Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:44, 25 July 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)

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)

In light of this excellent discussion, I offer a proposal below. This subject has confused me enough that I think the below addition (or something similarly worded) would be a useful addition. If this subject is confusing me, I think it's probably confusing others as well. jps (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for an additional paragraph

There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Misplaced Pages solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Such a person can be identified by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.

I suggest this change, which I think might be clearer:

There are people who are notable enough to have articles included in Misplaced Pages solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.

(Notice that I also changed the link from FRIND to WP:INDY, which is what the GNG requires.) When I first read this, I thought you were trying to determine when notable proponents should be mentioned in other articles, rather than when they qualified for their own biographies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems good to me. jps (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note

I have entered the proposed text by WhatamIdoing into the guideline. I will continue to monitor for possible WP:BRD scenarios, but I thank all the participants in this discussion for their helpful and enlightening comments. jps (talk) 19:25, 3 June 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

I think the recent change to the template is a significant improvement, but it's still redundant to {{verify credibility}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The original template I created was deleted. The new and different template is very specific for fringe theories. A specific template for this topic is an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that the narrow focus of {{Unreliable fringe source}} is helpful, and I expect it to be abused as a badge of shame for any source that an editor disagrees with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

I think there's a more practical way to approach this. What's the opposite of fringe? Is the opposite of fringe mainstream, or is it scientific? Mainstream does not equal science (more's the pity), so in cases where those two diverge, which one is the non-fringe POV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 27 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)

We are still not discussing the same thing ... what you keep talking about is DUE WEIGHT... And I AGREE with you about DUE WEIGHT... you do need independent sources to determine DUE WEIGHT. I have no intention of changing that. The flaw in the FIND section that I have been trying to fix has nothing to do with DUE WEIGHT... what I am addressing relates to VERIFIABILITY , not DUE WEIGHT. I am noting that (contrary to what is said in the section) Primary sources are actually better than secondary sources when it comes to verifying descriptive statements of what someone says. When an article notes that "X says Y about Z"... the most reliable source to verify that statement is a source written by X where he actually says Y about Z. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, assuming that the primary source isn't too confusing. If you want to really prove that Bob Smith said that "unicorns really do exist", then there's nothing more authoritative than the original source in which he says exactly that. But in some cases, the primary source may be too complex or confusing to really be usable. You probably shouldn't use Finnegans Wake as your source for the plot(?) summary there, either, even though we routinely use books as the (primary) sources for their own contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if an editor can't understand the primary sources on a topic they shouldn't be editing that topic at all. Without that fundamental understanding how can an editor make educated decisions about any of the secondary sources. Finnegan's Wake, as an example, is the primary source for the novel; we must be able to use it. If we can't understand it, and it is difficult, then perhaps others should be editing there. Just a thought.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

So only people who fully understand scientific literature should be permitted to write anything at all about scientific topics? Only people who understand middle English should be permitted to report basic facts about The Canterbury Tales? And nobody at all should be able to write about the Voynich manuscript, because nobody in the entire world actually understands the primary source? This isn't viable.

(You do realize that Finnegans Wake is considered by scholars to be one of the very most confusing works of modern English literature, right?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Its viable for editors to gravitate towards what they have knowledge of. If you can't understand the primary source then how can you possibly select content to reflect accurately the subject of the article. Non scientists might edit some science articles but other science topics may require knowledge they don't have. It makes sense to leave that to those who are more expert. And yes, I studied Finnegans' Wake with Edmund Epstein. Because it is so complex; it should not be tackled by anyone who hasn't knowledge of the work itself, who knows who the experts in the area are, and so the sources, so that in writing they have knowledge of the work as a basis to work from. This is just my opinion of course.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

Because if you can't understand the original source, then it's impossible for you to add material about when the book was published, who the author was, and other facts? I don't agree. In fact, people who know that they don't understand the primary source are less likely to be tempted into original research and POV pushing. There's a reason that we recommend that editors WP:FORGET everything they know (or think they know) when writing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Forget is only an essay, so I don't see that Misplaced Pages is recommending this approach. And I couldn't disagree with you more. Misplaced Pages need experts who can also edit neutrally. Being knowledgeable does not in any way suggest an editor cannot be neutral. I wonder where we'd be on the medical articles if experts did not edit there. We deal with neutrality with collaboration and adherence to policies not by excluding experts or knowledge of primary sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

I'll leave this now and apologize for a discussion that side tracks this discussion. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

I've not recommended excluding experts. I only reject your assertion that not having understood (or even not having read) a particular book makes it impossible for me to contribute to the article. (WP:BRD is "only an essay", too; essay status does not mean that the page is unsupported by the community.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Could I get everyone to take a quick look at WP:Secondary does not mean independent once again? FRIND is about independent sources, aka independent primary sources, independent secondary sources, and independent tertiary sources. You can comply with FRIND by using purely primary sources. Blueboar is not typing out i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t s-e-c-o-n-d-a-r-y sources for the fun of typing extra letters; he's typing both words because they mean different things. Independence and historiography are unrelated concepts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am most definitely typing both words for a reason... But my point is that when it comes to a descriptive statement about what proponents of a theory believe, the most reliable sources are both primary and non-independent (ie sources written by proponents of the theory where they actually say what they believe). For anything else, I absolutely agree that independent (and usually secondary) sources are best... you need independent sources to determine whether we should mention what they believe in the first place (ie DUE WEIGHT), you need independent sources for analysis of the accuracy/inaccuracy of what they believe, etc. etc. etc.... My only point is that when it comes to verifying basic descriptions of what the proponents believe the best source is non-independent and primary. That's what I am trying to change... and that is all that I am trying to change. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely something that needs to be cleared up, and I agree heartily with Blueboar's assessment of the role of primaries and secondaries. I'd been going back and forth over this policy on another page in a section about a published book. A secondary source claimed the book said A, I looked and the book said B, so I tried to quote the B while leaving the secondary's argument of A. Editors there cited this rule and said that since A was a secondary source, it was impossible to cite any material from the book that might disagree with what a secondary source said the book contained, even if the secondary's interpretation is factually incomplete or incorrect. This is the kind of bizarro scenario that needs to be resolved. Primaries are a perfectly adequate source for determining what was factually said in that same primary. The Cap'n (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Given the discussion above, I would like propose that we amend FIND as follows:

• The best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories and claims are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects and claims of a fringe theory should follow from consideration of how much those aspects are discussed by independent sources. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

This would resolve my concerns regarding the appropriate use of non-independent and primary sources ... placing WP:FIND firmly in the realm of DUE WEIGHT, without having it (mistakenly) slosh over into the realm of VERIFIABILITY. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sentences 1 & 3 - OK

• Sentence 2 - Dubious, because some articles in whole or part focus on aspects of fringe topics. I think sentence 2 invites interpretation arguments on such articles, and I don't see how sentence 2 really adds anything not already covered by WP:WEIGHT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the opposite approach might be more pointful, i.e., adding something like "Non-independent sources are often useful for supporting statements about what the proponents of a fringe theory say." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yuck. (A) That lumps EVERY non-independent source together, whether they deal with fringe or not. (B) It is 100% redundant with the section in WP:RS about self-statements, so adds nothing. (C) If those objections are overcome, I think "often" needs to be changed to "only".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I intentionally didn't include a statement like that in my proposal is that WP:FRINGE is essentially a sub-page of WP:Notability and WP:NPOV. It is not a sub-page of WP:Verifiability. That is really the core of my concern with the section... The issue of how best to verify a statement about "what the proponents of a fringe theory say" is a verifiability issue that is dealt with in WP:V, WP:RS (via WP:SPS) ... it shouldn't be addressed in this policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If FRINGE is not supposed to be about verifiability, then it needs to do a much better job of communicating that. When I encounter people invoking FRINGE in general, and FRIND in particular, it is almost always in the context of someone objecting to the use of a source that is published in an academic journal that covers altmed, in an article that is obviously notable. I hear, for example, assertions that FRIND prohibits citing academic journals that cover chiropractic, because chiropractic is entirely FRINGE (a rather dubious assertion) and professors at chiropractic schools aren't independent of their professional field (but MDs and RNs and PharmDs are all independent of their own fields), and therefore the sources in question cannot be used to support information that is admitted to be appropriate to the article and would be accepted, if only it had been published in an obscure mainstream medical journal instead of a major altmed journal. If FRINGE does not address the issue of figuring out whether a source can be used to support a statement, then we apparently need a complete re-write. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a major re-write... just a minor change. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I may be misreading it... but I am not seeing any real objections to my proposal. Just suggestions (and some disagreement) on ways to make it better. Yes? No? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to create a diff in my sandbox to show precisely how your proposed edit differs from the existing text at time of your opening post. Why are you suggesting we delete the sentence "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I took it out because it is either incomplete or overly broad. I agree with the sentence when it comes to mentioning fringe points or claims in articles about mainstream subjects... I don't agree when it comes to mentioning points or claims in an article about the Fringe theory itself.

One of the problems with writing articles about fringe theories is that the few independent sources that discuss them will often simply ignore certain claims. That can mean that there won't be any independent coverage of a point or claim that might well be central to the theory. There are points and claims common to multiple proponents of the theories (claims which appear over and over again in the fringe literature)... such points are obviously central to the theory... yet they are considered so ridiculous that no independent source bothers to comment on them.

An important part of our job, when writing an article about a fringe theory, is to neutrally inform our readers what the proponents say. If a point or claim is repeated by multiple fringe advocates, we have to mention it... even if there are no independent sources that bother to comment on it. We should present it as opinion, and not as accepted fact... but it still needs to be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, consider me opposed to proposed edit. If you want to break it down in pieces I might go along with parts. But we should not delete the sentence in question because

(A) Without independent sources, who gets to determine what is "central" to a fringe theory? If we take on that mantle ourselves, aren't we engaged in original research?

(B) When elements of fringe claims are not mentioned by independent sources, we have no business reporting on them because they lack WP:NOTABILITY.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please go read WP:Notability again, then. Pay attention to the statement that it makes about notability never limiting article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"our job, when writing an article about a fringe theory, is to neutrally inform our readers what the proponents say" ← as has passed into secondary sources and as such become accepted knowledge about the fringe theory. That is fundamental. Alexbrn 11:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you mix up VERIFIABILITY issues with UNDUE issues. But even focusing completely on UNDUE, its actually quite simple to figure out what is appropriate to mention in an article about a fringe theory. If a particular point or claim is made repeatedly in the fringe literature (ie by multiple proponents), you know that the point or claim is fairly central to the theory... and so is appropriate to mention in the article. If only one or two fringe proponents bother to mention a particular point or claim, then we can call it "fringe within the fringe" and it would be appropriate to omit it from the article.

Note that I completely agree that you DO need independent sources in order to determine mentioning a fringe point or claim is DUE or UNDUE in articles on mainstream topics. What I am talking about is limited to an article about the fringe theory itself. Determining what is UNDUE in an article about a fringe theory is (of necessity) going to be different than determining what is UNDUE in articles on mainstream topics... because the article topic is the theory itself. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Crackpots

Maybe it would be helpful to give an example. Here we have Crackpots Я Us. They've been in the news just barely enough to meet WP:ORG, mostly due to a lawsuit involving whether the founder's children are legally required get vaccines, or whether members of this organization can claim a religious exemption from the public health laws.

According to them, they are an atheist organization that supports survival of the fittest in humans and opposes government interference in the right of other people to make choices that cause them to die. They are pro-drug legalization, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-speed limit, anti-seat-belt-laws (but pro-voluntary-seat-belt-use), pro-polygyny, and anti-welfare. They have written a thousand web pages and published a dozen books on their views and how they apply them to a wide variety of everyday affairs. The anti-vaccination stance is attested to merely by one web page and three sentences in one book, which say that they are slightly concerned that vaccines might interfere with evolutionary natural selection of humans (specifically, by preserving the health and lives of humans who are not wise enough to voluntarily choose vaccination for themselves). The main focus of their writings, however, is the pros and cons of using abortion and drug legalization as a tool of eugenics, and if you looked over their website, you'd find thousands of words directly on these subjects. At least 99% of what they write is not about vaccination.

According to the media, the only things that matter is the lawsuit and the fact that the group was ridiculed in a three-minute monologue by a late-night television talk show host, so what you find in the media is "an atheist claimed a religious exemption" and "anti-vaccination", with no mention attention given to anything else.

Do you think that an article that says, in essence, "Crackpots Я Us is an atheist organization that opposes compulsory vaccination. It claimed a religious exemption from vaccination laws in Crackpots v State" would be a fair description of the organization? Or do you think that a fair description might involve a somewhat more complete picture of the organization than what happened to tickle the fancy of a couple of news writers?

For example, since phrases like "survival of the fittest" and "Darwinian evolution" appear in every chapter of every book and every page of every website they've published, do you think that it would be appropriate to mention something about their belief in natural selection, or would you just skip over that, since the hastily written news articles skipped over that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a good example. What I take away from it, is that you provide full context to the topic. Like good journalism, both sides of the story are presented. Omitting crucial details leave the narrative unbalanced and pushes into a 'radical' version of the original. Consequently, edit wars are likely to ensue, those towing the 'hard line' and those who feels the topic is not representative of the facts. Thank you, WAID. DVMt (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO the example is flawed because the facts contradict. On the one hand, the example says WP:ORG has been met. According to WP:ORG, that means that the company has been the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." In contrast, the example also asks us to consider piffly "hastily written" news articles giving cursory treatment to a lawsuit. That runs afoul of the next part of WP:ORG, which says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Finally, freelance journalists are a hungry bunch, and the ones that I happen to know vigorously shake the trees to find something to write about. It's rather difficult to imagine a scenario where a company's publications are so prolific with these ideas but without anyone writing about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I only wish it were true that a couple of piffly news articles were not considered sufficient for this class of articles. Sadly, reality is that a handful of sentences in a two news articles (one regional or national) is enough to prevent deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK... let's amend the example: Similar scenario, except let's say that (due to a court case) the group has received a lot of media coverage for its stance on vaccination, and no coverage for the group's stance on other issues. However, the group's own literature goes on and on about the other issues, while the vaccination stance is covered in only one small pamphlet.

Now, when writing our article about the group... what should we include?

Obviously the media coverage justifies discussing the vaccination stance in some depth (it is what brought the group into the public eye after all)... However, I don't think we should completely ignore the group's stance on other issues. In order to give a neutral, unbiased account of what the group is, and what its members stand for, we have to mention them. Yet WP:FIND implies that we should completely ignore these other issues... simply because no independent source has bothered to discuss them. That's wrong.

I would be happy to say that we should give MORE weight to things that are covered in independent sources... but that does not necessarily mean we should give NO weight to things that are only covered by the proponents. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"In order to give a neutral, unbiased account of what the group is, and what its members stand for, we have to mention them" ← It's 180° the other way according to WP's particular definition of neutrality. We represent the significant views (as represented in RS, etc, etc) and ignore what isn't on their radar. Think of it another way. If zero publications have seen fit to mention something, why should Misplaced Pages be the only publication on the planet that bucks that trend? I think what you are really arguing for is a change to the WP:NPOV policy to remove the constraint that the views we include are those "that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Alexbrn 11:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But in an article about a fringe group... the group's own views are significant. Further, any group's own self-published sources are reliable (primary) sources for statements as to what the group's stance on various issues is (no less than, say, an encyclical issued by the Vatican would be a reliable source for what the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church is on the same issue).

Remember, what is and is not considered significant changes from one article to the next. I would completely agree (to use our example) that the views of "Crackpots R US" on the issue of drug legalization is not significant enough to mention in our Legalization of marijuana article... HOWEVER, in an article on Crackpots R Us, those same views are significant enough to mention. Why? Because they are the views of the subject of the article. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"in an article about a fringe group... the group's own views are significant" If the other views are not covered by secondary ind sources, then for our purposes those other views are to be ignored also. If it were otherwise, we could visit one of their staff parties to get polling data so we can include their views on the old Burger King vs MacDonald's issue, and anything else that suits our fancy. They would just have to write those things down, and voila! Misplaced Pages will include it. (wrong) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not wrong... but incomplete. When determing weight in an article about a fringe group... a lot depends on what the self-published fringe literature stresses... if the fringe literature stresses the claim that McDonald's is evil, and how all true believers should thus go to Burger King... then YES, that is something we should mention (in the article about the group). The very fact that they give weight to the issue tells us that the choice of fast food chain is a significant issue to them. If, on the other hand, they don't stress it... if say it once in passing, and don't make a big deal of it... then no, it isn't something we should mention. It obviously isn't significant to them. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

An attempt to ascertain a group's "significant" or "central" fringe beliefs that were ignored by secondary sources always requires analysis of the group's own publications. When an ed makes such an analysis, the conclusions the editor draws are a product of the editor's original research, and therefore don't belong in our articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, but No... what I am describing is called sourced based research, which is explicitly allowed by WP:OR. As editors do this with every source we read and use to create an article. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the phrase "source based" in WP:OR so please provide a quote of the language you're referencing in WP:ORNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh... Well I'll be darned... I see that the exact words "source based research" actually isn't in the NOR policy (at least not any more)... which surprises me since we use that phrase a lot on both the policy talk page and at NORN. (We use it when explaining the first paragraph of WP:NOR#Using sources). It may be a phrase that was in the policy in the past, but got edited out at some point. - That sometimes happens when you have been editing for as long as I have... phrases you remember being in a policy get edited, and so are no longer there when you quote them... They are usually replaced by other phrases that mean the same thing, but say it in different words. (which is what seems to have happened here). That said... the first few sentences of the Using sources section are what I am talking about. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin removed that phrase in 2010. I'd say "when you weren't looking", except that you edited the page just a couple of days later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens to me too. So the text you're relying on says

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. * * * If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Misplaced Pages is not the place to announce such a discovery.

In your example, when the editor reads the organizations claims in various materials and then says those claims are "central" or "significant" to the organization, that editor is going beyond the sources (which merely say that the organization said those things) to assert an editor's opinion about something not verifiable by secondary sources. I supppose one might argue that a position statement that says "the following claims are central to our organization" is OK, but really now.... the frequency that secondary sources ignore such shopping lists from rootin' tootin' WP:NOTABLE orgs is so close to zero (in my opinion) that trying to squeeze in language to allow arguments over the issue amounts to needless WP:CREEP.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If the organization says "Here are our central beliefs", then the editor is absolutely not committing OR by writing, "According to Crackpots, their central beliefs are...".

But in this case, all I'm asking you is whether, in addition to the statements given above that are verifiable in my hypothetical news articles, could you add a sentence that says, "They also support abortion and drug legalization", and cite one of their websites or books (perhaps the 600-page-long book, Why Crackpots is Pro-Drug Legalization and Always Will Be, written by their founder) to support that sentence. Or would you say that they're a fringe group, and their main focus was irrelevant to the news articles' church–state–atheism–man–bites–dog narrative, so who cares if our readers get a seriously and misleadingly incomplete view of the organization? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In any given article about a WP:NOTABLE organization, a mention that their mission statement says they support abortion or legalization doesn't even touch on fringe, so the proposed edit in this thread is moot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a FRINGE organization. The way some editors read this guideline, everything about them is "fringe-y" at some level, even the names of the prominent members or their tax status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"It's a FRINGE organization." Then this is all moot because the guideline under discussion is about fringe theories. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, can you provide an example of an org for which some fringe claim is "central" or "significant" even though that org's advocacy of those fringe claims has not been covered in secondary sources? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Most schools? Seriously, there are very few true secondary sources about schools, including high schools. (There are many independent sources about high schools, but WP:Secondary does not mean independent.) I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a secondary source that says that what's most important or significant about Local High School is education of teenagers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's so generalized it doesn't really provide a good example. Please show me the publication list for a specific org in which they make such frequent reference to a specific fringe claim that us lowly eds can determine the claim is "central" to the org, even though secondary sources about the org have not mentioned the orgs advocacy of that claim. If examples are not readily available, then this thread is about needless WP:CREEP; and if examples are readily available, then having a few identified examples will go a long way to facilitating the debate/discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do it yourself: Look up the high school nearest your home. Try to find a true independent secondary source (e.g., one that provides analysis of the school as an organization) that actually discusses the central purpose for the school's existence. You are unlikely to find one. I've tried it for the schools near me. I have found none that state what the school's central purpose is. If you will indulge me in saying that the school's central purpose is academics, then I have found none that provide more than a trivial "analysis" of specific aspects of academics (namely, compare-and-contrast on standardized test scores and a very superficial compare-and-contrast on very broad points of curriculum, e.g., "School X has this name-brand program, but School Y uses this other name-brand program"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an academic exercise (yuk yuk). We're discussing an edit that would allow us to use primary sources to mention advocacy of specific fringe claims even though secondary sources have not covered that advocacy. What specific fringe claims have been officially advocated - without press coverage - by your local highschool?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My local high school apparently claims that teenagers can realistically benefit from a class starting before 8:00 a.m., which is contradicted by all research on the point.

More pointfully, how do you decide whether a claim is FRINGE if nobody except the primary source talks about it? Are you just supposed to magically know that an idea that nobody else talks about is—or isn't—FRINGE? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources change from one article to the next as well; their reliability is dependent on the content they reference. "Reliable sources" is not a one size fits all imperative.

On some articles the topic can be so complex, that is doubly important to have the expert voice of the primary source if there is one, to explain, define and underpin the secondary sources. The primary source is the RS for the content. In a sense the primary source is the base-line statement while the secondary sources provide the comment. Both are necessary. How necessary each is, is determined by "weight" and that weight played out in the article's content helps determine the NPOV of the article.

As an aside: Independent is used as if it is a clearly visible ruler for measuring a RS. In fact independent includes a range of "involvement", and is not a clear black and white determination for including or excluding content. Seems to me the trap we fall into easily is in thinking the policy is the thing when in fact the article is, while the policy guides rather than dictates. Focus on the word of the policy rather than why the policy is useful renders a dead policy , a cliche driven, narrowly used and eventually misused policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

Olive, Your comment that independence includes a range of "involvement" is actually a good one. For example, two different people (or groups) can be independent from each other... and yet both can be proponents of the same fringe theory. If each self-publishes a book... are those books "independent" sources? You can argue that both ways. Blueboar (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We represent the significant views (as represented in RS, etc, etc)

Yes, Alex, we do, and for the question of "what does this group believe", the group's own publications are highly reliable sources. You must consider them when determining due weight.

This is not unique to FRINGE: ERGS demands that you consider the subject's own assertions or religion and sexual orientation. It does not require that this be repeated in an independent source. Sometimes WP:ABOUTSELF sources are the most authoritative ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's use a real world example. This 2013 document was submitted by the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) to the World Health Organization. Given that the WFC is a member of the WHO, and are using this as a report on the current status of the profession, is this a reliable source? DVMt (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

For the fact that they asserted the conclusions in the report, yes. It's use as an RS supporting the various assertions is increased if there is a thundering herd of endorsements from other professional organizations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of your point, thanks for sharing! Regarding the 'thundering herd' that doesn't seem necessary as the WHO is arguably the most reliable and credible health organization representing all the regulated health professions in the world. . The 'endorsements' would be the cherry on the top but, generally speaking, international health profession organizations usually don't applause other's status reports ;)

Source Evaluation

Community question: How is the reliability of this source regarding the conclusions Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine , a minority of the chiropractic profession has retained a perspective unorthodox to current orthodox scientific views . Neuraxis (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary source; fringey journal; chiropractors writing about chiropractic – a poor source for anything other than what chirporactors like to say about themselves (and that would likely be to give undue weight). Alexbrn 06:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. BMC is fringe? So when we have research done by physios writing about physiotherapy, or architects about architecture, we should dismiss this as well? You do realize that no where on WP states that primary sources can never be used. That argument is a little bit weak, especially when you suggest that an op-ed and letter to the editor suffices as calling OMM pseudoscientific. I see a bit of a double standard here. Neuraxis (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the journal BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine has got a bit of a reputation - it publishes stuff on homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. - and so should be approached with proper care; primary sources can be used, generally as a supplement to material contained in secondaries or in exceptional circumstances (so, not here). For a fringe topic like Chiropractic, WP:FRIND applies so the idea of taking "in universe" content from its advocates content is also problematic. Alexbrn 15:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Really, a criticism from a blog? Also, that's not how PS can be used at all. " A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ". I wasn't asking for your spin on the topic. Since I've had this discussion with you previously, and it was littered with logical fallacies and you ducking my questions (as you just did above). I'm going to disengage discussing this with you further. I recognize the difference between skepticism and cynicism, your edits and logic suggest you're the latter. Neuraxis (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not just "a blog" but a post at ScienceBlogs (owned by National Geographic) and written by David Gorski, a rather more reliable source for CAM stuff than BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, at least as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned! Alexbrn 15:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a blog post that strangely redefines "alternative medicine" as meaning "things that definitely won't work better than placebo", by explicitly excluding, for example, 100% of all forms of herbalism and nearly all forms diet, nutrition, and exercise. According to the blog post, if you go to the self-described alternative medicine store, and buy a bottle of herbal extract that you read about in a self-described alternative medicine book, then you're engaged in the "very old, very science-based" practice of strictly non-alternative science-based medicine. Except, you know, that the opposite of "alternative" is "conventional", not "science-based". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the unqualified phrase, "a fringe topic like chiropractic" is entirely accurate.

Also, this source is writing about attitudes held by various professionals. It's basically a survey. I'd accept this on the same grounds that I'd accept PMID 19019329, a survey in which obstetricians say that there's no evidence for or against bedrest in pregnancy (there are definite harms to bedrest of more than a couple of days), they don't expect it to provide any sizeable benefit in the stated case, and they'd recommend it anyway. Neither of them are trying to support bad science or pseudoscience; they're reporting accurate facts about their survey results. You wouldn't use a source like this to say "bed rest saves babies" or "chiropractic cures cancer"; you'd use it to say "X% of these professionals believe that X works, and Y% believe it doesn't". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 12 June 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)

Have you got links? What's the problem? There's certainly no shortage of articles which use biased sources, and editors willing to revert-war over them (NPOV problems are the biggest magnets for edit wars). bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The problems with the template are described at #New inline template. Blueboar has improved the template's contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "fringe" offensive?

I personally have find the term "fringe" offensive and favor the more descriptive and neutral term "unconventional" like on the MEDRS guideline. I didn't read this page yet, but it was pointed out on my talk page so after reading the summary I did a alt-f search for "unconventional" but didn't find it included at all. Keep in mind that the idea that some/most ulcers were caused by bacteria was labeled as a fringe it's now accepted medical fact. I'm sure there will be a discussion someday in the way of "can you imaging that until 2014 Misplaced Pages did even acknowledge the existence of (fill in your pet fringe theory here)"? - Technophant (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)