Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories: Difference between revisions

This page is for discussion of the wording of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline, not for discussion of specific theories. To discuss problems with specific theories, articles, and users, please go to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, thank you.

Archives

January to October 2006 October 2006 to November 2007 November 2007 to April 2008 April to June 2008 June 2008 July 2008-1 July 2008-2 July 2008-3 July to October 2008 November 2008-1 November 2008-2 April–October 2009 Sept 2009 – March 2010 March–August 2010 August 2010 – Dec 2011 February–October 2012 October–December 2012 December 2012 January 2013 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Archives

Previous requests for comment Does this guideline have consensus? (April 2007) RfC on particular attribution section (June 2008) Is there enough argument to downgrade this guideline to the status of an essay? (July 2008) Is the label "fringe" inherently pejorative? (July 2008)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

WP:ONEWAY currently states:

To me, this is misleading as it implies that as long as there is one reliable source which connects a fringe theory to a mainstream topic, the burden of WP:ONEWAY is satisfied. Consider, for example, Apollo lunar landing conspiracy theories. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles written about the Apollo landings on the Moon. If at least one source about the Apollo lunar landings also covers lunar conspiracy theories, that opens the door for the article about the Apollo lunar landings to be a WP:COATRACK for lunar landing conspiracy theories. It seems to me that one source should not override all the other sources. I'm not really sure what the solution is. Perhaps this wording should be changed to...

Suggested wording #1

...or...

Suggested wording #2

I'm not honestly sure what the right solution is, so I'm throwing this out there to get feedback/suggestions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it currently an actual issue?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with the second suggestion. Limits links, without being overly restrictive. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if a RS links a fringe theory to a mainstream one, that's reason enough for a possible "see also" - whic is only meant to be tangential a suggestion for other article of interest ... What concrete problem has there even been here? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concrete problem is proponents of fringe theories insisting that fringe theories also be included in coverage of a mainstream topic. Most proponents of fringe theories are not content with a See Also link. Usually, they want a dedicate section or even full legitimacy of the fringe theory as if it carries equal weight. WP:ONEWAY seeks to avoid all these situations, but I don't think that it's doing a good job. How do we fix this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a case in point for context? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does every discussion on how we might improve the wording need a case for context? Indeed, sometimes it is better to discuss policy issues without having a specific article in mind. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It helps discussion progress. For a concrete example, I looked at our moon landing articles where the fringe stuff is mentioned in the main Moon landing article, and seemed fine. Is there an actual or threatened problem anywhere? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I strongly agree with the sentiment. But I'm a little concerned about Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep - we're only slightly re-wording the guidelines now - but I can see demands for clarification in the immediate future. The present rule is a 'bright line' rule that easily administered. When you add words like "a consensus of" or "few" to a rule, you immediately open up lines of argument and protracted/repeated debate of the kind that the pro-fringe nut jobs are capable of endlessly pursuing. That in turn requires tighter definitions - which would likely mean additional rules...and then WP:CREEP.

The WP:CREEP guideline does inform us that unless there is a concrete example of a problematic situation, we shouldn't add new rules...although, granted, we're only amending the wording of an existing rule - I'm concerned that it opens the door to more rules being needed.

Hence, I have to weakly oppose both proposed wording changes - not because they are wrong, but because without a cause-celebre, we don't have a need - and without a need, we open the door to instruction creep. We need a clearer way to say what we mean here - preserving a bright line rule, but allowing for occasional outlier WP:RS to mention a fringe theory without providing a loophole through which a truckload of "See Also"'s can be driven.

Perhaps it should be that the one reliable source has to do more than merely mention the fringe theory. Perhaps it has to discuss it at length - perhaps it should be required to do something other than debunk the fringe theory to warrant a "See Also". I'm not sure even that is both sufficient and necessary though.

Default action: Do nothing.

SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the the problems with having such a low bar is that it flies in the face of WP:UNDUE. Here's what WP:NPOV says:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (emphasis not mine).

So, one the one hand, WP:NPOV says we should consider the broad spectrum of reliable sources on a subject, but WP:ONEWAY says that we can throw that out based on a single source (even if it's an insignificant minority). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a simple "see also" link constitutes WP:UNDUE ... it's more of a relevance question. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read all of WP:ONEWAY. This isn't about simple "see also" links. It's about the broader issue of whether or not fringe viewpoints should be included in articles about mainstream topics. Should the article on the John F. Kennedy's assassination cover the Illuminati? Should the article on Barack Obama cover whether he's secret Muslim? Should the article on physics cover Time Cube? Should the article on Queen Elizabeth II cover whether she's a reptilian humanoid? NPOV says that viewpoints held by an extremely small minority should be excluded. ONEWAY implies that it only take one source to override this. Which is it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't about what to include in "see also" links... why did you focus us on the sentence relating to "see also" links? I am now confused as to what you are actually concerned about. Perhaps you could start over and explain your concern in another way. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take two

WP:ONEWAY currently states:

This is fine, and I agree with it. However, later it states:

To me, this second sentence is misleading as it implies that as long as there is at least one reliable source which connects a fringe theory to a mainstream topic, the burden of WP:ONEWAY is satisfied. Consider, for example, Apollo lunar landing conspiracy theories. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles written about the Apollo landings on the Moon. If at least one source about the Apollo lunar landings also covers lunar conspiracy theories, that opens the door for the article about the Apollo lunar landings to be a WP:COATRACK for lunar landing conspiracy theories. It seems to me that one source should not override all the other sources. I'm not really sure what the solution is. Perhaps this wording should be changed to...

Suggested wording #1

...or...

Suggested wording #2

The point that I'm trying to get at is that WP:NPOV requires that we look at the broad spectrum of reliable sources whereas ONEWAY says (or at least implies) that a single source - even if it's an insignificant minority - overrides all the others.

How should reconcile NPOV with ONEWAY? I'm not honestly sure what the right solution is, so I'm throwing this out there to get feedback/suggestions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Duncan Brown once appeared in the "See also" section of Lyndon B. Johnson, and her allegations were previously mentioned in the LBJ article. I removed all references to her in the LBJ article under the reasoning that it was never a major story to be considered anything approaching a significant part of LBJ's history, however, it is possible that one could have argued inclusion in that there were a "few independent reliable sources" that discussed her in connection with LBJ. I think it is sufficient that her article is tagged with [[Category:Lyndon B. Johnson]]. I tentatively support the addition of "few or" as suggested in #2. I'm OK with the flexibility that editors are given in judging by consensus what "few" means. - Location (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom:@Blueboar:@Alexbrn:@SteveBaker:? Would anyone else like to weigh in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like it. #1 says that a consensus of mainstream papers have to mention the fringe theory. That's an insanely high bar. There are likely to be a HUGE numbers of papers on any given subject - and to expect more than a relatively few percent of them to mention a fringe theory is asking a lot. We actually do want VERY prominent fringe theories to get a "See Also" - but they could be incredibly prominent and still not reach the level of a consensus of papers that mention them. Also the word "consensus" (in a Wikipedia context) has very complex and overloaded meanings...a consensus isn't a majority...it's going to be ikky to rule on. #2 just added a vague "few" word that's going to cause difficult discussions.

I know it's tough - but in areas like this where the fringe theorists grab anything they can to push their POV, any vagueness is going to result in endless disputes.

Sadly, I don't have alternative wording that I like better - my preference is to leave what we have alone until we can come up with something better. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support harmonizing the language between policy and this guideline, but the policy has "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views" which is to me even broader than the current wording. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But even that quote from WP:UNDUE contradicts WP:DUE (both are part of WP:NPOV) which states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." So, one part of NPOV says not to include it, and another part says not to exclude it except perhaps the See Also section. Which brings up another contradiction. WP:SEEALSO states that the 'See also' section should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article and thus, many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although it notes a couple exceptions. So, by including it in a "See Also" section is basically like saying that it belongs in the article text. What a tangled web we weave! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giving proper weight to various extreme minority and fringe views is always a bit tricky. It is a really a matter of WP:Consensus as to whether a specific view belongs in a specific article or not. The same fringe view might belong in one article and not in another. Relevance and context is important.

Assuming the consensus is that the view should be included in the article in some form, we then get to an equally difficult discussion over how much weight to give it (dose it deserve a see also... a passing remark in one sentence?... a short paragraph?... a detailed section?)... again, what is appropriate is going to depend on the specific article topic, and the specific fringe view. There is no stock "one-size-fits-all answer).

For example... I think it appropriate for our main John F. Kennedy article to mention in passing that all sorts of conspiracy theories exist regarding his assassination... and for that article to link to our John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article )for the benefit of those who want to know more)... However, it would be inappropriate for that main article to say much more than that a passing mention, or for it to go into any of these conspiracy theories in much detail.

On the other hand, it is absolutely appropriate for our John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article to go into some detail about the various conspiracy theories (although, even there, we must give DUE WEIGHT to the individual theories... the most prevalent and repeated theories get more weight, and the less prevalent and repeated theories get less weight...or no weight at all).

Change the specific article topic... and change the specific fringe view under discussion... and the dynamic that governs due weight changes completely. Each decision is unique and must be determined uniquely. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently notice fringe books and other sources in the "Further reading" section of various articles. Does Wikipedia have a guideline about this? Should it be handled similar to WP:ELNO? Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FURTHER items are not required to be reliable sources. It's often the best place to stick a work that is (or was) prominent, but is now outdated or historical, or one that is a prominent example of the woo that the article is talking about.

However, there's no rule requiring you to keep junk sources, so if it feels like WP:REFSPAM or self-promotion, then kill it. (I'll add my advice to spam fighters: if you're doing a lot of this, then keep moving. Don't stop and argue with people who disagree with you. If you remove it, and someone restores it, then let it stay. Move on to the next article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - in these difs I added explicit reference to Quackwatch and SBM to WP:PARITY. We use these all the time under PARITY and it will be useful to have them mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fields related to health and medicine, the websites, Quackwatch and Science-Based Medicine (see Mark Crislip, Steven Novella, and David Gorski) are often useful sources in this regard.^[1][2]

1. ^ Szabo, Lisa (18 June 2013). "How to guard against a quack". USA Today.
2. ^ Arabella Dymoke (2004). The Good Web Guide. The Good Web Guide Ltd. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-903282-46-5. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Quackwatch is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information. Its aim is to investigate questionable claims made in some sectors of what is now a multi-million pound healthcare industry.

Please get consensus for this. Sources are not carte blanche acceptable and or reliable They are reliable specifically per the content they support.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for talking. The content I added did not give carte blanche; that is not an accurate description of the content I added, which was "are often useful". I copied the proposed content above, to clarify the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition by Jytdog. Littleolive oil, the addition does not give blanket license to use these sources but says they are "often useful" in the context of WP:PARITY - which is so, is it not? Elsewhere we call out publications as generally to be avoided (e.g. the journal Homeopathy) so this kind of of naming of sources is precedented. If this text can reduce the general wibbling that often seems to erupt when Quackwatch/SBM is used, it will prove beneficial indeed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Blueboar above. His words apply here. Each decision concerning sources and content is unique.... (my paraphrase). Identifying specific sources (especially since this comes on the heels and even during an ongoing discussion about QW) implies that source is acceptable in any article a user wants to add it. Are we going to start identifying RS sources within our policies and guidelines is the question we have to ask ourselves seems to me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

General wibbling may be necessary to make sure sources are reliable per content, Since QW is already pushed because "its already used all over Wikipedia", I doubt we need more implied support for this source. Let the source be discussed per specific content rather than cementing its acceptance by identifying it in a policy or guideline. And I am uncomfortable with the addition of this while discussion is ongoing on its use. Are we in a hurry?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Olive, specific wibbling is often necessary and useful; general wibbling (of the "never use Quackwatch" or "Quackwatch is always right" type) is not useful, though a favoured perma-rant of some Wikipedians. The proposed change here is rather good in getting the point across that SBM/QW are examples of the type of publication which can be useful when WP:PARITY applies. That's right isn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

olive, nothing in what i proposed contradicts what Blueboar said. anyway, your objection has been stated and your reasons given. Alexbrn's and my support are clear. let's see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, it is not in the article now. once you contributed i re-deleted it. i am totally fine letting discussion unfold in good time. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Quackwatch and SBM are non-peer reviewed, self-published blogs that have no impact factor and are not indexed by any scientific databases. They are, by all measures, pseudoscientific sources -A1candidate (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your contribution to the discussion, A1. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the intent, but this will likely be interpreted as carte blanche permission to insert Quackwatch into fringe-related articles. What is the impetus for this proposal? Was there some specific challenge to Quackwatch? - Location (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that it will be taken as carte blanche. As I wrote above, both are used liberally already in alt-med, FRINGEY articles. To answer your question, they came up in Vani Hari, Feingold diet, and I brought Science-based Medicine in a very interesting way (that even made me some uncomfortable, but in a fun way) on Oseltamivir‎. Alt-met proponents (e.g. in my view, A1 and Olive Oil) don't like it when these sources are used in alt-med articles (hence their opposition is no surprise); and A1 has been on a bit of tear of late going after Quackwatch, in language similar and even more vociferous as that above and to be frank that is what prompted my thought to add it here explicitly. (plus I could never remember WP:PARITY) Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-med proponent. Nope, not necessarily so. And way too simplistic. The world of health care is not so black and white. Please deal with the issues concerning the source and not what an editor might or might not support which is a stawman. MEDRS is an over riding guide and I'd like to see it be consistent. Its not now. That's my impetus, not whether I'd for example, take antibiotics for pneumonia which I did. Let's stick to the issue. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

my apologies - I was asked why i cited this and went too many steps in explaining. struck. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jytdog's edit. It merely provides examples of sources that are often used when WP:PARITY comes into play. In no way does it suggest the sources may be used carte blanche. The examples appear at the end of PARITY section. This is about PARITY. It often happens that new editors revert Quackwatch or other sources when PARITY applies, so having the examples can help in that situation. Manul 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Jytdog and Manul. The point of this edit was to show that it is ok to use the source in this context. It's not the highest quality source we can get here, it's not completely unreliable, and it tends to be useful in many cases. We're trying to avoid both people saying it should always be used, and folks who think it should never be used. This seems to do the trick to me. There has already been consensus a few times over at RSN, Arbcom, etc. that the source has a use in specific cases:

Use of Quackwatch as a source An Amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source. Other significant discussions can be found at: -- RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery -- RS/N: How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? -- DR/N: Medical uses of silver

Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the necessity of this. Arbcom appeared to rule that it was not an unreliable source and various discussions appear to show that it may be used as a reliable source in context. If someone challenges the use of Quackwatch in a fringe article, why is it so difficult to point to those? Since when do we attempt to guide content by listing sources that may be use to refute fringe material? Should we also insert, "In articles related to JFK conspiracy theories, Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History is often a useful source in this regard."? This seems like a case of WP:CREEP. - Location (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support. I prefer the text say "can be useful sources". I support the proposal as long as editors don't use these sources to argue against reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]