Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Archive 2

message: It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (science).  I agree that there is a degree of conceptual overlap between the two (in that both attempt to deal with similar issues), however I think a bit of discussion is needed before any merge can happen.  For one thing, which article will get merged into the other?  Or do we merge them both into an new guideline?  I know this guideline started in response to several debates over scientific fringe theories, but recently it has had a bearing on non-scientific fringes theories as well.  I would contend that this guideline is the more general one and that, if a merge were to take place, Wikipedia:Notability (science) should be merged into this guideline (as a sub-section dealing purely with science topics).  However, I am not sure if a merge is really the right approach.  Blueboar 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the discussion below indicates that this is not limited to the sciences, and so probably shouldn't be merged. If anything the merge should go the other way around; the science specifications are a subset of these general ones. But I think they are fine as separate guidelines; they basically say the same thing. --Fastfission 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger? 

message: The following question has come up at a recent AfD:  Does this guideline apply purely to science related theories, or does it apply to fringe theories in other disciplines?
My feeling is that it should apply to other disciplines.  While this guideline was originally written in response to a debate about how to handle scientific fringe theories,it seems like excellent guidance for dealing with fringe theories in other areas as well.  Historical and pseudo-historical fringe theories for example.  Please comment. Blueboar 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It specifically says it applies to conspiracy theories, and has since the time it was created "This refers to "theory" in a very broad sense, including (self-described) scientific thories, conspiracy theories, or things which in a stricter sense may be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no reason for this not to apply to every field.  Scientists don't own the fringes, we're just more often and more obviously and more shamefully publically ridiculed for ours.  KP Botany 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Botany. No reason to limit the scope here. (Radiant) 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline applies across the board (not just to science articles). --ScienceApologist 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hereby lodge my agreement:  this guideline applies beyond the confines of science articles.  Anville 01:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that my attention has been drawn to it, I merged some content from Wikipedia:Notability (science) and tried to clean up the stuff we had here.  Edit away — criticism is the only known antidote to error.  (-;  Anville 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree that this guideline should apply across the board. TomTheHand 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on Scope of this guideline 

message: Should this page be classified as a content guideline, notability guideline or both?  The category page for content guidelines currently states,
:Wikipedia guidelines for the content of pages. These are not guidelines about whether topics are important enough to be in Wikipedia (notability guidelines), nor guidelines about how to present such material (style guidelines). Instead, these seek to provide guidance on what topics are appropriate, and what material should be used in articles on such topics.
At the moment, WP:FRINGE covers both "whether topics are important enough" and "what material should be used".
Alternatively, should we have two pages, Wikipedia:Notability (fringe theories) based on generalizing Notability (science) and Wikipedia:Content of fringe theory articles?  Personally, I feel the division between those would be awkward.  I don't mind having the same page cover both notability and content, so that we can say "Delete per WP:FRINGE" in AFD as well as "rewrote per WP:FRINGE" in an edit summary.  Thoughts?  Anville 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content, notability or both? 

message: ScienceApologist has added a good note about the need for peer reviewed publication. I would say, however, that it should not be limited to purely scientific theories ... shouldn't the note apply to any theory relating to an accademic topic (Science, History, Mathmatics, Art...etc.)? Blueboar 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked the language to make it a little more general.  Anville 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication 

message: Describing the book of Genesis as "a Christian doctrine" is a bit muddled, since it was written hundreds of years before the birth of Christ and is hardly doctrinal.  Also, its significance is not exclusively Christian (it is important in Judaism and Islam). The point of the paragraph is that its article should not concentrate on the cosmological, which is surely correct, but should concentrate on more relevant aspects. Bucketsofg 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The doctrine is creation (theology), if I'm not mistaken. --ScienceApologist 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: current wording is acceptable... the point was that in any article on the book of Genesis, one can (and should) discuss it's role as a theological doctrine, but not discuss it as a scientific theory. Blueboar 15:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian doctrine 

message: Indeed, this page should not be merged into the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (science). However, the two pages do overlap strongly. I think it'd be a good idea if (the worthwhile parts of) that proposal would be added to this page, and that page made a redirect to here. >Radiant< 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge note 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Test case

message: Another test case of interest for people working on the proposal is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden, which focuses on notability criteria for scientists working on fringe theories. --ScienceApologist 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another test case

message: What's the appropriate term to use to describe those who do research but may not be trained in science or may not be recognized in the scientific community?  Researchers?  What criteria must a person meet to be called a scientist?  What's the NPOV term for a non-scientist?  How best to handle experiments that have been done by non-scientists, have no verification or review, or are otherwise questionable?  Does it give too much credibility to call them experiments?  Tests?  Studies?
Also, in the case of a "fringe" theory, is it NPOV or WP:WEASEL to say "proponents say...", "XYZ claims that...", "XYZ believe that...", "Allegedly a photo/recording of..."?  Generally, it's considered weaselly to say things like "Some believe that..." but with fringe topics is that OK or is there a better way to phrase?  With a fringe topic, is it OK to describe failure to accept the topic by scientists/the scientific community, or refer to them as skeptics?  Any guidance would be appreciated.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are really talking about a range of terms... at the more respectable level there are "Amature Scientists", some where in the middle are "Hobbyists" and "Science Enthusiasts", and at the low end are "Quacks" and "Charlitains".  As for weasle issues... I would say it is best to quote the major proponent of the theory... as in: "According to Dr. Ima Looney, 'exhaustive experimentation on a single white mouse has led to the definitive conclusion that wearwolves hate cats'Looney, Ima, 101 fun things to do with a Lycanthrope, Igor Press, 2006, p.52". Blueboar 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  Problem with that range of terms is that POV pushers want to describe anyone who does an experiment, regardless of how "homemade" it is, as "researchers" (if not scientists).  How best to handle "experiments" done by people with no credentials whatsoever listed?  Or should they not even be mentioned in an article if we can't judge their credibility?  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... let's be charitable, unless someone else has called them a quack or something (in which case we can quote that usage), we can call them "Amature resarchers" if they come close to using the Scientific Method, and "Pseudo-Scientists" if they do not. Blueboar 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word choice in articles 

message: This word is used 31 times in this article, while in Mainstream article it is used 27 times (title and disambiguation sentences not included, or 33 times total). What more can I say? Lakinekaki 08:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "Mainstream" is important? Blueboar 12:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream 

message: A relevant discussion takes place on WP:VPR. We should determine a way to enforce the policy. Currently it is hollow, as there are hundreds of pages full of fringecruft and no mechanism to deal with them promptly and efficiently. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fringecruft board? 

message: Removed duplication of discussion here. Removed own edit ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍  contributions 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion moved 

message: I put the page back to the stable version before recent edits.  We need to discuss changes here before putting them in.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is game playing pure and simple and will be resisted. ScienceApologist 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  So don't.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please discuss changes here and do not editwar. Also note that a guideline cannot trump policy. Discuss at WP:NOR and WP:V, if you want to change the underlying policy about source typing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Some of SA's changes were good, but some of them changed the way sources should be used, and there were some other changes which might have effected how articles came out.  I'd like to discuss the reasons behind any changes before putting them in. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already discussed above. At this point the onus is on you to suggest changes. ScienceApologist 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think my changes are all cosmetic and aid in readability as discussed above. They also conform more to the stated text of policies outlined (unlike the edit summary of jossi which claimed the contrary). ScienceApologist 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think they were substantial changes.  Let's discuss them here before inserting them in the guideline. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your disagreement has been noted. Since you have not started any discussions on the matter you have provided no explanation for your continued insistence on reverting. What's more since you have seemingly stopped participating in the above discussions with regards to the matter, there is no evidence that you are making an active dispute of any particular text. Therefore, there is no reason to not keep the guideline the way it is. ScienceApologist 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Questions Is the content of this dispute just this?  If so, how old is the older version?  Where did the concept which appears in the original stating the use of primary sources "is essential to writing an encyclopedia" come from?  I've never heard of anything like this at WP.  Comment on the newer version: It is not always true that secondary sources are more apt to have a NPOV.  For example, Kent Hovind is a "secondary source" of a kind for evolutionary theory.  He is not neutral.  Richard Dawkins is a "secondary source" of a kind for Genesis creation theory.  He is not neutral.  Along the same vein, the word "mainstream" for a source is a tricky usage too.  For example, in many ways, Genesis creation theory and scientific evolutionary theory are both "mainstream".  "Independent secondary sources from reliable publishers" maybe?  WP:CONTROVERSY offers other nuanced suggestions. Professor marginalia 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin's "older version" is one from 29 September. The concept is nowhere to be found which is part of the reason I edited it out (see below). I agree with you that secondary sources are not necessarily neutral, but secondary sources that are critical or supportive of the subject (when not excluded by WP:WEIGHT) will aid in leading an article to neutrality when coupled/compared against other sources. The issue isn't that secondary sources are "neutral", it's that secondary sources provided a vital perspective needed for neutrally describing fringe theories. ScienceApologist 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, User:Professor marginalia for pointing out a way to improve the edits. I have tweaked the wording to indicate something closer to reality. Please tweak the wording further if you think it needs it. ScienceApologist 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  It's difficult to get the words right, but I don't think the problem with primary sources is necessarily that they're less "neutral" in the way they are used, but that they're more prone in the way they are used by editors to inadequate or disputed interpretations of the sources, or to other "synthesized" analysis of the sources.  Many reasons can be implied by this sort of editor misuse, it could be bias, but it could be they just don't have the prerequisite background to interpret the information in any qualified way.  Secondary sources are frequently preferred because they do provide interpretations, but interpretations which are vetted.  Biased secondary sources, however, should be used just as judiciously when it comes to sourcing fact claims--they are best used to describe the point of view of "their" side, if you will, but should be treated very skeptically as to their descriptions of the "other" side.  What I'd call the "bystander" sources, sources that don't have a dog in the fight, are best for sourcing claims in more "neutral" and objective terms at WP, or for characterizing the more general "consensus" view.  NPOV requires all sides of the issue are represented, and biased secondary sources can be references for a side which they are in sympathy with, but they rarely do as adequate sources for verifying fact claims here made about the other side, not when those facts are disputed.  In such cases, when the claims against the "other" are disputed, the claim has to be ascribed to the party or parties who make it.  But the articles are no good if they're just "point-counterpoint" style lists of biased opinions from involved or closely involved parties either, even when 100% faithful giving proper proportional weight to them.  That's only one element of a NPOV article.  The definitions and interpretations referenced by independent sources are ideal, whenever they exist. Editors here probably know all this, but it's important to not to lose these important distinctions when wording the guideline.Professor marginalia 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't see the wording reversions proposed below as being divergent from this idealization. Do you? ScienceApologist 21:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to refrain from commenting further now that I understand that the WP:NOR policy itself is currently under debate.  I tend to agree with that it's premature to go further here given some propose discarding the primary, secondary, tertiary distinctions made in the previous policy altogether.Professor marginalia 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: discussions about NOR and the use of primary sources does not belong to this guideline. Please discuss at WP:NOR talk page, where there is a vigorous debate on this issue. Guidelines are there to explain how policies are applied, and not to re-design policy itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Jossi, I agree with you, but that it is not a rationale for reverting since we are simply explaining how policies are designed. If you disagree, you must say where exactly you see the problem. ScienceApologist 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable version

message: I am enumerating the changes below. Editors are free to comment on each one as I will in turn. Here is the relevant differences: 
*For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of technical detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources. WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia. changed to For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of technical detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources to aid in research. It is strongly encouraged to collect and organize information about fringe theories mostly from existing secondary sources which are more apt to offer neutral descriptions of the subject than primary sources about fringe theories.
Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:
#aiding in research is the primary goal of primary sources per WP:PSTS. Note that this does not exclude citing primary sources, but per PSTS, "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." What we are talking about is when we can make "explanatory claims". Per PSTS we should not make explanatory claims with primary sources, though primary sources are extremely important for aiding in research.
#The inclusion of a second reference to WP:NOR is redundant. We can simply make it a reflexive statement.
#We should be careful to enumerate that we are talking about fringe theories here and not mainstream theories since there are other places in the guideline where we give guidance about mainstream theories. In general, primary sources for uncontroversial mainstream theories aren't as problematic as fringe theories since the sources are generally more easily reliable and verifiable.
#Note that NPOV takes a new role in the new description. This is because that essentially we need to be sure that neutrality is preserved in reference to fringe theories. Using solely the primary sources of fringe theories automatically violates the various prohibitions included in NPOV about undue weight and discussing pseudoscience.
#Primary sources about fringe theories are, of course, useful when trying to find out what the fringe theorists say about a particular issue. However, relying solely on primary sources will result in a lack of neutrality most certainly. So if there are only primary sources available, there is no way that an idea can be included in Wikipedia. This is the essence of no original research.
*The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. changed to The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals does not itself establish notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so un-notable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, then it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:
#it is inaccurate to claim that discussion by other groups is not a criterion for notability. Indeed it is a criterion for notability. This has been fought out on numerous WP:AfDs over the years: secondary sources are a vital way people establish notability in WP:WEB, WP:BOOKS, and WP:PROF for example. However, it is not sufficient criterion which is why the wording is slightly changed.
#unnotable isn't technically a word, but it is a useful concept. I hyphenated it to coordinate with the appropriate standards of style.
#if...then clauses are typically more clear if you include both the conditional conjunction and the necessary conjunction
*Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. If the purpose of the article is to explain a scientific subject and there are people who dispute this subject, unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community the theory does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself. The theory may still be written about and expounded upon in articles devoted to the theory itself or non-scientific contexts. changed to Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. Where an article is about a mainstream scientific subject, and there are people who dispute this subject, the theory probably does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community. A sufficiently notable theory may still be discussed in an article devoted to that theory itself, or in non-scientific contexts."
Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:
#Article purpose is explained clearly in WP:ENC and sometimes is not confined to explaining a topic. For example, sometimes presentation of verifiable analysis is found in content forks. We need to realize, however, that even when there is an article that is not strictly descriptive, if it is about a mainstream topic it should not be subject to undue criticism by the minority. Delineating this is absolutely vital.
#The current wording was actually to strong in declaring what is/is not a standard of significant minority. Such is a content decision and needs to be hashed out on talkpages so that editors reach consensus on the subject. To state this succinctly, the word "probably" is inserted.
#Not all theories should be discussed. If a theory isn't notable or is something made up in school one day, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, for example. That needs to be made clear in the final sentence.
#No subject should be "expounded upon" in an encyclopedia. Rather, if we are to take a neutral standpoint we should merely be discussing subjects.
#The final sentence suffers from a severe lack of clarity as currently written.
*Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be treated excessively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. changed to Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis.
This is a simple word choice edit. It should be obvious to anyone why using the word "exclusively" makes it clearer to the reader of the guideline that we are trying to make sure that the topics which are discussed that have "elements" of science are not treated solely as science. This is a delicate sentence because "excessive" scientific treatment is generally a poor rationale for disputing an edit. What makes a treatment "excessive"? After all, one could argue that any criticism or critique is "excessive". However, an "exclusive" scientific treatment clearly oversteps the boundaries of this encyclopedia which encompasses many different subjects. For example, if we write an article about creation according to Genesis, using an exclusively scientific treatment is unacceptable. However, we should not be giving license to fringe advocates who think that any discussion of science in that topic is "excessive". While this may sound outlandish to many, believe me there are those people who believe that mainstream science is excessive in all that mainstream science is. To compromise with such a POV-pusher is to basically invite Wikipedia to become totally overrun by cranks.
*For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, and/or for its theological significance rather than as a cosmological theory. changed to For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory.
The horrible "and/or" convention should simply be dropped since logical union includes logical intersection.
*Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community. changed to Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of acceptance for the idea in the relevant academic community.
This is another example of changing around awkward writing. In effect, the demonstrative possessive adjective "their" has an ambiguous antecedent. Likewise, "among the relevant academic community" is a style of writing which implies relation to rather than incorporation of "in the relevant academic community".
*If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. changed to If proper attribution of an idea's standing cannot be reliably sourced, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented.
Are you kidding me? I have to explain that repeating "in reliable sources" three different times is redundant? Oh well, it's redundant. Please, if you think it isn't redundant, who taught you how to write?
*"Ideas which have been rejected, which are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, which are only of historical interest, or which are primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such." changed to Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, are only of historical interest, or are primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such.
Read Strunk and White about restrictive relative adjectives and get off my back.
*Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. changed to Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight.
Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:
#Read Strunk and White about restrictive relative adjectives and get off my back.
#The word "documented" implies reliability, something which Wikipedia does not have and does not really strive for. "Mentioned" is far better in light of how this encyclopedia operates and in terms of WP:V.
*Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. changed to Exclusion of non-mainstream ideas from articles about mainstream scientific topics may occur when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer lengthy originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the mainstream sources that do the criticizing.
Here is an enumeration as to why this change is justified:
#"By the same token" indicates that the sentence following is "in the same vein" as the previous sentence. In the current version that is simply not the case.
#The first sentence discusses outright exclusion of text. It is only natural that the next sentence continues to discuss this in a contrasted way.
#Wikipedia can and does include debunking when there are neutral and reliable sources which are reported to do so. Though the purpose of Wikipedia is not solely to debunk fringe ideas, Wikipedia does not exclude debunking as a general rule. As the wording currently reads one can imagine that all debunking should be removed from the encyclopedia (obviously this is not something to be encouraged).
#What is important to exclude is original synthesis that debunks ideas. If you can find a source that debunks the ideas, using the source to recound the debunking of the idea is perfectly fine and indeed necessary for a neutral encyclopedia that does not use the sympathetic point of view.
#We need to be clear how criticism of fringe theories is to be included in our encyclopedia. Currently we offer no text that explains this. I have offered a single sentence which refers back to the relevant policies and guidelines regarding what is worthy of inclusion.
*Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. changed to Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball.
Let's pipe!
*While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. changed to While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the available sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.
This is a word choice edit. In particular, simply saying that "sources must allow" implies Wikipedia telling sources what to do. Obviously we cannot do that. What we can do is tell Wikipedia editors what available sources must allow for (in effect, what the sources the Wikipedia editor avails himself or herself of must be allow in order to be useful or, indeed, cited).
I trust that this is sufficient explanation for why these changes should be made.
I will point out that the administrator who basically forced me to do this has not made any substantial contributions to this and has basically acted in a really obnoxious way assuming power and authority (referring to "sysops" who made reverts as though they are somehow uber-users when really they are just janitors who do dirty work). I see this administrator acting poorly, and I have come across such administrators in the past who made authoritative claims about established users without thoroughly researching the situations themselves.
I look forward to hearing about any complaints with these edits. Until such time, I assume we have consensus.
ScienceApologist 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: discussions about NOR and the use of primary sources does not belong to this guideline. Please discuss at WP:NOR talk page, where there is a vigorous debate on this issue. Guidelines are there to explain how policies are applied, and not to re-design policy itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Jossi, I agree with you, but that it is not a rationale for reverting since we are simply explaining how policies are designed. If you disagree, you must say where exactly you see the problem. ScienceApologist 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enumeration of changes

message: .... discussions should take place at that policy's talk page. There is no point to wrongly paraphrase WP:NOR, or dilute the policy wording: Guidelines cannot trump policies. 
: WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.
is the correct wording
:On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources to aid in research. It is strongly encouraged to collect and organize information about fringe theories mostly from existing secondary sources which are more apt to aid in the development of neutral descriptions of the subject than sole reliance on primary sources about fringe theories.
this one is not.  Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "sole reliance on primary sources about fringe theories" is not permissible.  But in fairness, I think that implication can be drawn from the version you restored as well.  Nothing I see there precludes this possibility anyway.  I agree that language in this guideline needs to conform strictly and carefully to the WP:NOR.  Editors should slow down and not be in such a rush to edit it.  I admit I'm not very familiar with this guideline, but in reading it I'm not even clear if this is a Guideline or a Proposed Guideline, because language in it refers to itself as a proposal.Professor marginalia 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed "We propose these guidelines..." language as it has been an accepted content guideline for some time.  Hopefull my edit will be both non-controvercial and clarify things.  On the larger issue... It is vital that guidelines should effectively say the same thing as Policy.  Now, as I mentioned above, WP:PSTS (the section of WP:NOR which is the current Policy statement that governs primary sources) is currently the subject of serious debate.  I would not say it is being challenged, but there is discussion on whether to change it and if so how.  If the needs of this guideline lead people here feel that the rules on primary source usage need to change, the place to discuss these needs is at WP:NOR... then, when and if that Policy is changed, we can conform this page.  It does not make any sense to edit what this guideline says on primary sources before consensus on PSTS is settled. Blueboar 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, understood. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]]... 

message: This guideline is way too long, over-worded and convoluted. If editors want to make this guideline into something useful, a good pruning and simplification would be a worthy effort to contemplate. This would be a much better use of editor's time than to attempt to add a variation of wording, that in any case gets loss in the mess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 03:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to host/oversee a rewrite? ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that a rewrite is advisable/necessary. Before undertaking this, it would be a good idea to go through the uses that this guideline has seen and try to determine what parts of the guideline should be preserved due to being referred to and what parts are superfluous. I have seen enough references to many different aspects of this guideline to be of the opinion that simplification may not be possible. ScienceApologist 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simplification of guidelines are always welcome. And no, I am not interested in engaging in a re-write. There are plenty of editors here that could do a better job as they are more intimate with the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long and unwieldy 

message: The question that begs an answer, is why editors continue editing this article and making changes about which there is n consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in order to evaluate whether consensus is achieved, we have to consider what kind of arguments are being made. I saw one objection to my edits above, made by you, and so I did no reinstate that edit. However, none of the other edits I made seem to be particularly controversial. If you are curious, please look here: . If you see something objectionable (the rationale for the changes is explained above), please let us know. ScienceApologist 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what change your edits might produce in articles.  I would like you to explain what your reasons are for the edits before inserting them, so we can first agree on the change we would like to see in the articles, and then on how to change the guideline to produce that change. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, I explained them above! ScienceApologist 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the WP:PSTS language has been settled, maybe we can return to some of these outstanding issues.  I disagree that this page receives enough continuous community attention to infer that, absent objections raised against an edit to the guideline, consensus is demonstrated. This guideline has been edited constantly just in the last few months alone. That is "not good".  And if the "encamped" representation here is the same small handful of editors who have regular or ongoing edit conflicts with each other in "fringe topic" disputes, that's even more "not good".  Edits in this guideline are "pushed" back and forth between editors like they're players scrumming over a ball.Professor marginalia 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus