Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:52, 1 December 2008

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Consensus, consensus, where's the consensus?

OK... we have some people working revisions in a sandbox... some people working on a different revisions here on the talk page... and then we have a few people who have stated that they prefer the current version and want to simply stick to that.

With so many different venues and concepts floating around, I am concerned that we are headed for another WP:ATT situation... where a core group works for months and months achieving local consensus language among themselves... only to be told by the rest of the community that their efforts were for nothing... because the consensus of the larger community (who did not participate in the discussions that achieved the local consensus) preferred things the way they were.

So I think we need to take a step back and ask a basic question... Is there a consensus to support revising the guideline in the first place? I am not sure there is. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Unfortunately, the guideline is somewhere between a notability guideline (should Crypto-archaelogy have an article), a content guideline (relating to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT) for articles about fringe subjects (what should be in Crypto-archaelogy if it has an article), and a content guideline (relating to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT) for discussion of fringe subjects in non-fringe articles (what aspects of Crypto-archaelogy should be in Archaelogy if there is no Crypto-archaelogy article). It's shifted between #1 and #3, with it being assumed by some that #2 and #3 should have the same standards, and by others that they shouldn't. In particular, the section #Parity of sources in the present article specifically refers only to #2, but has been applied to others for #3.

I think that would should be done is to separate the guideline into three sections as indicated above, without changing content except to properly point each section to the appropriate parent guidelines, and emphasing which are just copying the parent guidelines, which are interpreting the parent guidelines, and which are exceptions to the parent guidelines (pointing to other releant guidelines). Then the usual edit wars could be restricted to sections.

I don't know if there's consensus for this, or not, but that's what I'd like to propose, and to try to reach consensus. It may be too early for the draft revisions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a separate issue, and one that should be dealt with only after we ask if anything in the content needs to change. I think Blueboar's absolutely right in asking for consensus for specific changes before we start talking about how to word the changes. So how about it Martin and Levine etc... what does the policy do/say or how how is it used that you feel should be changed? Please be very specific in your answers, but don't yet focus on the grammar or layout. NJGW (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When your kite string gets snarled up, in principle it can be unsnarled, especially if you're patient and analytic. But there's a point beyond which principle lapses and practicality triumphs. Some snarls should just be abandoned. Go get a new kite string. It's actually cheaper in the end than the labor it would take to salvage the old one, and you will get your kite airborne again sooner.

Theories should receive attention in Misplaced Pages in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research.

This seems a very long way of saying that when writing articles we should not include our own thoughts (OR) on the topic. And what of the very particular way of putting the point in terms of the detail of the sources? Is this because the real target here is not so much OR as non-RS? That is, is what we are being urged to resist here the temptation to pad out what can be gleaned from RS by reference to non-RS rather than by reference to our own thoughts on the subject (OR)? Or is a bit of both jumbled up together? Note, for example, that the last claim (“as it would constitute original research”) is actually false since we could just as easily fill in the gaps using non-RS.

Note also the section in which it appears is supposed to be about “Identifying Fringe Theories”. But what does this paragraph have to do with identifying a fringe theory? Nothing! It is clearly a paragraph that stipulates something that should not be done after a fringe theory has already been identified. As such it is muddled, false and in the wrong place. Time for a new kite string. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.153.90 (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The section you quote is not about OR, or RS. It's about the correct proportion of coverage devoted to minority viewpoints in articles on a subject. Verbal chat 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it ends with the suggestion that exceeding the level of detail is "original research" strongly argues that it is about original research. Admittedly, the word "proportion" in the phrase "proportion to the level of detail" does suggest that it may have started out as a point about issues of weight. If that is what it is supposed to be about though, the paragraph should say "a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute undue weight". Hopelessly muddled. New kite string needed. 66.37.153.88 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, how do you think we can avoid the situation you lay out so clearly? I think there are two obvious things: one, the current version is muddled. It mixes issues under various headings, which should be separated out. It's also very wordy- look at my revision of the section on links. The second thing is, just why are editors opposing a rewrite before they know what it will be? They have no possible basis for this. They could only have basis for it if it were already written and they'd read it. Do you think this is proper behavior? ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the generalities... it's getting us nowhere. If there is a specific issue (muddled, wordy), start a section below and give examples. If there's nothing actually broken, then what are you trying to fix??? Let's turn this right around and say it appears to us that "you have no possible basis for this rewrite. Do you think this is proper behavior?" NJGW (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, first, I think the situation can be avoided by starting over and going significantly slower... and by taking the time to fully discuss (here on this page) each issue, one at a time. Right now, I am so confused by all the different proposals that are floating around, that my reaction is to say "NO" to any changes, no matter how good or bad that change may actually be. I understand that this is an instinctual knee-jerk reaction... but it is my reaction never the less.

I really don't have any problems with the current language of the guideline, and do not see a great need to make significant changes. Obviously, you do. If you are going to convince me to change my mind, you to clearly and carefully explain exactly what you proposed to change and why. Saying... it't too wordy and muddled does not help... because I don't see it as being overly wordy and muddled. Blueboar (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #1 - wording of Parity section is unclear

OK, I'll start. I was recently told by an anon IP that "this guideline (WP:PARITY) seems to be promoting the use of Hoopers self-published web-site not preventing it." The IP I'm quoting cited the sentence "Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review," but I think the whole section could use a rewrite to explain that a) non-peer reviewed or self published sources can be used to describe a notable position/hypothesis, and b) when discussing the details and scientific consensus, all sources must be on par (parity) with the highest quality available (with the caveat that some fringe/pseudo topics are not considered worth discussing in serious journals). Can we have a support/oppose etc poll to see if there's a consensus that the wording of the parity section is unclear, and that it should be fixed? NJGW (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be fixed. I have some new thinking on it, but first I would like to have more feedback about the justification for it which I wrote into the draft. That's important. Here. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #1.5 - Parity section needs examples for why it is needed

I think this relates. Parity is only needed as an exception to the rules, so that sources which normally would not be allowed in can be used. We need to start from that point in discussing the section, because if we are not using it to loosen the rules, the we don't need it. I think someone needs to come up with examples, because I've never seen any used. Not hypothetical ones. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support Examples are good for context. Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories is one article which uses on-line news agency articles, non-journal magazine articles, scientists' blogs, on-line videos, primary sources, and self published sources to support it's various hoax-disprooving points. Anyone else have examples? (PS: the Apollo hoax article could use some clean-up if anyone here is crazy enough to duke it out over the extremely obvious ;-) NJGW (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good example. Where are otherwise-un-allowable fringe sources used in articles? I mean, truly not RS, not just those where people feel they aren't RS, but they actually meet the technical qualifications? ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 02:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example is at Titanic alternative theories, where editors often insisted that the curse of the Mummy be mentioned. The best source which discussed this was Snopes.com. NJGW (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So what you are saying is that these sources, which are not ones which we would use under the RS rules, are justified by the FRINGE Parity section? ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, given your history here, it's very strange that you're having a hard time understanding what I'm talking about... I don't like to repeat myself, so if don't know what some of my words meant in the section above, please ask for specific clarification there. This section is asking about examples. NJGW (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #1.5.1 - Parity section should be removed

Ok, I'll come out and say what I think is right: this section, as my defense of it shows, is against policy. It needs to be entirely removed, and any articles based on it cleaned up. There is no excuse under RS for it and it must be removed. I say "must," because in trying to defend it I have become convinced that it's against basic Misplaced Pages policy. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 02:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I don't know what to say... I can't believe you've been holding back on us, hiding your true feelings. I don't know where to place my trust anymore.

So which policy is it against? Which articles are "based on it"? What do we do with notable fringe theories which have no description in journal sources, or the ones which have been completely debunked to the point where even the debunking is not mentioned in journal sources? These are all issues which would need to be addressed if Parity was to disappear, and I imagine other issues would crop up as well. NJGW (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #2 - Guideline is so poorly written that it should be rewritten from scratch

• OpposeI think we also need to ask "with the guideline so unclear on where its policy actually comes from (what policy it is drawn from), and with its different threads of policy all tangled up in different sections, does this guideline actually adhere to policy? How would one know, seeing how confused it is?" Granted, a guideline can be ignored. But we should make it as clear an explanation of policy as we can. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose That is an opinion that has not found any consensus in the recent calls for similar action: October 2008, July 2008 RFC. Continuing the same old saw in the face of such obvious consensus is getting tiresome. NJGW (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't count anyone who's for it, no. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that consensus is a vote, but I count 10:1:1 (Ludwigs said "whatever") and 21:1 (and several of those were saying "upgrade to policy")... so I have no idea what your point is. NJGW (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you must be counting better than I do. I see several editors who think as I do. Not that consensus is a vote. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I definitely do not think it needs a complete rewrite. Clarifying the wording of individual sections I can agree to, but not a complete rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, you really can't object to text you haven't seen. That's not really valid. Since there could be no reasons given against it, there could be no validity to the arguments against it. Do you think you could revise that to say "I doubt I'd like another version, but I'm open minded and willing to look at the text and see?" I fail to understand rejection without knowing what you are rejecting. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 03:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether a complete rewrite is even necessary. Please don't try to change the question. If you feel that there are questions which would address specific issues you have with the guideline, feel free to start new sections below. BTW, in case you decide to object to the nature of the question, it was first raised by Blueboar above, not by me or you. NJGW (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with the proposition that a wholesale rewrite is necessary. As with any policy or guideline the occasional tweak or clarification may be necessary. But the guideline as a whole is not "poorly written." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you guys afraid of? That it might be worse? Better? That you won't be able to tell? If something is worse, reject it. If something is better, accept it. If you think I have a POV which I can insert without you knowing I did it, why, thank you. I didn't know I was that smart. If you are just opposing for the sake of opposing... keep goin'. But give a reason for opposing the creation rewrite that no one asked you to work on yourself unless you wanted to. You simply have no reason for this. BTW, if editors want to rewrite, that is their business. Misplaced Pages doesn't work by "getting consensus to draft." So, perhaps I shouldn't respond, but this is just getting us nowhere. If you don't want to participate in the discussion of the rewrite, that's up to you. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment here seems orthogonal to the statement that I made. I was responding to the specific assertion that the "guideline is so poorly written that it should be rewritten from scratch." I acknowledge that giving a specific answer to a specific question is unfashionable in some quarters, but that's what I tend to do. If you want me to respond to an alternate proposal you need only ask. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, no one is telling you what you can and can't do... but if there's no consensus for a rewrite don't get upset when you come in with a rewrite and we say, "we don't need it." Obviously if you think a rewrite is needed, you have specific issues you feel should be addressed. Now's your chance to list them below and see if others agree, or else we'll assume the guideline is fine the way it is. NJGW (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose As I've said before, I think the issues that are debated that seems to need fixing should be discussed here. I don't see a need for a total rewrite like is being done by a few. Just bring your concerns here and talk it out. As I have said before, this guideline is referred to very often and needs to be stable and issues should be discussed here and a consenses reached for major changes prior to implementing them. I'd like to ask is what is the fear of doing it here and not on another rewritten page? This is the page that editors refer to thus the page they are watching. Of course this is just my humble opinion from watching both. --CrohnieGal 12:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

None: you see, the problem is that what's needed is arrangement of current ideas in FRINGE into a coherent whole. That can't be done piecemeal, thus the need for another page, where all the sections can be seen to fit together before we put them in. There is no objection to consensus. In fact, wider consensus than those here will be needed. I'll announce at the Pump and other places before putting it in. In the meantime, there are specific issues which I've brought up here, and I'd like your comments on. BTW, what we're doing is not a rewrite, but a separating out of ideas. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 20:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If "what we're doing is not a rewrite" then why does the title of this section say "it should be rewritten from scratch"? My head is starting to spin like that girl in The Exorcist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask NJGW, I didn't make the headings. The heading is the reason I voted, above, not to rewrite it completely. I just want to clean it up, as the draft shows. We have complete consensus it shouldn't be re-written from scratch. All I've done with the draft is copy things over, while keeping different subjects separate. I took out the redundancies. I did rewrite the lead, tho, but it's just a suggestion. I rewrote only enough to make it clear- as little as possible while taking out the cruft. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue #3 - Some guidelines and policies need to be reiterated here

Some have suggested that policies and guidelines like wp:SOCK and wp:RS need not be discussed here, but as a recent episode at at ANI pointed out, it might be very important to make strong and, to some, redundant statements:

I would suggest making all of the nationalist and pseudoscience articles explicit sock-free zones. Choose a date for implementation, and from that date forward, only one account per person can edit anywhere in the zone, and using multiple accounts to edit would resulting in blocking of all.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and think that this should be stated explicitly here. Perhaps the only changes I would make would be to make the wording perfectly clear that, while some sections may seem repetitive to other policies/guidelines, there are very good reasons for this. NJGW (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought we already had policy against such socking? Anyway, this isn't the place for it. You have to do more than change FRINGE. Fringe is, also, a guideline: we don't create new stuff here. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the links. It's layed out very clearly, in multiple levels of detail. Then come back and support or oppose this proposal, with a reason. Thanks. NJGW (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Oh, you mean the AN/I? Are you saying that there is consensus on that thread to invoke special measures on fringe articles? If so, could you give a quote, as I don't see it after the Kww quote. This is not a matter, anyway, for a guideline. It's a matter for the ArbCom special measures which apply to FRINGE areas. Try to get consensus for it at AN/I. So, my above objection applies. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 03:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• reply I didn't say there was consensus there for anything, only that a long drawn-out discussion came up there that could have been taken care of with a few lines here. Kww explains the issue quite well. Thank you for your input. NJGW (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't write policy here. I think you should look into the ArbCom special restrictions. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 04:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the arbcom special restriction against us preventing disruption through tweaking this guideline. NJGW (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, we don't tweak a guideline to make policy, we tweak policy to make policy. ArbCom doesn't deal with that issue. Go and put it in WP:SOCK, which is a policy. Don't try to change policy from a guideline. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, from your previous statement I thought you were going to give me a reference for your statement... now all I have to go on are your confusing replies. Please explain to us why we should not try to change any guideline into a policy. NJGW (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you changed the subject. If you want to try and turn it into a policy, that is your prerogative. ——Martin Ψ~Φ—— 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Who changed the subject? You brought up making policy. This section is about restricting disruptive behavior. I heard something about a restriction from Arbcom (who was it again that brought that up???) that might apply here, but since no one's linked to it I guess it doesn't apply. NJGW (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason to go into wp:SOCK in this guideline. While articles on Fringe topics might attract more sockpuppets than articles on more mundain topics, it is a different issue from a policy point of view, and we already have a clear guideline on sockpuppetry. As for wp:RS... all we really need to say is that the need to cite to reliable sources applies to all Misplaced Pages articles, and that includes articles on fringe topics. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin asking for suggestions in draft

Arthur Rubin, I'm having trouble in the draft separating it into the original sections, because so much relates to both articles on fringe topics and articles with fringe topics in them. So that may not quite work. However, what really needs doing is to say where the guideline is coming from in terms of policy, and to keep the issues separated.

As to what in the guideline needs to change in terms of meaning: not much. However:

We need to do some major talking about the Parity of sources section. I have some new thinking on it, but first I would like to have more feedback about the justification for it which I wrote into the draft. That's important. Here.

Other than that, probably not much change. I do insist that we keep the bit about not debunking- sorry (:

I do agree with the IP that while the meaning doesn't need changing, the layout of the ideas is just too muddled to fix the current version.

So please, give me some feedback on Parity, and also read the new draft- I think you will see that it keeps the essence, while also making things just a bit stronger. For example, in the Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories section I added "Even when reliable sources mention a fringe theory, Misplaced Pages may not include the theory if its prominence in the sources is very low." ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we please keep comments and questions that relate to the sandbox draft to the talk page for the sandbox draft... this way people know what is being talked about. When the sandbox draft is in final form, it can be presented here, until then it just confuses matters to mix the two. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Booth Escaped

(discussion moved to Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Booth_Escaped

Fringe theories wiki proposal

There is a proposal for the creation of a fringe theories wiki at Wikia. You can join in that discussion if you wish. Discussion link --Shambola (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss this is at Wikia itself, and not here or at the Misplaced Pages article about Wikia. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Please discuss the proposal at this linked page: Discussion link. --Shambola (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this guideline

Does this guideline apply only to fringe science topics, or does it apply to minority or fringe ideas in any field ? For example, does it apply to articles on minority religions, such as Discordianism, or to articles on minority political beliefs, such as anarchism ? This question has arisen in discussions of the Seth Material article, which is certainly not a fringe science topic (as it makes no scientifically testable assertions), but may be a fringe idea within its own field of mediumship and channeling (although how one can distinguish fringe from mainstream in that field is far from clear to me). Gandalf61 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It started as a guideline for Fringe science topics, but quickly to encompass any and all Fringe theories. In the case of Seth Material, both medumship and channeling are Fringe concepts (ie beyond the mainstream) and so are subject to the various cautions and strictures of this guideline. Thus the same would apply to the Seth Material/

Remember that this guideline does not say that we should not have articles on Fringe topics... it mearly tells us that, in order for us to discuss it, a fringe topic has to have achieved a certain degree of recognition by the mainstream. Not acceptance by the mainstream... just recongition that the theory exists. The guideline then goes on to tells us how we should discuss those fringe topics that do meet the recognition requirement.

Channeling and Medumship are definitely broad topics that have achieved enough recognition by the mainstream for us to discuss them in wikipeida... However, I have doubts as to whether the Seth Material itself has achieved such recongition. In other words, I think we are dealing with a specific Fringe idea, which falls within a more general fringe topic. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. And when you say "mainstream" here, do you always mean mainstream science ? Or could this be some other mainstream - mainstream religion, mainstream philosophy, mainstream politics, mainstream music, for example ? Gandalf61 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, when we use "mainstream" we are not limiting outselves to mainstream science... although for topics that involve science that would certainly apply. We use a broader meaning of the word to include: anything "belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc" (to use the definition found at Dictionary.com)... In other words, we use mainstream in its broadest sense of: ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay - but "most people" is terribly vague - do you mean "most of the people in the USA" ? "Most English speaking people" ? "Most people with a secondary education" ? "Most of the people in the world" even ? Taken across the world as a whole, "most people" have never heard of Ethelred the Unready or baroque music - does that make them "fringe topics" ? What objective benchmark do you think we can use to measure or determine "recognition by the mainstream" or "ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people" for non-scientfic topics such as Ethelred the Unready, baroque music, Seth Material, Discordianism or anarchism ? Gandalf61 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no "objective benchmark" ... because it is a subjective concept. In the case of Ethelred, baroque music and anarchism, the mainstream would be what is accepted by the majority of people who have a basic understanding of history, music or political science. The mainstream is guided by, but not defined by what experts in the field (scholars and the like) say. Even an expert can come up with a theory that the mainstream rejects, and that theory will be considered Fringe. More to the point, Ethelred, baroque music, and anarchism are considered "mainstream topics" because most people consider the broader field of study under which they fall to be acceptable topics of study. That is less the case with the other two on your list.

In the case of Discordianism and Seth Material... these are both Fringe topics, because they both fall within broader fields of sudy which the majority considers somewhat Fringe to begin with (minority religious beliefs in the case of Discordianism, and spirit chanelling in the case of Seth Material). Yes, within the small group who study these topics, there may be accepted and non-accepted ideas, but the topics themselves are not accepted by the majority. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you don't want to clarify what you mean by "most people" or "the majority". So let's leave that to one side.

Let me see if I understand the rest of your post correctly. You seem to be saying that, outside of the area of science, there is no objective benchmark that separates fringe from mainstream. And so the definitions of fringe and mainstream are a matter of individual opinion, experience and taste - but the opinions of experts in a given field carry more weight than less informed opion. So when you say Discordianism and Seth Material are both fringe topics, is that your opinion as a lay person ? Or are you an expert in the fields of comparative religion and spirit channeling ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion as a lay person, as a member of the mainstream... which is exactly the point. "Mainstream" is determined by the opinions of lay people and not by experts. Experts often inform what the mainstream thinks, but if they reject what the expert says then it isn't mainstream. Sometimes the mainstream has not made up its mind on something (for example: was Jesus devine, or was he just a wise rabbi? The mainstream is split between Christians non-Christians. Both views are considered "mainstream") Sometimes it has (Can you contact spirits through channelling?... the mainstream says no). Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Can you contact spirits through channelling?... the mainstream says no" - does it really ? How do we know that ? Well, by your latest definition we need to consult the opinions of lay people - and there are a very large number of lay people who believe you can contact spirits through channeling. So just how many believers do you need for a belief to be "mainstream" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The key here is that there is a vastly larger number of people who do not believe in chaneling than who do believe in channeling. Like it or not, channeling is considered a Fringe concept. However... and this is important... it is a notable Fringe concept. The mainstream has definitely taken note of the concept of channeling and it has been discussed extensively in mainstream sources. Thus, Misplaced Pages can and should discuss it. The next question is... has the mainstream taken note of a specific aspect of spirit channeling? Has it noted the existance of a specific medium, or a specific medium's claims about channeling. In other words... while we certainly should have an article on the broad Fringe topic of Channeling, there is a legitimate question as to whether we should have an article on a specific medium or claim? Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A Google books search on 'pseudoscience psychic channeling' shows up some useful stuff from reliabile sources that puts channelling squarely within pseudoscience. dougweller (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how that is relevant, as I am asking about the definition of fringe topics outside of the science/pseudoscience field. And Seth Material is clearly not a science/pseudoscience topic, as the books make no testable scientific claims. There seems to be some confusion here between the contents of a book and its means of production - note that the Seth Material is not about channeling, although it was produced by channeling. If you are saying that Seth Material must be a pseudoscience topic because the books were produced by channeling, a pseudoscience method, then isn't this like saying that every book written on a computer must automatically be a computer science topic ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not produced by channelling, it was written by Jane Roberts. There is a claim that it was produced by channelling and that is pseudoscience. You're begging the question. dougweller (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how channeling is not testable. It seems testable to me, and therefore scientific. II | (t - c) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some claims made for channeling may be testable, and the topic of channeling itself is a pseudoscience topic. But the Seth Material article is not about channeling and it makes not claims about channeling. It is about the background, contents and critical reaction to a set of books. The books themselves are spiritual/philosophical/religious in nature - nothing in them seems to be scientifically testable.

But this is a side issue - perhaps we can return to the main topic of this thread. I still see no clear definition here of what separates fringe from mainstream outside of the fields of science and pseudoscience. Blueboar made a brave attempt with his suggestions that mainstream is "ideas and concepts that are commonly held and accepted by most people" and "what is accepted by the majority of people who have a basic understanding of <the field in question>". However, both of these definitions are too vague and subjective to be useful yardsticks, because we don't have an agreed context for "most people" or "the majority", and we don't know what counts as a "basic understanding". Can anyone else do better ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just want to reitterate something here... the "mainstream" does not have to accept or believe a fringe claim for Misplaced Pages to have an article or section of an article on that claim. The threshold is discussion by mainstream sources, not acceptance by the mainsteam. In this sense, WP:FRINGE is a notability guideline, clarifying and expanding upon the requirement at WP:NOTE that notability must be established by reference to reliable sources that are independant of the subject. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I see - so the most important criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is not whether a topic is "mainstream" (however we might define that), but whether it meets WP:NOTE. So, is WP:FRINGE a stricter requirement than WP:NOTE ? Or is it a commentary that clarifies the application of WP:NOTE in certain situations - like we have at WP:PROF and WP:BIO, for example ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is both. It is a guideline that clarifies and expands upon WP:NOTE. While it is rooted in NOTE, it does lay out slightly stricter standards than NOTE does. It also goes beyond NOTE in that in addition to laying out the inclusion criteria, it also discusses how to discuss Fringe topics that meet the inclusion criteria. Thus, it can be seen as being both a notability guideline and a content guideline. It is a synthesis of NOTE, RS, and the UNDUE section of NPOV, as these policies and guidelines apply to Fringe theories and concepts. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent imposition of a version to which no one had substantive objections

I have reverted the recent deletion by Science Apologist pending discussion here on the talk page.(olive (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

Please read above. I have warned you about posting ignorant edit summaries. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)