Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 24 May 2014

This page is for discussion of the wording of the Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories guideline, not for discussion of specific theories. To discuss problems with specific theories, articles, and users, please go to the Misplaced Pages: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.

Fringe vs independence

I keep seeing an editor saying things like, "FRINGE says that we can't use fringe journals because they're not independent". WP:INDY sources really have nothing to do with their viewpoint. You can have a non-independent, non-fringe source (e.g., any major newspaper writing about the award that it just won) and you can have an independent, fringe-y source (e.g., any magazine that frequently publishes uncritical accounts of alien abductions).

It's easy enough to read a paragraph or two out of this guideline and conclude that any source that an editor believes is "wrong" or "not mainstream" is automatically both "fringe" and "not independent".

I don't have time for this myself right now, think it would be good to better define what a "fringe journal" is, and what an "independent source" is, and in particular, to deal with the misguided-sucker problem: you can have a perfectly independent author come to really stupid conclusions, and you can have a perfectly independent publication print a wildly unreliable story. Properly speaking, that gives you a minority viewpoint (possibly one so tiny that it shouldn't be mentioned), not a fringe source.

What do you think? Is this something that could be addressed in a practical way? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose a classic example of the kind of journal covered by this guidance would be this. How could we better define the characteristics that define a source as not "independent"? I think it could be tricky. I see the guidance in WP:FRINGE as being closely related to WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing reliability with weight perhaps? WP:FRIND is about weight, not about reliability. Being independent here means with regards to the mainstream. The issue is that while fringe sources often go into inordinate detail about most aspects of the fringe theory, there isn't necessarily the weight to mention those details. The details to be mentioned should be those that have received mainstream attention, not those fringe viewpoints that the editor selects as being important. Second Quantization (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Being independent means being independent, which is a pretty well-understood concept on Misplaced Pages. "Independent" does not mean "holding a mainstream POV", and never has. An animal-rights activist who gets no personal benefit from protesting drug testing in animals is independent on the subject of drug testing, no matter how minority the POV. The mainstream drug manufacturer defending the drugs they're selling is not independent, no matter how mainstream the POV.

If you want FRIND to be about POV instead of independence, then you need to pick a different word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A basic problem with this guideline, perhaps structural,is that it discusses legitimate minority views as "fringe"

A basic problem with this guideline, perhaps structural,is that it discusses legitimate monority views as if they are properly regarded as "fringe". There may be a good and sufficient treatment of alternative theories under the corresponding guideline - I have not and need not read it- but the Fringe guidleine standing on its own creates the impression that any minority opinion can be regarded as fringe. That stigmatization flickers in and out throughout the guidelinem and one can point to sections which can be viewed as offesetting the stigma and biasm but nevertheless the flawed presentation of the term "fringe" in an overly broad manner infects the whole body of the guideline so badly that a complete rewrite from scratch would probably be the only way to correct the problem. How sad that WP has painted itself into that kind of corner.

For instance, the reference to psychoanalysis being treated as "pseudoscience" uses the term ":information" where it really means "assertions" or "characgterizations". Subtle, annoying biases like this are so prevalent in this guideline it would be a Herculean labor to try to correct it Alas. GeoBard 16:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"... creates the impression that any minority opinion can be regarded as fringe". No it doesn't, see WP:FRINGE/PS. It depends on how large a support the minority opinion has. Psychoanalysis is not mentioned in this guideline. It is important not to confuse the guideline with ArbCom statements (which are not part of the guidelines). ArbCom is forbidden from setting content policy. Second Quantization (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

non-issue; just follow WP:RS with due regard to WP:WEIGHT and make use of WP:DR NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a demarcation problem - we're aware of it, and have tried to grade it. If you're unsure then contribute on the relevant article's talk page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

quick question, sorry if this is in the wrong place

If I have questions regarding policy specifically - can I address them here in talk or is there a specific board or admin help function for that? Thx in advance. SAS81 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can try to help here. What's your question? bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis" (Bosnian pyramids)

Move request to "Bosnian pyramid scheme", a phrase used in the lit. Some opponents are saying we shouldn't pass judgements on pseudoscience in the title, though this case is quite clear from RS's. (Another is saying we should move it to "hoax" instead.) The current title makes the topic seem scientific – it "obfuscates mainstream views", as our guidelines put it. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fringe BLP addition

We have a pretty good WP:FRINGEBLP section that was started with the help of talkpage watchers here, but one thing that is not addressed is notability. In particular, when should the biography of a fringe proponent be included and when should it be excluded? My feeling is that a person who is primarily known as a fringe advocate should only have a Misplaced Pages page if there is an argument that can be made on the basis of WP:BIO that the person is famous and worthy of an article independent of the nature of the claims the person is making. In other words, someone who was a professor who had a quirky idea wouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages just because they were a fringe proponent but because they passed WP:PROF. A person who was a media celebrity who believed in a fringe theory wouldn't be included on the basis of simply their fringe beliefs but rather on passing either WP:ARTIST or WP:ENTERTAINER. There is a tendency to over-include fringe theorists at Misplaced Pages that we should explicitly warn against.

jps (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is more suitted for WP:N since this has more to do with how much coverage someone advocating a fringe theory gets that the fring theory itself.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well... this policy is (in part) about notability and noteworthiness, so I do think this is worth discussing (note: In my usage, the term "notability" determines whether we should have a bio article about the fringe advocate... while noteworthiness determines whether we should mention the fringe advocate in some other article). There are (a few) fringe advocates who have become notable because of their fringe advocacy (David Icke comes to mind), and these people merit having a Bio article. There are other fringe advocates who are noteworthy (but not notable) for their fringe advocacy, and these might be mentioned in related articles (such as the articles about the theory itself) without having a Bio Article. Then there are fringe advocates who are neither notable nor noteworthy (even in an article about the fringe theory itself). The key to determining which is which is to examine the level of coverage the person (as distinguished from his/her theory) gets in reliable independent sources. Essentially, we are using source coverage to try to determine the level of name recognition beyond the cadre of fellow fringe advocates and their followers. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E: people notable only for their fringe advocacy do not have an article about them as a person, but are only mentioned in the article about the theory? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that stretches BLP1E beyond its intent. I don't think advocating a theory really qualifies as an "event". (And if so... does that mean that when a self-promoting Fringe theorist advocates two nutty theories, BLP1E no longer applies) Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think that is what's meant by a single event. By that logic someone who is only known as a business man could not have an article since being in a business would be also treated as single event. I think BLP1E would apply more to a case where fringe theory proponent only gets brief coverage when they are arrested after crashing a scientific convention in an attempt "expose the cover up" and then is rarely if ever heard from again. Another non fringe theory example of this would be the student who was tased at the University of Florida when John Kerry was speaking there. I personally see a big difference between those examples and a case where someone is known for years for pushing a fringe theory.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that's not what's meant by a single event, but we need to guard against the multiplying of articles that could easily be merged. E.g. if Fringe Theorist writes Fringe Book which inspires Little Fringe Movement, which runs Fringe Website, we may still only need one article. David Icke, by the way, if he had never taken the lizard route, would have been notable as a TV sports commentator and also as a UK Green Party activist. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I was only disputing the suggestion that someone only known for a fring theory could not have an article per BLP1E. It could very well be possible that most articles of this nature should be merged but not for that reason.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a lot of problems at the intersection of "fringe" and "low notability", because the topic (such as a person advocating fringey things) only has a little coverage by sources, and that coverage is typically "in universe" rather than being truly independent mainstream sources. This makes it difficult or impossible for us to build neutral content. Given the choice between following the sources (not neutral), or trying to compensate for the sources' weaknesses (original research), or having no article at all, I would choose the latter. bobrayner (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner (talk · contribs) - I am writing an essay of this subject, which I think that WP:MAINSTREAM editors don't have adequate support from the rest of the community because they haven't considered in depth the problems. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

bobrayner, Barney the barney barney, Itsmejudith, ::User:TheRedPenOfDoom, Blueboar, jps - I'd really appreciate seeing how this applies to the discussion at Talk:Richard C. Hoagland#RfC: Should article be trimmed down. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I know what to do in these situations. This discussion has made it clear to me that it is possible for someone to be notable for fringe beliefs alone, but what is the threshhold of notability? It has to be nontrivial coverage by mainstream sources, but the problem is that there is a muddy line between mainstream and non-mainstream sources when it comes to things like sensationalized newsmedia coverage or cable television networks. My inclination is to say that serious academic attention should be paid, but that would eliminate many internet famous fringe advocates such as Gene Ray, Terrence McKenna, or, yes, Richard Hoagland. Maybe this is the right way to go? But I have a feeling that Misplaced Pages is not in the state right now to delete so many of these articles. More thoughts on this would be appreciated. jps (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we have a problem that can't be sorted with the application of BLP and verifiability policies. Reduce articles to what can be reliably sourced and at the same time ensure that there is no advocacy of fringe theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

New inline template

I added a new inline template for bias sources. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a few problems with that template... non-independent sources are not not always problematic. Yes, their use is very limited, but there are situations in which they can be used appropriately. It would be better if it read "non-independent source used inappropriately", instead of just "non-independent source?". Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thinking some more on this... the template could be even more concise... perhaps:

"inappropriate use of non-independent source?"

or even (simply) "inappropriate use of source?" (although that broadens the scope of the template beyond what I think QuackGuru intended).

The underlying issue is that the flaw isn't in the independent/non-independent nature of the source... but in how the source is being used in a specific article. I think Quack's amended template is good since it now highlights where the problem actually is... inappropriate usage of the source. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be part of a dispute in which some editors misunderstand "independent" as meaning "holding a mainstream POV", e.g., "Altmed is fringe by definition". Some altmed is definitely fringe (e.g., the woman who said that she could diagnose cancer by checking skin conductance). Some altmed is definitely not.

Overall, this template's contents needs to match its name, and a name like that is going to be a disaster: every POV pusher (whether majority or minority POV) is going to tag every source they dislike with this.

Also, we already have a tag for independence: {{third-party-inline}}. User:QuackGuru, I think you should tag the one you just created for deletion, and just use third-party-inline when you encounter a non-independent source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

When you click on the third party-inline template it links to Misplaced Pages:Independent sources.

When you click on the bias source-inline template it links to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories#Independent sources.

The bias source template is specific for fringes journals whereas the third party-inline is about non-independent sources in general.

I think it is better to use a more specific template for certain situations. When I initially created the MEDRS template editors thought it was unnecessary because we already have a regular RS template. QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that "bias" and "independence" are not synonymous concepts.... they are distinct concepts that often overlap. Sure, there are biased sources that are non-independent, but bias can occur in reliable independent sources as well (the New York Times for example). And the fact that a source is non-independent does not automatically mean it is biased... a non-independent source can be neutral.

Quack... If your concern is limited to fringe journals... perhaps a "fringe journal?" template is what you really want to create. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the name of the template can be changed. User:Blueboar, if you know of a better name for the template you can fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well... the template's title should reflect the reason for the tag. So, let me ask... Under what circumstances would you want to use it? Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It will probably be used for unreliable fringe sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

OK... but in that case the text "non-independent source used inappropriately" is no longer what you are concerned about. I've changed the text of the template to match the concern.

To be honest, I think you may be creating templates unnecessarily... We already have several existing tags that we can use to tag unreliable fringe sources... for example, in the situations you talk about above (the use of a fringe journal) I would use Template:Verify credibility to question it.

Fringe as a means of labelling an entire intervention (and in some cases a profession)

User WAID made a good point that some CAM is fringe (crystal healing) and some aspects are not manipulative medicine primarily for MSK disorders. Can we have a talk about delineating between the two since there is a lot of false equivalence going at some alt-med articles (acupuncture is like homeopathy, chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation is like faith healing). DVMt (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I probably won't participate regardless, but I observe your comment is mighty abstract. Sure, we could have a discussion about anything. If there's a common problematic theme on some group of articles, it's up to the initiator to demonstrate this, via diffs and references to RSs. You are more likely to get attention of interested eds if you try again, but include both of those things to tell your story NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that it's dangerous to label all of CAM as "fringe" - I have to disagree with your conclusions about our articles. The article on acupuncture is pretty clear and seems to be unbiassed - it discusses the fact that real acupuncture is no better than "sham" acupuncture and that the placebo effect is clearly at work. It also states that all of the bs about median lines, energy flows and such is pseudoscience. We have solid references for all of those things, so in WIkipedia terms, we should consider them to be "The Truth" and to treat that field as a fringe theory. The second paragraph of the lede of chiropractic is similarly clear about where the science points (and mostly it says that it's more bullshit/placebo stuff). Osteopathic fares a little better - but even so, the evidence of scientific studies doesn't show anything like the results that the practictioners claim. I'd have no hesitation in awarding all three of those subjects the "FRINGE" and "PSEUDOSCIENCE" labels. Someone who does chiropractic manipulation in order to elicit a placebo effect is doing nothing any different from someone who puts their hand on your head and commands Satan to be gone. Neither approach is doing anything other than placebo...so why should we label them differently?

The unfortunate fact here is that the "Complementary" and "Alternative" in "CAM" is there because if these practices actually worked, they would become mainstream. Anything that really does work ceases to be complementary or alternative - so everything left under that umberella tends to be fringe pseudosciences. A great example of that is Herbalism - which is undoubtedly CAM - but which sometimes produces treatments that actually work. However, just as fast as working herbal medicines are found to pass scrutiny, they become a part of 'modern' Phytotherapy - which produces real drugs, commonly used in mainstream medicine. The problem is that as soon as you stop treating people with viral infections using "St John's wort" and instead prescribe the active ingredient "Hypericin" - you're no longer talking about CAM but mainstream pharmacuticals. That progress means that giving someone a poorly controlled amount of hypericin in a sprig of St John's wort instead of a carefully dosed amount of hypericin in a little white pill is now a fringe theory that somehow it's better to take the entire plant at ill-controlled dose levels than it is to get a mainstream prescription. Hence, I'd have to say that prescribing St.John's wort has become a fringe, pseudoscientific idea.

HOWEVER, that said - I do think it's important not to automatically label everything CAM as FRINGE. Each subject should be taken on face value with references to studies and evidence on both sides of the argument fully represented.

The situation with practitioners is a little different. Someone who is prepared to lie and cheat and falsify claims in their practice of one of these pseudosciences is going to have a very hard time earning anyone's trust in other fields. So if I see some kind of exciting new claim for a major breakthrough - and I look at the person's biography and see that they are a practicing homeopathist - then my first assumption has to be that this exciting new claim is also bullshit. But here we have the WP:BLP rules in play - so we will generally be careful in those cases too.

Note that it's not just CAM that comes under this kind of scrutiny. Check out Freudian psychology...a "mainstream" treatment option that is discussed as being in the realms of "pseudoscience" in our article.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Steve. But you make a critical error, assuming that chiropractic manipulation is a) placebo and b) has no therapeutic benefit whatsoever and c) making a comparison to Satan. Do you see the use of manipulative therapies to treat MSK disorders, such as low back pain as pseudoscience? I can make a case that chiropractic care IS mainstream for SPECIFIC conditions (back/neck pain) while not for others (non-MSK). Also, there is a plethora of research demonstrating evidence-based chiropractic as well as evidence-based practice guidelines and a evidence-based databank , evidence based textbooks yada yada. Let's do a better job at separating the wheat from the chaff. DVMt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is being discussed here, but I think it is informative that you are pointing out that chiropractic is mainstream by citing sources that are authored by, and published in, chiropractors and chiropractic friendly sources (alt med journals, etc). Certainly, if chiropractic/homeopathy/take-your-pick-of-any-of-hundreds-of-alt-med-treatments-or-modalities is mainstream, it will be described as such by sources/authors outside the in-universe echo chamber of alt med literature? Yobol (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You're making the same basic error, Yobol. All CAM interventions aren't equivalent in professionalization, research or evidence. I just demonstrated sources that demonstrated there is an evidence-based approach to chiropractic care and cited evidence-based guidelines and yet we're still equating chiropractic on the same level as homeopathy and faith healing. We have this source which states "Swedish and Norwegian GPs agree that chiropractors are competent to treat musculoskeletal conditions and the profession is completely integrated in Switzerland "Chiropractic practice in Switzerland is a government-recognized medical profession with significant interprofessional referrals resulting in earlier chiropractic treatment for many patients." and trials involving joint collaboration between DCs and MDs. . As Bob Dylan said, the times are a changin' DVMt (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that chiropractors feel they are mainstream, so producing studies authored by chiropractors and published in chiropractic journals that state they are mainstream is not particularly surprising, nor convincing. Coming to the objective conclusion that chiropractic interventions are mainstream, (i.e. that chiropractic is accepted as a mainstream by the relevant medical literature), you will need to provide evidence, again, from outside the in-universe echo chamber of alt med literature. Yobol (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about what chiropractors 'feel' this is about the sources that state as much. Are you discriminating against DC/PhDs and their conclusions in reliable journals? You casually ignored that chiropractors are mainstream in specific European countries and are working increasingly along physicians for LBP management. You also using a false dichotomy analogy, suggesting they are fringe or mainstream. Who dictates what is relevant 'medical literature'. Do you really expect MDs to be the leading source of authority on the development, professionalization and research in the chiropractic profession? Why do you automatically assume, incorrectly, that everything that comes from CAM is fringe and pseudoscience? You seem to be out of step with your very own profession that recommends a trial of chiropractic therapy for LBP. You do realize that chiropractors also use exercise, education, massage and other 'mainstream' means of management, right? DVMt (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Your very own profession"? Who said I worked in the medical field? Anywho, if the only sources that say chiropractic interventions are mainstream are chiropractors (and no one independent of chiropractors say so) we would seem to have a problem. If it is mainstream, certainly people outside of the profession would acknowledge it as mainstream, right? Yobol (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if you're not an MD, nothing but respect for the profession. You mean like the mainstream organizations like theWHO, governments around the world, the olympics, hospitals , and mainstream status in Switzerland and Norway for instance? DVMt (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I am interested that DVMt has raised the issue of an editor's "profession". DVMt claims on their userpage to be a member of WikiProject medicine, yet has no corresponding entry at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. DVMt, please make an entry on that page declaring your interests, and set (at least) my mind at rest there is no COI/advocacy issue with you here. I am sure you can appreciate why, given past events, it is ultra-important for there to be total transparency about interests for editors at work on Misplaced Pages's medical articles. In particular, what (if any) is your relation to chiropractic - you seem very ... passionate about it. Alexbrn 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How about we discuss the points being raised, i.e. comment on the content, not the contributor. You're introducing a red-herring this thread isn't about me personally, it's about exchanging ideas on how to best have long-term and stable articles on the holistic side of the fence. Regards, DVMt (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just passing by to mention that my insurance - Blue Cross - covers chiropractic manipulation (and also covers the 8 min tissue massage under a separate billing code). How do those arguing that chiro is 100% fringe explain that? If your answer is that blue cross is into paying for placebos, then why don't they also pay for ___________ (fill in the blank with placebo of your choice)? RSs to back up your opinion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we turn this discussion back towards the role of this talk page; are there any specific changes to this guideline being proposed? Yobol (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The guidance currently names Homeopathy as an unreliable journal, but I think we need some wording for altmed journals more generally, since there seems to be a recurrent disagreement happening about these. In my view we need some cautionary wording; the counter-view is that altmed journals should be generally considered reliable & independent for altmed topics (in the same way a surgery journal is okay for surgery content). Either way, more clarity would be good. Alexbrn 03:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the default stance is chiropractic and acupuncture are 100% fringe/pseudoscientific. In fact, the alt-med article itself states in the lede "Complementary medicine is alternative medicine used together with conventional medical treatment in a belief, not proven by using scientific methods. That statement is bogus because it suggests a) it's entirely a belief system that b) is based on placebo and c) cannot be investigated scientifically. Thus, the narrative is always in the skeptic tone, doubtful without acknowledging of any validity whatsoever and outright denying that there is evidence-based complementary medicine. Misplaced Pages is undoubtedly not presenting the body of knowledge in manipulative medicine because the default POV is that it's pseudoscience despite being proven to help with MSK disorders, at a minimum. Regarding fringe theories: Are manual therapies for musculoskeletal disorders pseudoscientific and fringe and/or controversial? This is a broad statement because it involves all the health practitioners such as DOs, DCs, PTs, MDs, DVMs, NDs. We can kill a lot of birds with this stone if done right. Looking forward to a collaborative engagement. Regards, DVMt (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Yobol, good point. I was confused and assumed this was the fringe noticeboard, which is probably better suited for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The noticeboard would likely kick this back here. This is a big topic. Would arbcom be a better venue? DVMt (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Independent sources section

This section currently starts out:

• The best sources to use when describing fringe theories ... are independent reliable sources.

I'm not sure this is totally correct. It really depends on the specifics of what is being described and in what article. In an article that is about a fringe theory, it is appropriate to include a purely descriptive outline of what the various claims made in a fringe theory are... and in that limited context the most reliable source is in fact a source where the claims are made... a non-independent source written by a proponent of the theory. That's an appropriate use of a primary source.
To make an analogy... in an article about a work of fiction, it is appropriate to include a plot summary. The most reliable source for that plot summary is the work itself... the primary source. Now, many of us would agree that fringe theories are works of complete fiction... so wouldn't it be logical that the most reliable source for a descriptive outline (plot summary) of that work of fiction is the theory itself (as presented by its proponents).
Now, I do understand that great care is needed here... appropriate use of primary sources is tricky. And we absolutely need independent secondary sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY and DUEWEIGHT. I absolutely do not want to change that. My only point is that there are (very limited) situations when a non-independent primary sources is actually better and more reliable than an independent secondary one. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the use of primary sources for the basic claims of fringe theories may be more reliable than a secondary source in certain circumstances; however, I see at least a couple of issues with using primary sources like this. First, many fringe theories change over time, such that any one primary source is only a snapshot of that theory and the secondary source would be a better source to capture context. Also, some fringe theories (intelligent design comes to mind) are based on a, shall we say, deceptive pretext about the core and intent of its theory, such that the best description of that theory is still the secondary source. If we are to change this wording, I think we have to be very careful. Yobol (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that we need to be careful... which is why I raised my concern on talk rather than try to formulate a BOLD edit.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar that in some cases a primary source is most reliable, and I'd add perhaps definitive in describing a fringe theory. The "deceptive pretext and intent" is often part of the theory itself, should be included, and may be why the fringe theory is fringe in the first place. What should not happen is that the criticism of a fringe theory is present with out a description of the theory itself, and that description may be found in so- called, non-independent primary sources. The reader should not have to go elsewhere to find information about the fringe theory we're talking about even as we criticize the theory itself.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC))

Exactly... any good article about a fringe theory should include a neutral outline of the major components and claims that make up the theory. This neutral outline is best supported by citation to its major proponents. A good article would also contain analysis and criticisms of the fringe theory... that analysis and criticism should be supported by independent secondary sources. Indeed, I would say that everything except the neutral outline would need to be supported by independent secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The neutral outline is best written from such sources (and tertiary sources if available). Yes, there are exceptions and I agree that those are "(very limited) situations".

We are talking weight here, correct, and not just definitions? --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar's version which i reverted to says this in best language.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

Howso? --Ronz (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you Ronz. The version in place is badly worded and its language redundant. It actually says the same thing but in less succinct language than the Blueboar version. I am concerned that immediately following a mention of this discussion on another article, Deepak Chopra, you came here immediately and reverted. Too bad.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

Ronz... I firmly believe that when describing a theory (whether fringe or mainstream), one should always cite the primary source, as that is the MOST reliable source possible for such material. Do you disagree with that? Blueboar (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with your statement as written. If it is the most reliable source possible, even just for description, then it would be more reliable than a secondary source which also describes the same thing (no matter how good that secondary source was). I would also start checking for UNDUE problems - without a secondary source, there is often no reliable way to determine that the specific detail being proposed for citation is significant or representative. Sunrise (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of:

The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

I would suggest something like this:

Reliable secondary sources should be used to determine a fringe theory's notability, prominence and its relationship to mainstream scholarly discourse; the space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration of the secondary sources. Primary sources produced by proponents of the fringe view may be used in accordance with WP:PSTS, but should be approached with caution. Editors should balance the need to describe the theory accurately with the importance of not turning Misplaced Pages into a platform for the fringe view. If secondary sources are used in place of primary sources, it is important to make sure that the secondary sources accurately describe the primary-source material; editors should check the primary sources rather than relying entirely on the secondary sources and should use high-quality secondary sources where available.

SlimVirgin 05:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that this opens the door to endless objections to a given source -- even an expert source -- based upon the notion that an editor knows better than the expert. The creationist literature is chock full of claims that scientists have misrepresented creationists. It's almost expected that supporters of creationism will claim that their side is being misrepresented, and we'll certainly find some Wikipedians holding that view. Where does it end? On Misplaced Pages, it has to end with high-quality expert sources from mainstream science. vzaak 05:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and if the sources really are high quality it's often okay (but I have seen very high-quality sources completely misrepresent primary sources, so it's not always okay). The problems arise when editors use poor-quality secondary sources, or good secondary sources that remark on something only in passing. In those cases it's almost always better to use primary sources. But yes, I take your point fully, that it can open the door to silliness. I was hoping that "should be approached with caution" would take care of that. SlimVirgin 05:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the opening of the door would let in a lot of horrors. I'd be inclined to change nothing here. WP:FRINGE is only a guideline, and in the exceptional cases where primary source use might be warranted, talk page consensus to deviate from it can be gained in the normal way. Alexbrn 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What I am talking about is not "the exceptional case"... we have lots of articles about fringe theories... and every one of them contains at least a sentence or two that outline the basic components that make up the theory ... When it comes to verifying that this outline is accurate, the single most reliable source possible is the source where the theory was originally proposed... the primary source. For everything else in the article a secondary source is better... but NOT for a descriptive statement as to what the theory consists of. It is the one time when a primary source is preferred over a secondary source, and where non-independent is preferred over independent. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:PARITY gives a lot of lassitude in selecting sources on fringe topics. Are you saying there are fringe notions where no secondary source (of any kind) describes what it even is? Wouldn't that signal a notability problem (except in exceptional cases). What examples do you have in mind? Alexbrn 14:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No... I am merely saying that (contrary to what the Independent sources section currently says) a primary source is better than a secondary source for supporting a basic descriptive statement as to what the theory consists of. I am not trying to say you don't need secondary sources. You still need secondary sources to establish that the theory is notable. You still need secondary sources to establish DUEWEIGHT. You still need secondary sources for interpretation and analysis of the theory... and for everything else that makes up a good article. ALL I am saying is that a primary source is the best source for verifying a descriptive statement of what a theory consists of. This isn't just limited to fringe theories... For a descriptive outline of what Darwin said about evolution, "Origin of Species" is the best possible source... for a descriptive outline of Einstein's theory of relativity... Einstein himself is the best possible source. It is similar to how the best source for a plot summary of a work of fiction is the work itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The best descriptive outline of Darwin's statements on evolution is probably The Beak of the Finch, or perhaps 'Charles Darwin' by Janet Browne (2 volumes). The best outline of special relativity is obviously Wolfgang Rindler, Introduction to Special Relativity. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict...

I agree that in most cases the definitive content for a fringe theory or theorist is the original content that describes the theory. What we are looking for are the best sources for content. There is a tendency to get stuck on the idea of primary, secondary sources rather than the spirit of what those policies and guidelines were meant to do which is make sure we write the best and especially most accurate articles possible for an encyclopedia, a compendium of published information which implies secondary sources. Secondary sources are a given. Primary and secondary are guides for best inclusion. Right now we have articles which contain criticism of a theory with out outlining the theory . We have articles where theories and sources were edited out as not-allowable, fringe content even though that content is the underpinning for the fringe theory in the article This kind of article and editing frankly makes us look pretty silly. I am not advocating the use of primary sources, I'm advocating per WP:NOTEVERYTHING "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" - the use of a primary source in an instance where that source is the best source for the content.

I realize that there is a huge concern especially on articles which fall under MEDRS with using content that is not reliable enough that opens the door for poorly sourced content and leaves us with poor articles. The wording of the guideline must be carefully constructed to allow for the best of the sources however they are categorized. However we deal with sources that underpin "fringe" topics the guides must be outlined clearly in the guideline and not left to contentious article discussion where consensus is often determined by how many editors are already advocates for a POV position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

I think the statement that sparked this debate: "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories ... are independent reliable sources" - is correct. Note it says "the best" not "the required" or "the only". How else are to we to represent "accepted knowledge" (as Olive puts it)? I'd be interesting in hearing about specific articles where this makes us look silly - please name some. Alexbrn 16:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As I asked, "We are talking weight here, correct, and not just definitions?" In the matter of weight, primary sources should have little or no say. When it comes to definitions, then primary sources should be considered, especially from sources that take such definitions seriously (which is hard to establish without secondary sources). --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like some example where our current articles are either using the fringe proponents successfully or where the content of the articles has been damaged by excluding the definitions expressed by said proponents. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If the only available RS to describe a fringe theory is a primary source, then IMO that particular fringe theory isn't really WP:NOTABLE and shouldn't be covered by us at all. On the other hand, if adequate secondary sources exist to establish notability, then it is OK to use primary sources as statements of personal opinion, e.g., "So-and-so thinks" and "according to so-and-so". In sum, I think simply applying existing standards of notability and primary vs secondary sources is enough. Anything we say here should simply explain how to apply those. We should not create new (redundant) language to cover this already-covered issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. As an example of an article that I think gets the whole source usage thing right... take a look at Masonic conspiracy theories. For the first half of the article, independent secondary sources are used to establish notability and due weight... the article also uses independent secondary sources to support statements about the history of these theories... it also uses them when interpreting and analyzing the theories. HOWEVER... in the second half of the article... when (neutrally) describing the various claims made by conspiracy theorists, the article directly cites the theorists themselves... thus correctly citing primary sources to directly verify that we are summarizing the claims listed accurately. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: "accepted knowledge"? I am quoting the policy, just follow the link. I am making a simple point. The definitive source for a theory is the primary source where that theory is initially presented. This does not mean secondary sources are also useful nor does it mean the primary source is the only RS. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

Exactly: "accepted knowledge regarding its subject". The primary source(s) gives us the subject, good secondary source(s) give us the accepted knowledge regarding it. This refers to an old arbcom finding: "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details". I think you are arguing against yourself! Alexbrn 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree w/ Alexbrn (I think), I would reprhase to say it this way

1. Secondary sources are imperative to overcome the first hurdle - WP:NOTABILITY
2. Primary sources do not "give us the subject". Rather, they tell us what a proponents say about the subject.
3. Secondary sources tell us (A) the mainstream view in general and (B) the mainstream's critique of the fringe claims
4. Secondary sources can also tell us about things people are doing to get evidence on the matter

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Accepted knowledge is both subject and source. The definitive source for the bible, the subject, is the bible itself. There are places within article where we have to cite the primary source.This does not mean we are advocating exclusion of any other sources, but rather are inclusive for verification. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC))

First you have to kill me to keep me from claiming my version of the bible is "more definitive" than your different version.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh I'm willing to compromise if it means that much... :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

The purpose of WP:FRIND

The arguments being made about the use of primary sources seem to assume that we are talking about a well-defined hypothesis that is testable and generally amenable to scientific investigation. In that domain the arguments seem marginally OK, or at least not completely wrong.

However WP:FRINGE also covers pseudoscience, which is another ballgame. In this case we are talking about something which may not be well-defined, or testable, or generally amenable to scientific investigation. Something characterized as pseudoscience can involve a mixture of science-y sounding terminology, psychology, social dynamics, and esoteric beliefs. A pseudoscience proponent may play a shell game, saying one thing when responding to scientists but another thing when the audience is the general public. A scientist can point to a specific statement and say, "look, this is wrong," but (metaphorically) the pseudoscience proponent lifts the shell to reveal that it was empty. What a dupe! See, scientists just don't understand!

Thus when editors use primary sources for a pseudoscientific topic, they may become (even unwittingly) complicit in the shell game. WP:FRIND serves to pull editors out of the game. Others (secondary sources) have waded through the morass, and it's not the job of editors to give it a try themselves. vzaak 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Vzaak. There are a few problems. Misplaced Pages is currently engaged in false dichotomy with respect to fringe. It assumes, incorrectly that things are either 100% mainstream or 100% fringe. In reality, these are opposites ends of a spectrum of between the two poles. We aren't delineating, as is policy, between pseudoscience, junk science, questionable science and alternative theoretical mechanisms. This helps out make sweeping generalizations, another fallacy, which leads to constant NPOV disputes. In fact, is there any article at WP that employs this grading system? . Here is a discussion about this very topic. Note the locus of dispute, which is very specific. As WAID, suggests, this is all relative and exists in a spectrum and all of alt-med isn't automatically fringe. DVMt (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant to the issue we have been discussing above... "what is the best source for a basic descriptive statement outlining what the theory consists of."

Let's take an example... suppose someone advocates that sticking beans up your nose cures cancer. Now, let's assume that there are some secondary sources that comment on this theory (perhaps saying that it's total hogwash)... OK, those secondary sources are enough for us to call the theory notable, and so we write an article on Legume-nasal insertion. As part of that article, we would want to include a basic description of what the Legume-nasal insertion theory actually is. Perhaps something like: "Proponents of the Legume-nasal insertion theory believe that beans emit what they call "quantum-dementional L-waves" that when combined with nasal mucus erodes the inner chi of cancer cells. Or in simpler language, that sticking beans up your nose cures cancer." THAT BASIC DESCRIPTIVE STATEMENT, laying out what the proponents of the theory say, is best supported by a citation to the proponents who actually say it. That's all we are talking about. Everything else in the ariticle is best supported by independent secondary sources... but not that one descriptive statement. Blueboar (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

One quibble, I would only say that primary sources are OK for that purpose, but I don't agree they are absolutely-positively the best. For one thing, different proponents of fringe ideas frequently say similar but not quite the exact thing. In such cases we can't elevate one as being the statement while ignoring the other, else we're guilty of UNDUE. And even the same proponent might say different things at different times or to different people. If there are good secondary sources that describe the fringe view, I think those are probably "the best" in most cases. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes... I completely agree that for the meta-analysis of DUEWEIGHT, we need to look at secondary sources. Analysis should always be based on secondary sources. I am not suggesting that we change that at all... but, once we decide which aspects of a theory deserve DUEWEIGHT, then we should still cite the proponents of the theory (or various sub-theories) when describing what they say. When describing what someone says... a source where they actually say it is always best. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blueboar, that's not the situation I addressed in my post. I also don't see how DVMt's comment significantly bears on what I wrote.

Here is another reason to use independent sources: a pseudoscience proponent may be strawmanning the mainstream scientific view, and there may not be a mainstream rebuttal to the straw man. vzaak 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's not the situation you addressed in your post... that is part of the confusion here. We all keep talking about different situations that have nothing to do with each other. The situation you address in your post has nothing to do with the situation I have been addressing in my posts. We are talking about different things. I have been saying that "non-independent primary sources are best in situation X"... people keep replying to that with: "No... you need Secondary sources in situation Y". The thing is... I have no disagreement when it comes to situation Y... my concern is specifically about situation X. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's an indictment of how you've explained your concern, which appears to allow primary sourced material to say things that are WP:OR because no one else is doing a good enough job explaining said OR. Have I explained it wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Read again and recheck WP:OR. You do seem to have misunderstood the several editors who are discussing this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

Explain it to me again so that I understand, then. Or provide an example of an article that's actually good (and not a hit piece by a partisan) that does it the right way, or an article that's bad that would see benefit from doing it. While doing that, try to remember that trying to change policy to win disputes doesn't work, so avoid trying to show me something from your mediation movement or secret societies. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Another good laugh. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

That's the kind of thing that demonstrates that you are not interested in working respectfully with people you disagree with. I'll just add it to the pile. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that comment supposed to be an illustration of irony? 55 Gators (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You should. That's the kind of thing that shows that after multiple good faith comments above when presented with an assumption of bad faith and an insult; I choose to laugh instead of respond in a negative way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

Hipocrite... I have already given an example of an article that does it the right way (linked in one of my comments above). It's a good example of when to use primary sources and when not to do so. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It (Masonic conspiracy theories) is not a very good article though, is it? (C class) A lot of the "detail" sources are secondary anyway, but there is some dubious trash among the primaries used. Alexbrn 12:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some of the primaries are "dubious trash" is actually irrelevant... they would be unreliable if the article tried to imply that the theories are accurate... but it doesn't... it merely (neutrally) notes that the theories exist. When you are saying (essentially) "Some of the proponents of this dubious trash conspiracy theory say 'X'", the most reliable source for that statement is a dubious trash primary source where a proponent actually says 'X'. When you are quoting or closely paraphrasing what someone says (as is the case in that section of the article)... the most reliable source will always be a primary source where they actually say it. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's fundamentally not encyclopedic (i.e. tertiary), but instead amateur secondary research into the topic of masonic conspiracy theories. Misplaced Pages is claiming the theorists believe the masons faked the moon landings, sourced just to this. But is this really part of the theory-at-large, or just one guy who is on the fringe of the fringe? Without secondary sources we don't know. This kind of thing is actually a very good example of why we don't want primary source use being elevated. Alexbrn 14:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

New inline templates by QuackGuru

Don't seem to have much support, nor did he elaborate the purpose that these new in-line citations are needed. I'm not going to be baited into reverting, even though Quack is again violating the BRD style on WP. DVMt (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than posting specious allegations on my talk page and making bogus accusations, how about you address my point as noted above? Thank you! DVMt (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)