Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Arbitration ruling on "pseudoscience" The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of material that might be labeled "pseudoscience": Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Fringe Biographies of Living Persons

(Note I changed the title from "removed addition" since it makes perfect sense and shouldn't be removed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

I think I know what Barney is getting at here, but this kind of addition should be discussed and the syntax cleaned up. At the moment I'm not sure the meaning is clear. More input needed. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

The text was as follows:

The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to all articles, but particularly close attention must be paid to biographies. Wikipedia has several articles on those who hold unconventional positions on academic subjects. Such biographies must comply with both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE: That is the level of academic support for their views must be explained.

• Some criticism, particular ad hominem attacks, may be not be appropriate for inclusion.
• However, WP:BLP is not an excuse to whitewash a biography of criticism (see WP:PROFRINGE)
• For those mainly notable for non-fringe reasons, that person's unorthodox views shouldn't be given undue prominence in the article compared to the events that made them notable.

Thanks Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) - the idea is to present a short summary and make it clear. IMHO there shouldn't be any conflict between WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP - but in my experience some claim that WP:BLP is an excuse to whitewash the article. I have phrased it as best I can, maybe there is a problem with the understanding? Is there anything in this that is specifically wrong? Have I missed anything relevant? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming form. I think the syntax is awkward. Maybe with others we can work through it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

It's not clear to me what the first sentence is doing for us. Saying "some criticism" is surely license for those who want to remove all criticism, if we can't spell out what is inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

Heading:

• For starters, perhaps we could retitle this to: Biographies of Living persons and Fringe Theories or something like that.

We don't have "Fringe Biographies" we have Biographies that may include fringe content or Biorgraphies that are about people who may involved in fringe activities of some kind. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd add, we should not add content to guidelines until meaning is clear and with consensus. As soon as content is in the guidleine it will be acted on, so it behooves us to get it right before its added. Further, input form more editors would be good considering that this was added after the highly contentious Sheldrake situation by a highly involved editor. Let's be neutral and get input. I know there are many editors who would be happy to both support and to help rewrite this. I'm removing this content again until it has consensus and is cleaned up. I generally don't revert past one but this is new content in a guideline and needs more input than just the two of us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

I agree with Littleolive oil here - this clearly needs careful thought, and involvement from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) - I have taken your comments into consideration. Regarding the whole RS-thing, IMHO it's a classic example. Yes, I suppose I'm involved in it, but at the same time through such involvement one senses the need for clarification of the guideline mainly to assist various WP:PROFRINGE editors in their understanding of how WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP interact. Also, IMHO this guideline is a bit of a mess and is a bit rambly, so adding sharp points should be effective, I hope. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to all articles, but particularly close attention must be paid to biographies. Wikipedia has several articles on those who hold unconventional positions on academic subjects. Such biographies must comply with both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE: That is the level of academic support for the subject's views must be explained, but the article must present these neutrally so as to not disparage the subject.

• Some criticism may not be appropriate for inclusion. These would tend to include ad hominem attacks and assessment of the subject's mental health.
• However, WP:BLP is not an excuse to whitewash a biography of criticism (see WP:PROFRINGE)
• For those mainly notable for non-fringe reasons but who nevertheless hold fringe views, that person's fringe views shouldn't be given undue prominence in the article compared to the events that made them notable.

It is also near impossible for people to edit the above if it's removed from the page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Supposed technical difficulties are hardly grounds to retain a proposal that has yet to receive support. The guideline should stay as it is until we can arrive at agreed wording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The content needs consensus rather than just a rewrite. Let's get lots of input, so the content stands up to scrutiny in contentious situations. While I understand your concerns the addition isn't clear about those concerns are.

Maybe we can list the issues and deal with them one by one. I've added one that occurs to me.

Issues and thoughts we must be aware of as we edit

• A major issue has been that BLP is a policy while Fringe Theory is a guideline. Do we need to address the balance each must have per their level of importance in the Wikipedia policy/guideline system? (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
• How do we protect living persons while attributing fringe theories, ideas, philosophies to them. We cannot harm living persons for any reason., but we must at the same time include content that describes their lives accurately.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

(We have to remember seems to me that a life is multifaceted. A person job is only a part of that life, and what the job entails is part of the part. As an example: While we make a fuss about George Harrison's time with and as one of The Beatles this is only a small p[art of his life. A biography by definition is about a whole life, so a biography should give a good sense of an entire life. A focus on the Beattles period in a biography might be a mistake, although per weight in the press The Beattles period should carry considerable weight. Just my thoughts on this )(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

• How do we describe per WP:Weight the content and sources which describe another human being's life?(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
• At no point should a BLP appear to disparage anyone, even as the connection to fringe content is added to the biography. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
• Do we have the right to judge the living person or is it our place as editors to be more dispassionate than that, more objective?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

As Andy says, this will need a lot of consideration. I have a real aversion to the word "whitewash", as I've been accused more than once of "whitewashing" BLP when I was only applying policy. In reply to your questions Littleolive oil, we try to follow what the sources do. We shouldn't always give equal attention to every stage of a person's life, as their achievements may have been concentrated in one stage. It's not a question of whether we have the right to judge the living person, or even the dead one, we're just describing what they did, what effect their actions had, what was said about them. This is basic to a reading of NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Itsmejudith, and I would judge what content to use in the same way you have described here. I've raised these questions because these are all issues that have come up in my experience, and I think they have to be considered and kept in mind since not all editors see BLP and fringe content in the way you have described here. Editors do indeed judge the subjects of BLP and to do so, is not in my mind, appropriate nor can the result be neutral. Objectivity in looking for and at sources means we are led by the sourcing and weight per mainstream rather than by an opinion. I guess what I did here is to list points, some in question form, to keep in mind and to refer to as this section is rewritten. I hope others will add points too, so we have an overview of the issues, all understand the issues, and have common ground to begin rewriting. If we don't have this commonality, writing this section could go on for avery long time.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

(edit conflict)::::I'm sorry, but I don't understand this: " We cannot harm living persons for any reason., but we must at the same time include content that describes their lives accurately." Those are contradictory aims. Telling the truth about someone while adhering to NPOV can still harm them. Critical material is surely often disparaging - depending on one's pov (here I am not talking about our NPOV policy, just that our world view shapes what we see as disparaging) And what are the practical implications you have in mind about judging living persons? Take a pedophile serial killer - if you are simply saying that I shouldn't write an edit saying "this is the most evil person who ever lived", then I agree with you and so would I hope everyone here. So exactly what in practice should we be avoiding? Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we have with in our "jurisdiction" the use of information that is published in verifiable, reliable sources. So, we are doing nothing but repeating what has already been published. Doing so in relation to the weight the information has in the sources, the organization of the article, and in relation to the other aspects of the subject's life does, in terms of Wikipedia, no harm or more accurately no more harm than the sources have done. Add to that a collaborative environment that helps to ensure that our own individual POVs are not intruding into the way we select and write content. My point here was not to dictate anything but to give us reference points as we begin deal with the way in which BLPs contain fringe content. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

I'd suggest that we start writing. As long as we all know what we have to include, deal with, avoid; the writing should be easier. Barney made a start. we could go from there.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

• I think the version below has several problems. It's just silly (and wrong) to state categorically that "ad hominem attacks and assessment of the subject's mental health" should not be included. There are instances where these things are both appropriate for inclusion and consistent with WP:BLP. It all depends on sourcing. Policy explicitly says as much: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I also dislike the terms "whitewash" and "ad hominem attack", because, as Itsmejudith points out, they are often misused by Wikipedians with an axe to grind. MastCell ^Talk 00:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• • I couldn't say it better. We should not be trying to rewrite BLP here or extend it. I'd strongly object to the use of those terms. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell and Dougweller and have no problem with abandoning this. Barney whose addition this is might feel differently.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC))

Most recent version

Close attention should be paid on how to treat people who hold fringe viewpoints especially in light of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Wikipedia has several articles on those who hold unconventional positions on academic subjects. Such biographies must comply with both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE: That is, the level of academic support for the subject's views must be explained, but the article must present this neutrally so as to not unduly disparage the subject. While overly harsh criticism from obscure sources may not be appropriate for inclusion, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography (see WP:PROFRINGE). For people mainly notable for reasons unrelated to this guideline but who nevertheless hold fringe views, that person's fringe views shouldn't be given undue prominence in the article compared to the events that made them notable.

Comments:

• Remove redundant text in first line:

The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to all articles.

Inclined to go with the most recent version

I read through this discussion and tried to incorporate all of the concerns including some of my own. I'm inclined to go with this version, but will wait for further objections to be made before adding it to the guideline.

jps (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I support including the most recent version in the guideline. LK (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem this is trying to correct?

I applaud all efforts to reduce chaos and improve process so thanks to all. On the other hand, I am opposed to WP:CREEP and am posting here to invite ya'll to convince me that this new section fills an actual need.

Disclaimer: This section came up in an AFD in which I am involved.

I've reviewed the evolution of this new section and read thru the talk section. I've read that people are confused by FRINGE vs BLP interaction. OK fine. But as I read the new section all I see is redundancy with NPOV, RS, BLP, and the rest of FRINGE. Please specify,

• (A) What precise problem is this intended to fix?
• (B) Illustrate A with 2-3 examples

If that's not possible to do succinctly, then that would suggest that either the problem is not clearly understood so as to draft text that fixes the problem, or else the problem is so intractable that the section should be vetted thru the Pump or an RFC.

Don't mean to diss on anyone's efforts here, but my motto is "Just say 'no' to WP:CREEP!" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The precise problems that this paragraph is intended to fix are specifed in the paragraph itself. The fact that it was so directly relevant to the AfD which you and I were involved I think is a good demonstration of the issues. I generally agree with your concerns over WP:CREEP in the sense that overly specifying rules can become arduous. On the other hand, there is obviously a need given the manner in which biographies are being developed. Rupert Sheldrake is a current problem (with which I am also involved) and you can read all about it both on and off wiki. In the past, I have been involved with Eric Lerner. Another famous issue was Rosalind Picard (with which I was not involved). I'll let you nose around those articles and their associated talkpages to see the issues. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Cheers! jps (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You have just reinforced my suspicion that this is CREEP. If the precise problem is in the paragraph, all I see is a statement that we have to comply with FRINGE and BLP and UNDUE, etc. Great, but this is CREEP because......we already knew that. You still have not explained how our prior text on those various policy/guideline pages is insufficient, or how this new paragraph fixes that alleged deficiency. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If you investigate any of the named controversies you will find plenty of instances of people that think we should only comply with FRINGE or only comply with BLP. jps (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah Ha! A succinct statement of the problem! (Please try to start with such a statement)

People don't know coverage of living people with fringe theories must comply with both FRINGE and BLP.

Great, thanks. FYI, I have added a "see also" link at BLP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Rupert Sheldrake example. For over three decades Sheldrake has been doing experiments pertaining to something he calls "morphic fields", which have never been observed but are somehow involved with telepathic dogs. In the press Sheldrake receives, he is often described as a biologist. That is, he tells the journalists interviewing him that he is a biologist, and it gets reported as such. He prefers to be called a biologist. On the other hand, those qualified to determine whether the topic of dog telepathy properly lies within the field of biology call him a parapsychologist or a pseudoscientist or some such.

What the subject of the article calls himself is part of the fringe view being promoted. Some editors have wanted to ignore FRINGE in order to be more sympathetic to the article subject, allowing the subject to be called what he wants to be called. Some have further claimed that not calling Sheldrake a biologist is an intentional ploy to derogate him, and thus runs afoul of BLP policy. In my view, no such BLP violation exists, and that both FRINGE and BLP should be upheld (and there is no cabal of editors aiming to derogate Sheldrake). vzaak 07:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with vzaak on this one.

Personally, I think there's a second problem where FRINGE and BLP meet; apart from the high-profile controversial articles like Sheldrake, we also have many articles on much less notable people (or small organisations or "theories" dominated by a single person &c) where a person active in some FRINGE area is are not high-profile enough to attract coverage from a mainstream view, so all the sources are written from within that area. This makes it difficult or impossible to write a truly neutral article. There is often an element of promotion, too. However, we seem to be OK at dealing with these using existing policy (though it doesn't stop somebody writing the articles in the first place) so I don't think this issue should drive big policy changes. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

We all agree that FRINGE and BLP have to be followed. But we knew that before this new text was adopted. Maybe the real issue is that some have felt a need to explain How FRINGE and BLP interact?

Do ya'll think this new paragraph offers a valuable tool for these situations, or is it such a generalized summary that eds will fight over whose opinion the paragraph supports, forcing us to go beyond this paragraph to do what we have always done (by referring to the core of FRINGE and BLP)?

Valuable new tool or Creep? Your thoughts?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC) PS I posted a tickle at the pump. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that wording is helpful, not because it's a change to the rules, but because it sets out how the rules interact, which helps deal with the problem of editors taking a hard line on one rule but not the other (their choice of rule usually being driven by their position on the content itself). bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll go so far as to agree that saying both have to be followed is desirable. Still not persuaded the rest isn't creep. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

One reason that editors have been saying that FRINGE can be suspended on a BLP is because FRINGE is a guideline while BLP is a policy. Tweaking FRINGE does nothing to defuse that argument, so in this respect it is creep (and worse, impotent creep).

Making FRINGE a policy would presumably be the simplest solution. Otherwise a short addition to BLP may be appropriate, to the effect of, "Consideration for the subject of the article should not be carried to the point of violating WP:FRINGE."

The WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV essentially embodies the purpose of FRINGE, and when editors have pulled the "FRINGE is just a guideline" card, I have directed them to PSCI. It is a bit awkward that FRINGE has the guideline designation while the NPOV policy has a section that basically summarizes FRINGE. vzaak 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction here between rules-creep (which is generally bad) and adding text to clarify a tangled interaction of two or more rules (which is always good). Rather than having some complicated and close reading of two or more guidelines have to be repeatedly explained to different fringe promoters in dozens of article talk pages - it's much easier to have one simple clarification stated clearly in one place. That reduces the amount of discussion and promotes harmonious editing - and does not add new rules. SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Classifying as a policy

The consensus is that FRINGE should not be suspended for a BLP. Is there any case where FRINGE should be suspended? If not, making FRINGE a policy would be a simple and straightforward resolution to many past arguments with promoters of fringe theories. What is the process for changing a guideline into a policy? vzaak 22:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support this move. It's probably best to start an RfC, and advertise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... A lot of what this page says is already Policy... in that FRINGE is mostly an expansion on one specific aspect of WP:UNDUE (which itself is part of the WP:NPOV policy)... with a little bit of our Notability guideline tossed in.

That said, I am of mixed minds as to whether the WP:FRINGE page itself should be promoted to policy. I would really place it in the same "class" as WP:Reliable Sources. Both pages have the "oomph" of policy behind them, but their purpose is to explain and expand on policy... they are sort of half-way between policy and guidance. Perhaps we need a new name for this sort of thing. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, the deeper issue may be about the understanding of guidelines. Have you ever heard anyone arguing that the WP:Reliable Sources guideline should be ignored? As a guideline, "occasional exceptions may apply", but what is one exception to WP:RS? The mention of WP:IAR at the top of each guideline makes them seem merely advisory in nature, or worse, suggest a "take it or leave it" status. vzaak 08:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with bear, guidelines explain policy in a specific context. Fringe explains aspects of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS etc in the context of fringe theories. Second Quantization (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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 ^{talk|contribs|COI} 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)

This is arbitrary

Bad wiki editing rule, Itself is fringe. This has no reason to be upheld. Winnerex (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not at all bad, it is the appropriate application to the area of the policy WP:NPOV , WP:V , WP:OR which apply to all article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

quick question, sorry if this is in the wrong place

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

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

"Osmanagić pyramid hypothesis" (Bosnian pyramids)

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

Fringe BLP addition

We have a pretty good WP:FRINGEBLP section that was started with the help of talkpage watchers here, but one thing that is not addressed is notability. In particular, when should the biography of a fringe proponent be included and when should it be excluded? My feeling is that a person who is primarily known as a fringe advocate should only have a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)