Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Bold suggestion: Rename/overhaul

Copied from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

I trired to re-read the discussion above and the policy itself, it comes to my mind that a good deal of confusion is the disparity of the policy title and its main point/nutshell: " To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. "

It other words, it does not matter how we graded the views that differ from mainstream: what matters is that they are non-mainstream. Clearly, there is a continuous spectrum and some ideas may float within this range. (For example a bold mainstream hypothesis may become dubious in view of new data, but the proponent will jealously defend it. While he does decent science, it may be called "minority view", when he slips into adding unjustified assumptions, mainstream starts dismissing him altogether, thus shifting into "fringe" area; and at the extreme the proponent may even go full crackpot.)

Therefore I will suggest to rename the policy into Wikipedia:Non-mainstream views (NB: not "theories") and focus more on the WP:DUE aspect, rather than on splitting hairs about the term, which is mostly pejorative indeed: I quickly browsed Google Books and most of them who refer to "fringe" actually focus on pseudo-science. In other words, we must focus on a reasonable classification/recognition of the degree of acceptance, rather on the degree of fringeness of a claim/view/theory, i.e., avoid sticking to label-sticking. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

From the perspective of a relatively new editor, I certainly agree that this policy / guideline area needs an overhaul. But, there really are topics that are pseudoscience / fringe. Like, for example, flat earth, creation science, and Time Cube. We need a policy to deal with those sorts of things, narrowly construed. JerryRussell (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "Pseudoscience" is rather well-defined and easy to deal with. We can have articles on notable pseudoscience, but no regular articles on, say, Earth or bird control can include anything pseudoscientific. We don't cite Time Cube in Greenwich Time article. And this is rather adequately covered already. If you think something is missing, please make specific suggestions. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we're both saying that the problem is, all sorts of minority theories are categorized as "Fringe", which is a pejorative, and then treated the same as pseudoscience. We have some policies like PARITY and ONEWAY that seem like they should be used only for pseudoscience, while WP:DUE is much more widely applicable. FALSEBALANCE is part of the NPOV policy, and seems pretty general and flexible; I think I classed it unfairly with PARITY and ONEWAY above. I think the proposal is to do away with the Fringe label, and use "non-mainstream" except when "pseudoscience" is clearly applicable. JerryRussell (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What about simply renaming the board to "Fringe theories and pseudoscience"? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion was to avoid specific labels altogether, thus allowing the inclusion of not exactly fringe, but really minority/nonnotable views. In particular, quite often we see pieces of text like that " Profs A and B in a 19 November 2024 study of psychodermic response based on a sample of 68 volunteers concluded that psychos respond to skin stimuli slower than mainstream theories predicted." Of course we have WP:EXTRAORDINARY/WP:PRIMARY/WP:UNDUE, but why not cover it all neatly here, as applied to the specific case of something which is not mainstream (whether yet or already). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

References

• if you start with the NPOV policy, and the discussion oF WEIGHT and of PSCI there, and the clear discussion of how you determine WEIGHT and what is UNDUE based on what (actually) reliable sources say together, you can see that the FRINGE guideline just complements the NPOV, and does so in a way that is pretty clear. If you start with FRINGE and work backwards, it is much harder. And we cannot legislate WP:CLUE; it does take an understanding to deploy FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:CLUE redirect to a bot. I guess it was not your intention? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I see your point. However I don't want to "start" with FRINGE. Please re-read my suggestion. I said that the text of the guideline does not match its title. My suggestion is to rename the policy and make the explanatory part more general. Another option, which is possibly less drastic, is to start the guideline with the phrase which clarifies our language, something like, "In wikipedia parlance, a fringe theory/view/claim is broadly understood to be a theory/view/claim which gained very little or no support in mainstream science. These minority views may range from outright pseudoscience to novel bold ideas or new experimental results which did not enjoy a general acceptance or confirmation yet. While typically the term 'fringe' is used pejoratively, in Wikipedia we understand it literally: 'on the fringe of the mainstream knowledge' and therefore fringe views have little or no weight in general Wikipedia articles. " Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oops, my bad. We already have something like this. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." However IMO it is misplaced into the section "Identifying fringe theories". IMO the definition must be at the very top of the lede. This will remove misunderstandings due to tl;dr right away. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Section hierarchy overhaul

I suggest to reshuffle the sections into a logical order. Right now the sections look like a random pile. For starters, I would like to rehash them all into three major supersections: Identifying, Sourcing, and Coverage :

• Identifying fringe theories
  • Spectrum of fringe theories
• Coverage in wikipedia
  • Notability
  • Notability versus acceptance
  • Evaluating and describing claims
  • Unwarranted promotion
  • Mentions in other articles
  • Treatment of living persons
• Sourcing
  • Reliable sources
  • Sourcing and attribution (with its subsections)

To me this is a more logical sequence than the current TOC:

1		Identifying fringe theories
  1.1	Spectrum of fringe theories
2	Reliable sources
3	Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories
4	Notability
5	Evaluating and describing claims
6	Notability versus acceptance
7	Sourcing and attribution (with subsections)
8	Treatment of living persons
9	Mentions in other articles

Opinions? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Further, the lede should be split into "lede proper" and "Rationale" section. IMO the first paragraph of the lede already gives an adequate summary of the guideline content. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see what you are doing. Everything in WP starts with sources, so sources should be 2nd not 3rd. Other than that, makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I considered moving sources up as well. I have arguments in favor of both ways, so I am OK with your way. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Move def of "fringe" high into lede

(as suggested in wrong forum; copied above in #How is it determined if a topic is "fringe"?)

The guideline contains the following definition "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." IMO it is misplaced into the section "Identifying fringe theories" and not immediately visible, in particular, because the lede is too long. IMO the definition must be at the very top of the lede. This will remove misunderstandings due to tl;dr right away. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

this makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Better than nothing, but prefer my proposal below. If we stay with the existing definition, I suggest we add Staszek's clarification, immediately following in the lede: "These minority views may range from outright pseudoscience to novel bold ideas or new experimental results which did not enjoy a general acceptance or confirmation yet. While typically the term 'fringe' is used pejoratively, in Wikipedia we understand it literally: 'on the fringe of the mainstream knowledge' and therefore fringe views have little or no weight in general Wikipedia articles." JerryRussell (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Although I would suggest copying rather than moving outright, as restating it in the indentifying section is helpful when linking people directly to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Change definition of 'fringe'

I propose the following: "We use the term fringe theory in a very narrow sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Fringe theories may purport to be scientific or academically respectable, but they are obviously bogus according to the consensus, and may be so labeled and categorized as such." The section on Spectrum of fringe theories should be re-titled as Spectrum of minority views and should explain that pseudoscience is definitely fringe, and that articles on questionable science may contain information to that effect. Alternative theoretical formulations should not be described as 'fringe'. Starting from a more neutral set of definitions, we can then review the individual guidelines for their applicability to various levels of minority views. JerryRussell (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support There's an RFC from 2008 which discusses whether 'fringe' is pejorative. The sense of several participants at the time was that it was *intentionally* pejorative, and it was intended to be applied very narrowly to pseudoscience. At that same time, there was a suggestion to make this a guideline for 'minority views'. That proposal was rejected largely on the grounds that the guideline wasn't intended to sweep in respectable minority views. But somehow, the rationale expressed in those debates was lost in the implementation. JerryRussell (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can see this opening up a whole world of wikilawyering. In particular saying fringe is a "very narrow" category applicable to an "idea" is an invitation to claim it is exceptional (it has often been argued that altmed practice is not subject to fringe guidance because it is in some senses mainstream), and reference to "the consensus" invites the claim that we need something of the strength of WP:RS/AC to say something is fringe - a tactic which has already been repeatedly used by advocates to try and exempt various forms of woo from the fringe guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "narrowness" is orthogonal to the broad terms "significantly", "prevailing", "mainstream" in the remainder of the sentence. - DVdm (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There are many more ways to be wrong than right, and Wikipedia is swamped with junk being promoted as truth. The proposed wording would provide a large opening for wikilawyers. Is there an example of an "alternative theoretical formulation" that has been incorrectly labelled as fringe? Such cases should be fixed following discussion at WP:FTN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support - We need more neutral phrasings and the regular reliable sourcing rules work well. We do not need special tools to "reign in" a mythical "takeover of woo" as some people think of it, and we honesty need more to reign in the labeling of anything slightly orthogonal to an individual's viewpoint of what's "mainstream" for in effect that is more of a takeover and shutting down of Wikipedia as a good place for people to edit on their interests. "Fringe" is indeed pejorative in most people's reading and only that which is actually "fringe" as determined by a common reading of reliable sources calling it such ought to be labeled as such. The current broad definition of fringe in "a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" causes Wikipedia to become a mainstream encyclopedia that reflects mainstream viewpoints as valid and all others as "fringe" and that is just plain wrong. Despite the essay WP:MAINSTREAM, Wikipedia is not a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's a verifiable encyclopedia that reflects reliable sources. That's all. The above essay is an essay and does not speak for Wikipedia as the disclaimer states. "Mainstream" is a sociological term that speaks to agreement with the establishment dogma, or general popularity of ideas, and does not mean "correct" -- it moreso means "widely believed" even if a mainstream idea may be incorrect. So, we must not define Wikipedia's rules in a way that causes it to become a "mainstream" encyclopedia. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a very interesting point. One really good example of this is the question of why zebras have stripes. There are currently 5 theories about why zebras have stripes. It has been thought for many years that they function as camouflage, motion dazzle or individual recognition. However, in the last couple of years, an anti-fly and a thermoregulatory function have both been proposed. All 5 in our Zebra#stripes are supported by secondary RS. So, the question is, which is/are "mainstream" and which is/are "fringe"? There is not even agreement about the first 3 theories which have been around for years. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Alexbrn and Johnuniq. Which is amply demonstrated by the above support vote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as this opens the guideline up to even more wikilawyering as others have pointed out. We often get claims from supporters of fringe theories that the guideline is too broad in an effort to have it not apply to certain topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am unconvinced that there is a problem to fix and the proposed change has some obvious risks. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There's nothing to fix here. That wording invites even more wikilayering in fringe areas than there already is. A view does not have to be a minority view, in the sense of the general public, to be fringe. "Alternative theoretical formulations" are almost always going to be fringe. At least if I'm understanding the intent of what those three words strung together is supposed to mean. To address DrChrissy's example, which I think is a good one, there's a large difference between science not being sure about why something has occurred and a claim that is fringe. There can be multiple competing theories, none of which are fringe, if they are based on well established lines of evidence. Something generally becomes fringe when it makes assertions without evidence or with selective evidence that ignores multiple lines of contrary evidence. Capeo (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a solution in search of a problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

To prevent swamping out the votes, I'd like to encourage threaded discussion down here. First of all, I can see that I'm in the minority, and I respect the concerns. I think DVdm's comment is correct, and perhaps my proposal should read "an idea that is clearly in opposition to the prevailing views in its particular field." The way to avoid wikilawyering, is to have a clear set of policies and guidelines that apply to all minority positions, whether they are crackpot or not. I can hardly imagine that the wikilawyering problem around "fringe" topics could be any worse than it is now, but I could be wrong. JerryRussell (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

With respect to Johnuniq's question Is there an example of an "alternative theoretical formulation" that has been incorrectly labelled as fringe? The present guideline leaves it unclear whether "alternative theoretical formulations" are fringe, or not. Under Staszek Lem's clarification, ATF's would be clearly placed in the fringe category. Is that what we want? JerryRussell (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2016(UTC)

Strongly support SageRad's comment Wikipedia is not a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's a verifiable encyclopedia that reflects reliable sources. That's all. There's a lot of non-mainstream content in Wikipedia right now. If Wiki becomes nothing but mainstream, I would hardly bother reading it, and certainly wouldn't volunteer as an editor. The mainstream doesn't need my help. JerryRussell (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

What does "mainstream encyclopedia" even mean? Wikipedia doesn't confine itself to mainstream topics, but does confine itself to taking a mainstream stance (so where topics have no mainstream treatment they are shunned). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We could go with SageRad's definition of "mainstream", or you could propose a different one. Actually, topics are only shunned if no reliable sources can be found that mention them. There are many non-mainstream reliable sources. JerryRussell (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That is a fundamental mis-statement of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. We only include content where mainstream sourcing exists, otherwise we would become a miscellany of arcana for fringe topics (since there are vast numbers of sources which are 'reliable' in their own terms for detailing alien abductions, ghost sightings, esoteric experiences, etc.). See WP:VALID: "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." [my bold] in order to provide "proper context" so-called "mainstream" sourcing is required. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to disagree with Wiki's neutrality policy. In other words, I agree with the principle that minority ideas should be put in their proper context with respect to established scholarship. I don't understand the contradiction between this, and what I said. By "shunned" I meant "slated for AfD, and at risk of being omitted from other articles." JerryRussell (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The point they (and I mean SageRad rather than JerryRussell here) are coming at is that because Wikipedia is not a mainstream encyclopedia (and thus not bound by their limitations) we should cover every viewpoint. Which is not how it works. Its easily demonstratable that due to the lack of limitations on content, wikipedia covers plenty of really obscure topics in detail because there are reliable sources to justify their notability. Wikipedia is as far as you can get from being a mainstream encyclopedia while still requiring reliably sourced information and is not in any danger of becoming one anytime soon. Not until all the pokemon fans die anyway. What we do *not* do is cover fringe/pseudoscience etc topics from the point of view of non mainstream thought. EG we cover flat Earth, but from the mainstream view of people who know the Earth is round. We cover fad diets, detox, other CAM-subjects, but from the mainstream scientific view of reliable sources that they are mostly bollocks. If we actually graded notability based on the *acceptance* of fringe material by the mainstream, then Wikipedia would probably be sitting at 2 million articles. For the most part, actual fringe science is treated far more fairly on wikipedia than in scientific literature. Where something is proper 'fringe' science, either not accepted/rejected by the mainstream (or has not been proven, not enough research etc) then its article reflects that. Where something is pseudoscience/fringe and has been determined by the mainstream to be so, again the article reflects that. Quite often a common tactic is to attempt to move/justify known pseudoscience as 'unproven fringe' by the distortion/cherry-picking/outright source mis-quoting. 'This study says no evidence has been found!' well yes, thats because there is no evidence, and so on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting "Not enough research" = "Fringe"? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm working right now and therefore I cannot write much, but I noticed the above comment and I want to say it is absolutely not what I was saying and it misrepresents my position. I absolutely do not think that Wikipedia should cover every viewpoint or everything that anybody wants to add to it. I very specifically said that only that which is verifiable by reliable sources can be included. Also there is the entire aspect of what is due/notable in terms of weight. That is also part of the policy of Wikipedia already. I said nothing that would contradict that policy of Wikipedia. Anyway I must continue working and I'll come back to this in the evening perhaps if I can then write at length. SageRad (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that i am able to reply, i wish to say that i mostly actually agree with the comment by Only in Death. It was only the initial characterization of my position that was incorrect. Of course, i do know that Wikipedia reports ideas like Flat Earth from the viewpoint of people who know the world is round, as that's the common sane-person viewpoint. I suppose my position that the basic sourcing rules of Wikipedia policy suffice for this kind of thing. It's easy to source that Flat Earth is a fringe idea. And normal sourcing rules suffice to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. An idea that is clearly fringe will be represented as such, and those that are clearly know to the common sane person will be represented as such, and those with cloudy areas are also represented as such. I see it all the time in good articles. It is definitely a powerful statement to report that "Study X says that no evidence has been found" if it's about a bogus "cure" or treatment. Cherry-picking and mis-quoting are both wrong under normal Wikipedia policy. I suppose i don't understand the necessity of a broad inclusion into a "fringe" category when normal sourcing policy takes care of all the problems i can see. SageRad (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Re "definitely a powerful statement "Study X says that no evidence has been found" if it's about a bogus "cure"" -- In many cases serious people do not carry out research do debunk each and every snake oil. Therefore we need a policy which recognizes both references and lack thereof. Re: "normal sourcing policy" -- this guideline is to clarify application of "normal sourcing policy" in this specific area. Re: "all the problems i can see" -- How about assuming that other people see (and even face) other problems? Wikipedia has a whole HUGE LOT of policies, a wikiexpert has no trouble to apply (or judiciously twist) to apply them. But guidelines are recipes in application of our core policies in specific circumstances. This guideline is not about Flat Earth. We have already pigeonholed it. But what about "Flat but Slightly Curving to the Left Earth" ? Please give me a reference that this is nonsense. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your well-written comment. This is a very interesting topic. I most certainly do see that others see problems that i don't see. That's a given. In fact, i know there's an important function in blocking pushers of bad content into Wikipedia. I've done a bit of that, and i know others do much more of it. As for the example of the moon being made of cheese, there is a wonderful article at The Moon is made of green cheese which also references Myth of the flat Earth. But i've heard that the moon is made of blue cheese. I don't know if there are sources to disprove this. I recognize what you're saying. I see the need for the ability to use lesser sources if a particular snake oil has not been covered in normal reliable sources. The problem i see is when the "fringe" category is used in a topic where there is sufficient reliable sourcing to speak to the topic with nuance and clarity -- some topics are mostly off-base but have some validity according to reliable sources. In those cases, admitting less reliable sources in Wikivoice can be detrimental to NPOV as many of those sources are specially debunking articles that often overreach in their analysis due to their specific point of view. Perhaps if the fringe guideline is used in the cases where you think it's necessary -- those where no serious people have taken the time to test them or write about them -- then it is useful. If there are few sources other than those written specifically to debunk, then perhaps this is good. Even so, it seems to me that if there are few sources but those specifically written to debunk an idea, then those sources would be relevant according to WP:DUE because they would not be minority viewpoints but the bulk of the sources other than promoters of the idea. It is interesting that both the myth of the moon made of cheese and the flat Earth idea are specifically designed to test credibility. Those articles are amazing. Perhaps you could give me some examples where the fringe theory guidelines were necessary to maintain a good encyclopedia. Maybe there is a problem i'm not seeing here. If there is some minor snake oil that has only been addressed by a Skeptoid podcast, for instance, then i think the Skeptoid podcast would be a good source on the topic. If it's been covered by peer-reviewed scientific articles then maybe the Skeptoid podcast would be an interesting source if it shed new light on the topic or provided a useful viewpoint but would be less reliable than the peer-reviewed paper for determining what is said in Wikivoice. I truly want to see why this guideline would be useful in cases where there is adequate sourcing to describe a topic using normal reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's imagine that physicist Paul Frampton publishes an article in Physics Review Letters stating that viewed from 26-dimensional string space, the earth has at least four dimensions in which it appears flat, and therefore should be considered dominantly flat. Other physicists gradually sign on to the new theory, while no qualified string theorist writes a word against it. Meanwhile, earth scientists call a convention and publish a special edition of Eos proclaiming beyond a doubt that the world certainly is round, according to consensus of earth scientists. But of course they don't reference the Frampton paper, because they can't make head or tails of it. What are we at Wikipedia supposed to do with a situation like this? Should we consider that even though a dozen physicists around the world have spoken in favor of Frampton's theory, that they're all dependent sources because they've talked to each other at conferences, per WP:FRIND? Reference the Objectivist Physics Blog [1] which explains that Aristotle did not approve of string physics, per WP:PARITY? Is one single admin eligible to block everybody who knows anything about string theory from Wiki as a bunch of point of view pushers, because of the ARBCOM pseudoscience ruling and discretionary sanctions? Or can we just apply normal NPOV policy and describe both sides of the controversy? In fact there may be no contradiction, the geologists and the physicists just aren't speaking the same language.

This is all very whimsical, but exactly analogous to what I believe I'm dealing with at Earthquake prediction. When a physicist and a geologist walked into a Wiki talk page... And it's not so different from what goes on at Christ Myth Theory. The dominant view of the editors is that relevant scholars work for Biblical Studies departments. If folklorists were considered worthy to venture an opinion, it might not be so obvious who the fringe theorists are. JerryRussell (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• On this whole "mainstream" thing. Yes, WP is absolutely mainstream. Please read WP:NOTEVERYTHING which is policy. It says that WP articles summarize accepted knowledge. How do we in WP know what is "accepted knowledge"? We look at what we call "reliable sources" say - and not just one of them (we don't cherry pick) we look at what a good swath of them say, and we give the most WEIGHT to the perspectives that are common to them per NPOV. And deeper yet, if you look at what kind of sources we find most reliable, they are sources that are produced by the institutions whom we, as a society, generally trust to produce knowledge or verify facts. So in medicine, the experts (created and validated by our institutions) who write reviews that get peer reviewed by their peers (created and validated the same way) and published by good quality journals (again, institutional pillars). WP is built from the ground up to be conservative with regard to what gets defined as "accepted knowledge". Now - the way we do things here is weird and counter-cultural in some ways (this whole crazy clueocracy of anonymous editors), but what we put in articles is absolutely, 100% what is established by our institutions as "accepted." It doesn't get more mainstream than that.

Now some people see how we do things and get all confused, and think that what goes in articles is also somehow countercultural or radical; but people who come here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS or advocating some wacky theory fail to have their content stick - this place is allergic to that kind of stuff. That is because FRINGE is interpreted with all that stuff above as a foundation. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases

I would like to discuss removal of Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases (diff: [2]). In my opinion, this was an Alternative theoretical formulation that became mainstream and should be restored. My reasons for this are:

• not accepted for 30 years (contributed to Boltzmann's suicide)
• very important and perfectly fits the criteria for inclusion: In other cases an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are ... big bang theory

Excerpts from Ludwig Boltzmann:

1. "Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases seemed to presuppose the reality of atoms and molecules, but almost all German philosophers and many scientists like Ernst Mach and the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald disbelieved their existence. During the 1890s Boltzmann attempted to formulate a compromise position ..."
2. "In 1904 at a physics conference in St. Louis most physicists seemed to reject atoms and he was not even invited to the physics section."

In my opinion honorable mention would be appropriate. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

All the examples used in guidance must be clear-cut, so if there's any doubt about this case it is unwise to cite it here. Alexbrn (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a valid potential criterion for exclusion, but I am not sure if it applies in this case because there is no reasonable doubt that Boltzmann's theory was mostly rejected. I don't think we should omit this just because it was hugely influential later and because for some users it is somewhat uncomfortable to notice that it fits here. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The cited source in your edit does not say that this is or was fringe. It does say that "Boltzmann suffered extreme mood swings, possibly due to bipolar disorder, and struggled to cope with criticism from scientists who maintained an anti-atomist standpoint." Concluding that the KGT was fringe would be a very obvious case of wp:OR. - DVdm (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I understand now that your objection is related to the cited source. I am not going to add it without a better source and I will try to find such later. Thank you for your comment. PS. "does not say that this is or was fringe" - those examples are not meant to be fringe now. --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I just read the history section of the article on Kinetic theory of gases. It confirms my memory of the development of the theory of gases – it's not really a good example of an alternative theory that was on the fringe for a significant period of time. Atomic theory was already well accepted by the time Maxwell and Boltzmann did their work. LK (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Boltzmann died in 1906 and even in the section you mention it says "An important turning point was Albert Einstein's (1905)[17] and Marian Smoluchowski's (1906)[18] papers on Brownian motion, which succeeded in making certain accurate quantitative predictions based on the kinetic theory." Please also read Ludwig Boltzmann.
I suggest you to reconsider, you don't have to insist on your position just because you have reverted this change (and also DVdm). However, it is acceptable to include kinetic theory of gases without mentioning Boltzmann. In my opinion, this is one of the best examples. There is no reasonable doubt.

“ Kinetic theory of gases Whereas Avogadro’s theory of diatomic molecules was ignored for 50 years, the kinetic theory of gases was rejected for more than a century. ” — Encyclopedia Britannica

--Asterixf2 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I could live with that, provided there is consensus that 3 examples of past fringe is not sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There is this kind of consensus, because Lawrencekhoo (LK) has removed 'heliocentrism' without consensus (and I object to decreasing the number of examples ;). Therefore, there is no consensus to decrease the number of examples. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, consensus is usually de-facto established after the facts, when things already have stabilised. Before that it's usually called discussion. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I clarify that I have not added 'heliocentrism'. It was here before and constituted a part of consensus. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that kinetic theory of gases is a more important example of "scientific fringe theory" than either the existence of Troy, or the Norse colonization of America. If three is the limit, I'd probably drop Troy. JerryRussell (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete all former fringe examples from alternative theoretical formulations

This topic was split off from #Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases, above. Asterixf2 (talk)

All of the examples should be deleted. Nothing beyond the third sentence of that paragraph is necessary as guidance to editors. The examples doubtless are well-intended but to my mind they can be read as supporting the Galileo gambit, "but scientists have been wrong before!" mindset common among those promoting fringe views. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, you propose to make the paragraph more difficult to understand. Examples clarify things. In my opinion, editors should maintain a healthy dose of skepticism but shouldn't become extremists. Please also note that heresy is essential to science, for example see fallibility: any claim justified today may need to be revised or withdrawn in light of new evidence, new arguments, and new experiences." This position is taken for granted in the natural sciences. For example, theories in physics cannot be treated as sacred. To treat something as sacred is religious not scientific. They may be settled but not proven. Feynman famously said "Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." --Asterixf2 (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that removing the examples of old fringe would make the paragraph more difficult to understand. On the contrary. This page is meant to guide editors, and what exactly was once fringe but is not fringe anymore is entirely irrelevant for deciding what is fringe now. Indeed, as Shock Brigade Harvester Boris suggests, it might even misguide editors into inaccidentally (—or deliberately—) promoting fringe views with something in mind like "but just wait a few years!" So indeed, these examples, together with their sources, are very interesting in a content article about fringe, but not at all in a content guideline for editors such as this one. Good thinking, SBHB. Removal would be ok for me. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the examples are items that once were 'alternative theoretical formulations', and are now accepted. We are currently debating whether the pejorative term 'fringe' should be applied to the likes of Dr. Boltzmann, before his theories were accepted. Perhaps we should also have some examples of current 'alternative theoretical formulations', and discuss whether we want to insult them by calling them 'fringe'? JerryRussell (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You are excused, but I don't think that this is what we are discussing here. In any case we shouldn't be discussing it, as it would simply be off-topic here per the wp:TPG. This is the talk page of a fringe editing guideline, not an article about fringe. - DVdm (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If we can't come up with examples of what we're talking about, then how is anyone else reading the guideline supposed to understand what we mean? Isn't the clarity of this fringe editing guideline improved if we can offer examples that we, as editors of the guideline, can agree are representative of our intention? JerryRussell (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Examples are not at all essential to clarity of exposition in English; many perfectly comprehensible things are written that do not include examples. In any event if we are to have examples they should be drawn from contemporary issues rather than past controversies, the outcome of which only became clear in hindsight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose removing the examples completely (Having examples to point to may not be essential, but they are very useful when trying to explain how WP:Fringe applies to new ideas/theories/discoveries that may well be valid, but have not yet achieved mainstream acceptance). That said, I would be amenable to further discussion on which examples we should give. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Discovery > Psychological and social conditions of creativity

[...creative individuals usually have outsider status—they are socially deviant and diverge from the mainstream. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/#PsySocConCre] 176.221.76.3 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How is that related to the improvement of the guideline? Not to say this is bullshit, basically saying the whole Berkeley and Standford universities are cesspits of deviants. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get too emotional. This was a quote from a reliable source. It's true that it's vaguely related but it seems that linked article may prove useful. Asterixf2 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was. But it is a perfect example of how a quote taken out of context sounds like bullshit. Even if viewed in context, the quoted point of view is on its way to obsolescence in modern times when it is well recognized that creativity is no longer a trait of few "blessed ones". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

guideline implies everything non-mainstream verges with bs, but the history of scientific discovery, by definition, shows the opposite. anything significant discovered was not mainstream, otherwise it would not be a discovery so significant. got it Staszek Lem ?79.101.187.173 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please cite the guideline text which says so (or makes you think so), and we shall see how we can fix it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Spectrum of non-mainstream

A while ago it was suggested to visualise a spectrum of theories. I cannot find it, but it looked like like this:

mainstream <-> disputed <-> minority <-> fringe sci <-> pseudosci

(can anybody remember where was it and what was the context?)

I am happy to report that Martin Gardner in 2000 [3] wrote basically the same:

Pseudoscience is a fuzzy word that refers to a vague portion of a continuum on which there are no sharp boundaries.

At the far left of this spectrum are beliefs which all scientists consider prepsterious. Examples include claims that earth is hollow <.. snip>. Moving to the right, toward slightly less weird claims, we come upon Velikovsky's cosmology, homeopathy, <..snip> .

As we move along the continuum toward more respectable science, we reach such controversial claims as the conjectures of Freud <...snip> and a raft of other speculations in the areas where there is some evidence, but much greater doubt.

At the far right end, our spectrum fades into regions of open conjectures by scientists so eminent that no one dares call them kranks. I am thinking of David Bohm's pilot-wave theory <... snip> and the ongoing efforts by the physicists to construct a theory of everything. To the right of these reputable conjectures lie the undisputed facts of science, such as <.. snip>.

The key word in the above is no sharp boundaries. This is the observation favoring the opinion that this policy must not focus on on kranks, but consider the whole spectrum of non-mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: was it the thread from this past June on the wording “scientific consensus“ vs. “mainstream science“?—Odysseus1479 15:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Please remember that WP:Fringe is applied to a lot more than just science topics. It is important that the terminology used in this policy also relate to other fields (History, for example). Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And archaeology. We have a lot of articles dealing with fringe archaeology subjects. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And Literature and Art. I'd add that there is a difference between fringe topics and fringe research. Finnegan's Wake for example may always be a work of literature that is fringe to the mainstream while literary criticism on Finnegan's Wake is now mainstream. Art may be fringe to the mainstream as in the Norwegian painter, Odd Nerdrum, whose work while mainstream to a classical style of art is not mainstream in the narrow confines of his native country. Research in some areas of archeology, as for example in the determination of what caused Tutankhamun's death may be fringe to the mainstream but also more accurate given advances in forensic science. There should be a delineation between fringe topics, fringe research and fringe science. Right now we use the term fringe to encompass, for the most part, fringe science, as a pejorative, and in a manner that pigeonholes which seems a bit lazy minded to me. We should be clarifying when we use the term. Because fringe may refer to any or all of these areas, seems to me, pseudoscience cannot be a logical extension of fringe; pseudoscience refers to the quality of research in reference to the scientific method and although fringe science may not be necessarily pseudoscience, pseudoscience is (probably) always fringe to the mainstream. Just some thoughts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC))

re "Tutankhamun's death"/"fringe topics" - in the context of wikipedia we are classifying fringe/mainstream with respect to article subject. Therefore in article about King Tut research about his death is not fringe per se. If the discussion of Tut's death takes more than half of Tut's bio, we just split a separate page, How King Tut died, and only within the latter one we start separating kranks from simply too obsessed. In other words, in wikipedia there is no concept of "fringe topics", only nonnotable ones. And the article How King Tut died may well be twice as large as King Tut's bio (due to peculiarities of wikipedians' dedication). Staszek Lem (talk)

RfC here

RfC here

SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Perpetual Motion as a criterion for pseudoscientific

I have made this edit [4] in response to this news, quote:

"Although the violation is only on the local scale, the implications are far-reaching," Vinokur said. "This provides us a platform for the practical realization of a quantum Maxwell's demon, which could make possible a local quantum perpetual motion machine." [...] The study, "H-theorem in quantum physics," was published September 12 in Nature Scientific Reports.

Paper in nature.com: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep32815
Source of the news: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-posit-locally-circumvent-law-thermodynamics.html

At the same time, I don't think wikipedians should call those results pseudoscience (which would mean they know 'better'). It seems that it is inappropriate for a guideline to contain specific scientific criterion for calling something pseudoscience. I would apply "no sharp boundaries" rule to pseudoscience, see origin of this phrase in #Spectrum of non-mainstream above. If you consider 'perpetual motion' sacred, please see my reply here, above. Please also see the last paragraph of a lead section in scientific method. There is also a concern for virtually non-negotiable WP:LIBEL potential violation. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

But "the authors are planning to work closely with a team of experimentalists to design a proof-of-concept system", so as long as they have not designed and demonstrated a proof-of-concept system, it will de-facto remain fringe. While we wait for that proof-of-concept system, I have reverted the removal of this current fringe example. Feel free to come back here when the system is ready and accepted by the community. - DVdm (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You slightly miss the point of my comment. It was that even if those results can be called fringe, they should not be called pseudoscience by wikipedians (and the previous version of guideline explicitly demands that). There are no proof-of-concept systems for many respectable theories, especially in highly theoretical modern physics. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That is a matter of consensus among wikipedians. If we agree to call it pseudoscience, then wikipedians can call it pseudoscience, specially when sufficient standard established literature do the same. - DVdm (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Argument of last resort? - "it's all about consensus". It's counterproductive to make this argument when working on a guideline. As I said, the issue here is that previous version of guideline explicitly demands to call this result pseudoscience. In my opinion that would even qualify as WP:LIBEL. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to file for libel then . - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has called it pseudoscience yet, but WP:LIBEL clearly says that such statements may be removed. I am just pointing out that calling smth pseudoscience may be defamatory. Let's stick to real arguments and not horse laugh. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified". So, when it is identified, we surely will delete it. Of course. - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually we'd rely on independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This perpetuum-motion case is a perfect example that wikipedia cannot rely on pop-science sources for extraordinary claims. Here, a wikipedian obviously did not pay attention to an innocuous word "local" in the make possible a local quantum perpetual motion machine. I leave it to science geeks as a quiz to figure out why this does not invalidate the claim that perpetuum mobile is impossible. [You may e-mail me for an explanation; I don't want to spoil the fun for the rest of us :-) Not to say it is off-topic.] Staszek Lem (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to jump in here... Ok, what criteria is used for this then : how many reliable sources need to call it "pseudoscience"? That term is often bandied about by opponents of a given theorist, you know. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly as many as many required in wikipedia to call something "something". And of course wikipedians must know difference between calling names and delivering arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, sure; but many Wikipedians don't know the "difference between calling names and delivering arguments", which is the reason for rules. This subject has a big potential for a lot of name-calling. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed the qualifier, but I consider it a good example for the argument nonetheless. In my opinion, giving strict scientific criterion for qualifying smth as pseudoscience is inappropriate. To give another example, consider this sentence from the same paper: "We discuss the manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics in quantum physics and uncover special situations where the second law can be violated." What? Second law of thermodynamics violated? It's easy to picture an editor saying "This must be pseudoscience!" Imo, it's better to stick with domain-based criteria like 'astrology' for the purposes of guideline. --Asterixf2 (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, this is pop-science sensationalist statement from which we (wikipedians) cannot jump to conclusions. If you translate into less sensationalist speak, it will be something like "in conditions <...specifically described...> the second law is inapplicable". And it makes the same perfect sense as "under certain conditions Newton's mechanics is inapplicable". Not to say the claim becomes falsifiable. Second, an extraordinary claim cannot be taken for its face value from pop-sources or from primary sources, regardless pseudosci or not. And for this reason I see nothing wrong with strict scientific definitions: until mainstream says that perpetuum mobile is no longer always pseudosci, we dismiss it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, may be I misunderstand your point about "strict scientific criterion". Which part of policy or this discussion you are referring to? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)