' judgment not original research? An anti-fringe zealot should not be exempt from the general requirements that apply to all.

Fringe means marginal relative to consensus. One objective criterion of fringe that I have suggested to thread a path between Scylla and Charybdis (fringe proponents and zealous pseudoskeptics) is whether the fringe sources refer to Mainstream sources but not (or relatively very few) vice versa. This adds very little work to a search for reliable sources that must be undertaken in any case. This objective criterion supports inclusion of e.g. Sheldrake, von Däniken, Sitchin, and Lomas in proper relationship to mainstream ideas that they contradict.

There is a caveat to avoid the tarbrush effect. Thus, in the example above the AfD proposer appears to have assumed that none of the listed reviewers and journals were independent of a postulated group or community promoting the idea of reincarnation. This illustrates the circular logic that has been mentioned in this discussion. Roughly: the idea is fringe so any source that talks about it must be fringe so there are no non-fringe sources, so the idea is fringe (as well as not notable).

Once something has been identified objectively as fringe, the principal guidance to editors is in UNDUE and NOTE. A great many paragraphs in this guideline could be reduced to a sentence with a reference to policy.

I believe objective criteria like this and some cleanup will alleviate much of the difficulty with FRINGE so that editors can rely on policy (as they should), NPOV/UNDUE, V/RS, NOR, and NOT, with help from NOTE and other guidelines. Bn (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Re: "The motivation for broadening the scope appears to be to help editors resist inclusion of articles or topics about people, organizations, etc. that are associated fringe ideas." That may well be the motivation, but (in my opinion) it is a flawed motivation. We have lots of policies and guidelines that cover this... We have notability guidelines like WP:AUTHOR and WP:ORG. We have policy statements like WP:UNDUE to guide us. To my way of thinking, the goal of WP:FRINGE isn't to resist inclusion of fringe topics. I think the goal is instead to explain how to include fringe topics... appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you, but I refer to the RFC Break statement: "The policy on fringe theories is meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not been mainstream or reliably sourced. If we narrow the definition of an article that the policy applies to, we are allowing articles to pop up that aren't construed in this policy that really shouldn't exist." The statistics cited there are a valid concern. More (qualified) editors is the obvious solution to that. Less obvious, perhaps, is to make the job of editors easier and less adversarial. That's what I have in mind with the above proposal. Bn (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Bn (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: The policy on fringe theories is meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not been mainstream or reliably sourced. That misstates the purpose of WP:FRINGE... I don't think the policy is "meant to prevent people from furthering ideas that have not be mainstream or reliably sourced." I think the policy (guideline actually) is meant to instruct editors on when (and how) we include information about fringe theories. And the question isn't whether we should narrow the definition... its whether we were correct in expanding the definition back in August. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Blueboar. I believe editors should enlist the cooperation of advocates of a fringe topic, establishing a shared goal of including the fringe topic in an appropriate way. Others disagree, and emphasize use of WP:FRINGE to exclude things that are inappropriate. The immediate evidence for that is the initial paragraph at #RFC_random_break_II, from which I quoted. Disagreement between those who are in favor of broadening the scope and those opposed to broadening the scope appears to be closely correlated with editors' understanding of the purpose of this guideline. Bn (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should editors "enlist the cooperation of advocates of a fringe topic"? If by advocates you mean people who are on wiki in order to promote fringe theories, then it is they who need to ensure that they cooperate with those of us who try to edit neutrally. We wouldn't want to engage fringe advocates who are not on wiki, either. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF as opposed to WP:ABF. By this I mean assume that they want a hearing for their favored ideas and show them what they have to do to accomplish that. It's a difference of attitude. The adversarial attitude is "No, you can't say that"; an alternative attitude is "Yes, you can say that if you meet these requirements". "You can say that troglodite theorists believe that Morlocks really exist and have traveled back in time and live under Montauk, and H.G. Wells was trying to warn us, if you can show that the idea is notable by finding reliable sources that talk about this theory, but you have to accept that the proposed article also says that the consensus view is that this is not so." As several discussants here have pointed out, and as the guideline itself says, WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE should suffice for this much. Bn (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We can AGF and say firmly and politely that if they want to promote fringe viewpoints they are in the wrong place. They would be in the wrong place even if they wanted to promote non-fringe viewpoints. This is particularly important when some new users try and insert WP:SPAM. I agree that WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE are relevant and those are among the policies we should direct promoters of fringe towards. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If when you say "promote" you mean WP:SOAP, of course I agree. But there are appropriate ways of writing that don't fall in any of the buckets defined there. The point is rather than saying "No, you can't talk about that idea because it's fringe" it's more useful to say "If you want to have something about that in Wikipedia it has to meet these requirements". I agree with Blueboar that the proper function of this guideline is appropriate inclusion, not exclusion. Bn (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid that this proposal is completely "offtopic" here. The question for this RFC is clear and it has nothing to do with decision on what is fringe as such. Thus, please, keep this discussion orderly and create a separate one for your proposal. Although, given the overwhelming consensus in favour of this guideline, I don't think that proposal calling it "dysfunctional" is likely to pass... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Martynas, if the question is clear to you, please explain how this proposal, if passed, would affect the editing of articles such as David Irving, Rupert Sheldrake, and David Icke? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I already gave you an answer with example where "Narrowly" and "Broadly" would make an important difference ([53], [54]). You dismissed it because you think that other guidelines - as interpreted by you - will "outrank" this one ([55]). Well, in such case neither option will make much of a difference to you. You do not seem to like this guideline before the RFC, I don't see how any option would make you like it. You gave your opinion, it is rather clear. I don't expect it to change - nor do I see how you are going to change opinion of anyone else. Then, what's the point of discussing it further..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The current scope of FRINGE is ideas that are considered fringe wherever they are discussed, whether in a standalone article or in the context of another article, which indeed may be an article about a person, organization, etc. that advocates or promotes the idea. I oppose extending the scope to include such persons, organizations, etc. as such. First, we already have the necessary tools for persons, organizations, etc. and the current scope of FRINGE covers (or should cover) the discussion of fringe ideas in context of talking about those persons etc. It appears to me that the reason some of us want the broader scope is because they believe it will provide them stronger tools, and they believe they need stronger tools because resolving disagreements with fringe proponents is contentious and time consuming, and they often remain unconvinced, believe they have been unfairly treated, and seek alternative ways to get what they regard as a fair hearing. I fear that providing tools for editors to clamp down on mentions of people, etc. just because of their association with fringe ideas will only exacerbate this adversarial situation. In my view this is because there are no clear, objective criteria for what fringe means. Even pseudoscience has its difficulties, but at least for pseudoscience the ArbCom ruling gives some fairly specific guidance. This is why I believe that the proposal that we need clear, objective criteria as to what is fringe (and relative to what mainstream ideas) is indeed relevant to this RFC and not at all off topic. Bn (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are proposing that Wikipedia change its policy regarding what it considers 'fringe' - this RFC isn't about such a proposal. If you wish to make that proposal do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy... what do you think this RFC is about? Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather like the definition Jimbo gave[56]:

“ What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article.

”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That last bit about "except perhaps in some ancilliary article" is important... this is based on the concept of relevance... if a fringe theory is relevant to an article's subject/topic, we should mention it... if it is not relevant, we shouldn't. Of course how we mention it is just as important as whether to mention it (we want to give it due weight given the context of the article's topic... yet not give it undue weight by going into too much detail). Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"What it is relevant to" is the same as "what it is fringe to". If a fringe proponent asserts that a proposed article is relevant (ancillary) to an established article we (and they) need some principled guidance to say aye or nay. Bn (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily... If a notable movie star is known to be an adherent of a fringe theory, that theory is "relevant" to the article on the movie star. It might be perfectly appropriate to mention his adherence in the bio article on him. How much to mention it is another issue. It may rate noting more than a passing reference. In such a "passing reference" situation, it would be undue to go into the mainstream criticisms of the fringe theory. The mainstream view is actually irrelevant to the topic of the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

True enough. Further, under the proposed broadening of scope someone might say that the movie star was fringe, whereas under the present (narrower) scope they should not be able to. In practice, some editors appear to have assumed the broader scope in this respect, insofar as such attributes are seen ("so-and-so is a fringe author"). Bn (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Taken literally, Jimbo's definition is narrower than the present scope of FRINGE. The appropriate name of the guideline would be "pseudoscience" or "fringe science". We're not going to get a "majority of the scientific community" view of an article about Jimi Hendrix, for example, much less the relevance of an ancillary claim. Bn (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not "Andy", but, if you (Blueboar) really do not know what this RFC is about, then, in short, it is about the choice between the pair of words "fringe theories" and pair of words "fringe topics" (or "fringe-related topics", or something). Nothing more. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but words in policy/guideline pages do not exist in a vacuum. In order to reach a consensus as to which of these word parings to choose, we have to discuss how these words will be interpreted in the context of the policy. So we do need to discuss the distinctions between "Fringe theories" and "fringe topics"... what kinds of things fall into each... And how the guideline applies to those distinctions. In short, in order to answer the RFC, we need to discuss what the scope of this guideline should (and should not be). Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter what things are "fringe theories" and what things are "fringe topics". But that is a difference between "theories" and "topics". "Fringe" stays the same word with the same meaning no matter which of those two formulations ends up being chosen. And the introduction of this RFC does a reasonably good job at explaining what is the intended meaning of "theory" and what is the intended meaning of "topic". If you want to discuss the meaning of "fringe", you will need a different discussion. And if someone wants to argue that fringe theories, topics and the like should be treated as equals of non-fringe, still other discussion will be necessary. As Germans say, "Ordnung muss sein". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah... then we are talking about the same things... that was not clear to me. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Martynas, has someone advocated that "that fringe theories, topics and the like should be treated as equals of non-fringe"? UNDUE requires unequal treatment. Bn (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that part was added mostly "preemptively". Still, several users do seem to advocate, if not "equal treatment", then "more equal treatment". For example, to ignore "fringeness" when judging notability. That's simply "offtopic" here. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it is off topic. When it comes to judging notability, we don't look at how "fringe" the subject is... we look at how much coverage there is of it in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, when it comes to judging notability... we actually do treat Fringe theories and Non-fringe theories the same.

As to UNDUE... we have to remember that the flip side of giving UNDUE weight to something is giving it is DUE weight... in an article that is about a fringe theory, it is appropriate (ie DUE weight) to devote more article space explaining the fringe theory (and sub-aspects of fringe theory) than to debunking it or explaining the mainstream. Indeed, sometimes it can be enough to simply note that the theory is considered fringe by the mainstream, and leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It is "offtopic" here, in this RFC. It would only matter if you would think that it is important to take "fringeness" into account while judging notability of theories and ignore it while judging notability of, let's say, books. But it seems clear that you do not think so. It looks like almost no one does. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, "As to UNDUE..." is also "offtopic". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Not quite. With fringe topics, we have to be much more skeptical about manufactured notability and notability only within fringe communities, as well as self-promotion and advocacy. Fringe proponents and supporters ALWAYS aggrandize the notability and level acceptance of their ideas and themselves, usually by several orders of magnitude. We cannot rely on sources linked to them or from within fringe communities to determine notabiity, or to determine how much weight the topic should receive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that leads to the question of whether sources from within a "fringe community" are truly independent of the subject? Not an easy question to answer (and because it isn't easy, I don't think the community has a consensus answer... save to say that it must be judged on a case by case basis). Personally, I agree that we need to be wary of "fringe community sources"... but that does not mean we should ignore them altogether. Certainly a fringe author that is discussed extensively by other fringe authors should be considered more likely to be notable than those that are not. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no they wouldn't be. Fringe communites are more often than not extremely incestual mutual adoration societies and walled-gardens that are largely ignored by the mainstream community. What happens inside a fringe community is of little encyclopedic significance UNLESS it has been substantially commented upon in the mainstream scholarly literature. Even the mainstream popular press is of limitted use in determining notability and weight, as they generally lack the expertise and experience to do so. They are more interested in newswerthiness, or even entertainment value, which is a completely different animal than notability. For example, the Creation Science community and its ideas have been commented on extensively by the mainstream scholarly community, whereas the "astrological community" and its ideas barely receive any mention at all. Both ideas are equally batshit crazy, but one has major significance outside of the fringe community, and the other does not. We have plenty of reliable mainstream sources for the one, and practically none at all for the other. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot depends on which fringe communities you are talking about... some fringe communities are HUGE ... they have very significant plantations rather than small walled gardens... and in these cases an author who has everyone in the community buzzing about his new book can be considered notable.

The astrology issue is one of these plantation sized topics... I have to question whether astrology really qualifies as a "Fringe" topic. Yes, if you look at it as being a pseudoscience, it is... but that is not the only way to look at it. It is also a "belief system"... and as a belief system, it really isn't all that fringe. I think it almost qualifies as a religion... And, if we approach it from a quasi-religious POV, the dynamic on notability changes. We have no problem labeling some religious insiders as "an authority" or "an expert" on his religion... and those authors that are well respected and discussed by others within the religious group are considered note worthy if not notable. I think there there is a parallel to be drawn with authors on Astrology who are well respected by the Astrology community. In other words if we treat astrology as if if was a religion, we get a different sense of who and what the notable sub-topics are. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, no. If you spent only a fraction of the time sifting through the sources on astrology as I have, you would quickly come to the conclusion that everything you've written above is just plain nonsense. The "it's a religion" canard is often trotted out by fringe proponents, and is a classic example of special pleading.

Astrology doesn't resemble a religion in any way at all. There is no agreed upon set of beliefs; it's basically every clown for himself, with a few clowns banding together in self-aggrandizing associations, often with pseudoscholarly names, all of unknown significance to the world at large.

There are no clear "authorities" or "experts", just a lot of clowns who claim that they are such, and perhaps get their buddies to say so, too. None of the books and "journals" undergo any sort of review for fact checking and accuracy, and, at best, can be considered good enough soley for entertainement purposes.

Even religions are not notable unless covered in reliable sources. There was one "pagan" religion that was mentioned here in WP that turned out to be no more than some loopy woman, her cat and one extremely enthusiastic adherent. The fact that she got a couple of new age magazines to interview her does not add anything to her notability or that of her "religion".

One problem is that you are assuming good faith on the part of fringe proponents and supporters, and that is a huge mistake. They ALL misrepresent their own significance and that of their ideas, like I said, by orders of magnitude. Another huge mistake you are making is equating newsworthiness, entertainment value and popular appeal with notability. You seriously need to reconsider your understanding of the concept of notability, and of what constitutes a reliable source for information of encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that fringe theories can cross genres... we can not limit our evaluation of "fringeness" to just what the the scientific community thinks. It is possible for a theory to be considered fringe by one mainstream group, and yet not be considered fringe by another mainstream group. To give another example... let's look at Global Warming denial... from a science community perspective denialism is most definitely fringe ... but... from the perspective of the political community (ie as a political science topic) it isn't... denialism falls within the mainstream differences of opinin. I am not saying we should ignore the scientific POV... However we also should not ignore the political POV. Both POVs need to be taken into account. In an article the focuses on science, we correctly present denialism (and denialists) as fringe... but in article on politics we don't (or shouldn't). Context matters.

As to your last comment... I do not equate newsworthiness, entertainment value and popular appeal with notability... However, I do recognize that newsworthiness, entertainment value and popular appeal are all indications that a topic is likely to be notable. They are part of the mix. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And, to bring this back to the question of "theory" vs "topic"... when a fringe proponent writes a best selling book that has been reviewed by major news papers, or is the "go to" guy that the media always interviews when covering the theory, that is an indication of notability. It shows that the mainstream has taken note of the proponent and his theory. The theory (and the proponent) may still be considered fringe, but the theory is likely to be notable, and the person definitely is notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar has hit on an important point here, which I think boils down to a confusion between fringe theories and pseudoscience, which have somehow ended up being equated on WP. But they are not the same thing. Psychoanalysis, for example, is arguably pseudoscience (or not science at all), but it is definitely not fringe. It has large numbers of respected, mainstream proponents within the medical profession and is taught in the best medical schools. So the psychoanalytic perspective is not one that can be drowned out on Wikipedia, because it's not up to us to decide that the psychiatrists who practice it are wrong and should have no voice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The most reputable scientific secondary sources say psychoanalysis is not in the mainstream. I think you overstate it's level of support amongst psychologists (their opinions are what is relevant here in terms of the theory surely), IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's your POV that the opinion of psychologists is more relevant than the opinion of psychiatrists. This is the problem here. The individual POV of editors is causing this confusion between fringe and pseudoscience and minority views, because a lot of it boils down to things you just don't like. But when people question you, you wheel out the David Icke-type examples, and everyone falls back, hushed and in agreement. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about psychoanalysis, but does not being in the mainstream equal fringe? That's not right. It focuses on the extreme minority and is relevant as applied to an article about a mainstream topic. Morphh ^(talk) 21:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What one of the sources said ([57], for example, was "Freudian psychoanalysis is far from the mainstream in modern mental health care." Far from the mainstream sounds like fringe to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Far from mainstream" does not equal fringe, and that was just one opinion that was cherry-picked. You keep ignoring all the other sources, the mainstream textbooks that say it dominates psychiatry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of fringe that Wikipedia gives: "By one definition (see below) it is valid, but not mainstream, science, whilst by another broader definition it is generally viewed in a negative way as being non-scientific. Clearly psychoanalysis can fall under the first definition. Cheery Picked? I looked at the two best scientific journals at the time, and a book on psychology that I happened to have, and you think that's cherry picking? These are good representative sources .... IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You know that if we were to hold an RfC asking that psychoanalysis and its practitioners be placed under FRINGE, people would say no. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

FRINGE already applies to all topics that don't have the broad support of the scholarship. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re the broad generalization about astrology by Dominus Vobisdu ("There is no agreed upon set of beliefs; it's basically every clown for himself, with a few clowns banding together in self-aggrandizing associations, often with pseudoscholarly names, all of unknown significance to the world at large", etc.) I did a little poking around. This brief statement by Percy Seymour (theoretical astrophysicist, Principal Lecturer at the Plymouth (England) Polytechnic Institute), seems apt:

“The counter claims, made by many scientists, that astrology is opposed to the basic principles of Western science comes from a total misunderstanding of serious astrology, and an appalling lapse in their understanding of the methodology, philosophy, and history of science itself. What these scientists normally call astrology is in effect the cheap sun-sign astrology of the horoscope columns run by some newspapers. These bear as much resemblance to the research now being done on astrology, as do the scientific reports in these papers bear to what is actually going on in the laboratories and observatories of the world. Yet these same scientists are usually extremely annoyed when people base their appreciation of science on this type of science writing. [...] I am a scientist. As such I cannot propose or understand a model of reality which does not take account of scientific data. I am not an astrologer - in fact this theory developed out of an examination of the arguments that astrology cannot work! As a theoretical astrophysicist, with an interest in the relationship between fundamental physics and the large-scale structure of the universe, I am searching, as are many others, for a model to explain the current anomalies and paradoxes in these areas that are beyond the domain of astrophysics (ie: biology, chemistry, and to my amazement, astrology).”

The two parts of this quotation are from Seymour's 1992 book The scientific basis of astrology NY: St. Martin's Press, 1992. The lecture by Robert Hand found in related links in his bio article articulates the distinction between astrological research and pop astrology in similar terms but with different emphases. In Kuhn's terminology, "research astrology" (Seymour's term, as distinguished from pop astrology) appears to be in the pre-science or pre-paradigm phase, which per Mr. Hand is in resumption now after a scientistic hiatus. Also relevant is The cosmic clocks 1982 by M. Gauquelin (foreword by Frank A. Brown, Jr., Morrison Professor of Biology at Northwestern), and there are other like resources that I have not personally examined. So I agree with Dominus Vobisdu that astrology is not a religion (though I think Blueboar was only likening it to religion), but I do not agree that it is entirely worthless trash unworthy of serious consideration. Researchers with properly credentialed expertise have reported that there is something going on there that we do not understand at all well, and to place them in the same bucket with Sydney Omarr is inappropriate.

The point here is not a defense of astrology—I don't have a dog in that fight—but rather to point at the elephant treading around in the middle of this RFC discussion. It's been mentioned before. The RFC asks whether or not it was appropriate last August to broaden the scope of this guideline from fringe theories to fringe "topics" or the like. The elephantine problem is that our only clear definition of fringe is the ArbCom list of indications about pseudoscience, which has been only informally and vaguely extended to include "other fringe". Even in the case of astrology, which is conventionally held up as a prime example of pseudoscience, the application of FRINGE is more subtle and nuanced than expected. To what science is it fringe? Astrology does not conflict directly with astronomy—the only point of contact is the calculations, where the differences are superficial matters of notation (signs vs. RA), and astronomy rightly says nothing or next to nothing about the relevance of celestial cycles to terrestrial life. There are more points of contact between astrology and psychology, which is notoriously all over the map, and which Kuhn did consider to be pre-paradigmatic. The objections that I have seen generally say that astrology obviously must be BS because there is no physical basis for it, so any description of phenomena must be illusory or faked and anyone talking about such phenomena must be deluded or a charlatan. Scientists like Seymour turn this on its head: here are definite, measurable phenomena, now what might the physical basis be? The former is scientism, the latter is science. Again, the point is not the encyclopedia-worthiness of astrology (which has been settled), the point is that in absence of clear criteria for what is fringe (and fringe relative to what) it is a matter of editors' subjective opinion as to what is "obvious", and that's a sure recipe for controversy that wastes everyone's time when there are too few editors doing the work. For witness only review the extended RFC discussion above and below. The tool is too dull; let's sharpen it. If this is out of scope for the present RFC, as Martynas Patasius has said, then IMO the present RFC will continue to spin its wheels until we start another to resolve the question: what is the definition of fringe? Is a separate RFC an appropriate step? Or can we clarify the definition here as a necessary part of resolving whether or not to extend its scope from fringe theories to entities associated with fringe theories? Bn (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest removing the biography examples from the RfC question

There's a lot of confusion about the impact this RfC would have on the editing of biographies, including BLPs, and it has to be sorted out before the RfC can be closed. I've asked several times what difference it would make to biography editing, and no one can explain. I also asked Lawrence, who opened the RfC, and he couldn't explain either (see here).

I'd therefore like to suggest that we remove that the guideline should apply to " 2b. people whose main claim to notability is the promotion of such views, e.g. David Icke (lizard people), David Irving (holocaust denial), David Balsiger author of The Lincoln Conspiracy." For two reasons: first, because no one can say how the editing of David Irving, for example, would be changed by this proposal, and second, because those extreme examples have been used to encourage people to support, when there are more nuanced biographies that might give people pause for thought.

So I'd like to ask Lawrence (or others) to agree to the removal, or alternatively to ask the closing editor to leave that part out of his closure or to rule that there's no consensus for it. I suggest we then open a separate RfC to look at biographies, with a clear question and some less dramatic examples. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the David Irving article would not be effected because there is lots of material required to contextualise the relationship of his views to the mainstream. WP:FRINGE already applies to the content on David Irving. This RFC is essentially reaffirming current practices, with the addition that Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability applies also. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

How would you contextualize something like David Icke? We can't add that mainstream sources say people are not giant lizards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It already does. There's even a section on academic views. (of course you don't need to say people are not giant lizards, it's so obvious it would be pointless) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If those academic views hadn't existed, what would you have suggested? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But many sources do exist that address him, so it's a terrible example. Perhaps you can consider an example where this is not the case? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's more-or-less like saying that the section of notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN applies to the articles "Barrack Obama" and "George W. Bush". No, nothing that that guideline can be reasonably expected to say is going to change those articles (those politicians are obviously notable). But such articles could be useful examples of articles about politicians who are considered notable, just as that guideline says. Likewise, David Irving is someone who is considered notable, because (among other things), this guideline says so. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

David Irving and David Icke existed before this guideline did. They're notable in WP's terms because lots of reliable sources write about them; nothing to do with this guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"David Irving and David Icke existed before this guideline did."... Yes, they were born before Wikipedia was created. But that fact doesn't seem to be very useful in this discussion... Did you have anything else in mind..?

"They're notable in WP's terms because lots of reliable sources write about them; nothing to do with this guideline."... Do you think that "it" has nothing to do with the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources as well? For both guidelines say what sources "count" and what do not when we judge notability. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Those articles were created and written because they are able to conform, and when I last looked they did conform, to the three content policies: NPOV, V and NOR. They were created before any of the guidelines you're referencing existed – we managed fine without them, and I believe we had more editors too (I also believe those two facts are not unconnected). :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, so..? You argue that..? Anyway, I didn't ask you if things went better before someone wrote those guidelines down. I asked you if you agree that now they (specifically, Wikipedia:Reliable sources; I plan to get to this guideline later) have something to do with notability. There is also an "implicit" question "Why do you think so?". I answered some of your questions (even if you did not like my answers) - maybe you could answer some of my questions as well..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I just got a message from an RFC bot to comment on this. WTF is going on here?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure myself. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

SV, even though I wrote the RfC question that kicked this off, I don't have any special 'ownership' over the ensuing discussion. I'm just the guy who tried to neutrally summarise the preceding dispute, and provide a 'frame' for the ensuing discussion. I think it's up to the closer(s) to decide how to write up the community consensus on this issue, and whether or not to exclude BLPs from the close. Hopefully, the closer(s) can distil a community consensus to the questions: "Should WP:Fringe apply to topics narrowly or broadly construed? And, should it supplement other policies/guidelines for articles about those topics?" --LK (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)