Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What about simply renaming the board to "Fringe theories and pseudoscience"? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  study of psychodermic response  citing these profs A and B  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)
thread_title: Bold suggestion: Rename/overhaul

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Is_Warsaw_number_a_hoax?. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a hoax or a fringe theory? 

message: Regarding this, the Wikipedia:Based upon essay is about what articles should be based upon rather than what any individual statement should be based upon. Of course, the essay can be expanded to address statements in addition to what type of sources an article is primarily or half based upon. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based upon 

message: Please see: Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020.  Some of the more circular debate there involves interpretation of MOS:WTW with WP:FRINGE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RM involving interpretation of WP:FRINGE (and [[MOS:WTW]]) 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing#POVFIGHTER.  Summary: A provision has been added to WP:TE that appears to have implications for this page and editorial activity relating to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POVFIGHTER 

message: Currently we have a single shortcut to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Spectrum of fringe theories section: WP:FRINGE/PS. However, there are three broad categories listed in the section: Pseudoscience (PS), Questionable science, and Alternative theoretical formulations. Our single shortcut seems to refer specifically only to the first category, pseudoscience.
In conversations on topics where there is potential for miscategorization of distinct theories that either overlap or are commonly grouped together in the vernacular, this leads to significant debate about whether or not a certain idea is fringe or not. 
For instance, this has come up multiple times regarding COVID-19 and theories about laboratory origins. Generally people think of the pseudoscientific conspiracy theories regarding bioengineering, but this isn't the only topic. There's also some questionable/junk science, either from those without relevant experience or far outside the norms of peer review and open transparency. Generally the problem comes with the alternative theoretical formulations, specifically an unknown collection and inadvertent exposure to a bat virus in a lab environment. This is very clearly an area of legitimate scientific inquiry (as the joint China-WHO team evaluated it, but not the bioengineering theory), but also arguably fringe for being the apparent minority opinion. I can refer to WP:FRINGE regarding any of these topics, but this can be misinterpreted in multiple ways.
My proposal is to add two additional shortcuts, WP:FRINGE/QUES (or similar) and WP:FRINGE/ALT (or similar). This would allow easier distinction when used on talk pages, avoiding the potential baggage of implying valid scientific inquiry of a minority perspective is pseudoscience, and vice-vers-a. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add shortcuts to better refer to specific fringe categories 

message: I missed the discussion in January and wanted to add an additional view.
Conspiracy theory has a clear meaning in academic literature. It is an alternative explanation of events that involves an all-knowing, all-powerful and totally evil group whose actions are unreported in mainstream sources. Such theories are not falsifiable, because any evidence against them is dismissed as obfuscation by the conspirators. Much of conspiracy theory writing uses dubious or false facts and faulty logic.
As an article in The Conversation says, "Conspiracy theories are deliberately complex and reflect an all-encompassing worldview. Instead of trying to explain one thing, a conspiracy theory tries to explain everything, discovering connections across domains of human interaction that are otherwise hidden – mostly because they do not exist."
9/11 Truth fits all the elements of a conspiracy theory. It claims that the U.S. government murdered 1,000s of its own citizens as a false flag operation to justify the war in Iraq. In order to do that, it would have been able to carry out an elaborate covert action and keep it secret, despite the fact that hundreds or even thousands of people would have been in on the secret. The adherents explain the findings of experts by claiming they are part of the conspiracy.
In my opinion this is similar to the case of terrorism. It is a concept studied by experts and we expect expert opinion before we use the term. We don't expect that a reporter has sufficient expertise.
There is a clear distinction between conspiracy theories and plausible if unlikely alternative explanations which may elude news reporters, although conspiracy theorists may adopt alternative explanations and add in the elements of a conspiracy theory. In fact, Wikipedia draws a clear distinction between pseudoscience and alternative explanations in its Fringe theories|.
To use a current example, conspiracy theorists have seized on the Wuhan lab leak theory which fits in with their pre-existing views on Communism, the U.S. government, the globalists, and xenophobia. Yet the WHO and Dr. Fauci see it as a possible if unlikely source that has not been ruled out.
TFD (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theorism

message: You are invited to join the discussion at  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject.  Bangalamania (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about wikipedia "[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans]]"

message: It might be useful for WP:PARITY to mention WP:MEDRS.  The fact is that editors do not require an "ideal" source to add information about notable quackery.  We can say that Chromotherapy is quackery without producing a peer-reviewed review article published within the last five years in a reputable journal; it's enough to produce any reliable source to describe such obvious nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to MEDRS 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph.  Sundayclose (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abduction

message: Both Wikipedia articles and the talk pages here wrestle with the complexities and misuses of the term.   This page basically covers "fringe theories"  which is a specific subset of "fringe" yet the redirect from the much more heavily used term WP:fringe plus wording in the page itself conflates the two. And so in Wikipedia WP:Fringe often means many things besides fringe theories.  A wiki-useful taxonomy of "fringe" might be: 
1. Fringe Theories  Minority-view statements about potential objective facts 
:1.1 Ones that acknowledge that they are a mere theory, have not been shown to be likely-false, and where proponents want them to be vetted by scientific and objective processes.  E.G. the first guy to hypothesize plate tectonics.     
:1.2 Ones that have been shown by scientific or other sound methods to be false.  E.G holocaust denial, flat earth  
2. Fringe subjective views Anything from action advocacy "we should segregate the USA" to matters of interpretation, e.g. the word "good" in  "Hitler was a good person"  to widely held views which  are out of favor in the current venue 
3. Beliefs, legends etc. which are treated as such and not subjected to any scrutiny  E.G. "The spirits of our ancestors live in that mountain" or most of religion, or what Santa Claus does and where he lives.
One really can't deal with them without first acknowledging the fundamentally different situations. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: A few underlying issues to fix to reduce the number of issues

message: I am wondering if it may be worthwhile to document a general principle akin to WP:PARITY here about rejoinders. Sometimes I see arguments made that if we include the WP:MAINSTREAM explanation of a WP:FRINGE theory then there is something like a right of reply that the fringe theory advocates have. I am rather of the opinion that if a rejoinder has not been well-cited, it probably does not belong in Wikipedia. This is related to WP:MANDY but it also goes towards a secondary WP:NFRINGE point about replies and replies to replies and replies to replies to replies, etc.
Here's the problem as I see it: Fringe idea is published and gets enough traction to cause a mainstream expert to comment on the topic -- maybe even offer a decent debunking. This, unsurprisingly, riles up the supporters of the idea and they shoot off a reply that often nitpicks about certain details while missing the substantive point of the rejoinder. [[WP:PROFRINGE}] editor insists that we include the reply as a "last word" even as it is unlikely there will be a counter-counter-counterpoint because, well, mainstream experts are typically uninterested in prolonging spats of this nature.
A single sentence about how fringe-inspired rejoinders of debunkings might be worthy of inclusion only if they've been noticed by independent sources would be great. I know it seems like it's already sorta in the guideline, but it's surprising how often this seems to come up.
jps (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example would be the Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. There are far more creationist "rejoinders" to Bill Nye's points that one can find that have gone essentially unanswered because, of course, no expert in evolution is going to take such arguments seriously. jps (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lerner has disputed Wright's critique.", mentioning because i have a very similar thought when this popped up on the ref desk recently. fiveby(zero) 17:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That example had also occurred to me. It's a longstanding one. jps (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

text: "Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources."
I am trying to stay positive here, describing what generally can be used to source content about fringe theories as opposed to prohibitions. I feel, however, that this sentence makes it clear that if independent sources have not taken notice of a particular source, it's probably not one Wikipedia should use.
jps (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

text: boldly. Please revert if you object and explain here. Thanks everyone. jps (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daisy-chained sourcing 

message: "Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect".  What is meant by saying that a hypothesis "may contain information"?  I would guess that it means the article may contain that information, but simply tacking on "Articles about" at the beginning would make for an awkward sentence.  I don't think it's overly bold to try to fix a clear problem with the phrasing. DefThree (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, as I see it, was that you removed the content-laden clause . Removing that doesn't just change the readability of the statement but also the substantive advice it's offering. I'm also not convinced that there's anything especially difficult to understand about the sentence as currently written. Yes, it's a bit awkward, but I don't think anyone who understands English will have real trouble discerning its meaning. That said, if you want to offer alternative wordings here on the talk page that improve clarity without interfering with the substance of the guideline, I'd welcome that. Generalrelative (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually thought that phrase was problematic, since on the surface, even ideas which are definitely considered pseudoscience would appear to have a substantial following.  I suppose it means a substantial following among experts, but again, adding those words would have just made the sentence more awkward. DefThree (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable science section 

message: I think that there should be a different treatments for different disciplines.
While Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Physiology, Astronomy, etc, are rightful sciences, in the sense that they allow to carry out experiments or observations in a controlled way or with a limited number of parameters, disciplines such as Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology and Economics don't have an equal standing. They are rather "practical philosophies", that have adopted some aspects of the scientific method but which aren't actual sciences because the systems they study are too complex and cannot be studied in isolation. When judged with the standards of actual Sciences, research papers in those disciplines hardly pass the exam.
I think that a good test to spot a practical philosophy disguising as science is to check whether there are different "Schools". 2001:B07:ADD:C4B2:444B:5AB9:46AF:46C0 (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should Wikipedia base decisions about content on what you think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all science are made equal 

message: There is a discussion at RSN that relates to this page; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can sources that state that religious miracles actually occurred be reliable sources? BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at RSN 

message: Currently, Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS declares: . This appears to conflate the motion with the machines that are purported to exploit it. As a result, it seems to declare "fringe" such concepts as inertia (aka Newton's First Law of Motion), the eternal inflation of the universe, and time crystals. This is as ridiculous a claim as the fabled rockets can't fly in space because there's nothing to push against.  – .Raven  .talk 04:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Perpetual motion#Title of the article as well as several discussions in the archives there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ,, and  are correct there. Yours and 's appear to be the only voices in opposition. So not only are the two different topics being conflated in that article itself, but WP:FRINGE/PS explicitly declares the motion impossible, when only the machines are. This is a terrible misunderstanding of physics, encouraged by that conflation.  – .Raven  .talk 06:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Perpetual '''motion'''" '''&ne;''' "perpetual-motion '''machine'''" 

message: Looks a bit fringey to me. Publications in Medical Hypotheses, involvement with cold fusion. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buford Ray Conley 

message: By any chance, does this rule apply to the status of a name? Someone said, "To have North Korea as the title of a document is to treat 'North Korea' as if it were on par with the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an official country name, which violates the Wikipedia talk: Fringe theories" Mamiamauwy (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  question