Talk:Fringe theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starting article

This article was created as a redirect to Fringe science... but there are Fringe theories in most accademic disciplines, and even in the realm of pop-culture (many conspiracy theories and urban legends). There should be a seperate article that covers the topic beyond just science.

So... I have been bold and started such an article... just a bare stub for now. Not at all sure where to go from here. It needs expansion, and sourcing. Please help. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It would have been better if you'd held off doing anything in mainspace until you did know "where to go from here." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

widely viewed as being implausible

Not sure that this is correct. I can think of several Fringe theories are plausible, but are rejected by the mainstream for other reasons. The theory that there was a second gun-man in Dallas when JFK was shot is plausible, but because there is no evidence to support the theory, it is rejected and considered Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not finding it easy to find RS for "fringe theory". --Atomic blunder (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change title of article

I propose changing the title of the article from "Fringe theory" to "Fringe". The word "fringe" can be found in dictionaries. The concept of fringe ideas or "theories" could be discussed in the Fringe article. --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: proposed topic is even more vague than "fringe theory" (and clearly too vague to be useful) & WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Also Fringe already exists as a dab (which far better serves this heterogeneous 'topic' than the proposed article would). I would suggest restoring the redirect, if evidence cannot be found for a cohesive topic under the current title. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ask people to be patient here... this article is only one day old. I don't think anyone doubts that the topic is notable (if you do, please correct me)... the issue is locating sources that discuss the topic and substantiating that notability. Let's give it a few months and see if something can be written on this... if not, then we can revisit the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do doubt "that the topic is notable" -- it is too vague a topic for there to be much in the way of material explicitly on the topic (as opposed to on fringe science and similar sub-topics). The fact that you were foolish enough to create the topic without a single source only aggrvates this doubt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK; I think you are being unduely harsh on such a new article, but you are entitled to your opinion. Are you willing to give me some time to search for sources, or should I expect you to nominate the article for deletion? Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"New" does not mean that WP:V & WP:NOTE don't apply. If you want to work on something that doesn't meet those basic standards as yet, then create it in a sandbox. I won't restore the redirect immediately, but probably will if there isn't something substantive in place in the next day or two. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is redirected, I suggest it be redirected to Fringe and not Fringe science. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think you are being unduely harsh... WP:V says things must be verifiable... not that they must be verified. And I would dispute your contentions as to WP:NOTE (I think that if you put this up for an AFD, it would be an obvious Keep... even though it is difficult to establish its notability.).

That said, I do think you may have a point about working on this on a sandbox page. I would disagree with restoring the redirect to Fringe science (as there are obviously Fringe theories that go beyond Science)... and directing the page to "Fringe" does not work as that is a disambiguation page. Not sure how to deal with this. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"verifiability … whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". No source to check = no verifiability. The request that the redirect be to Fringe seems reasonable, as 'fringe theory' is a subset of it, but a superset of fringe science -- and it makes more sense to redirect to the 'parent' article than the 'child'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not redirect it to Conspiracy theory instead of Fringe science? --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Conspiracy theories, like Fringe science, are a subset of Fringe theory. This is actually very interesting... we have parent concept where we are having difficulty finding sources, estabishing notability and even defining, and child concepts for which we can. We say that notability is not inherited... but what about the other way around... does the notability of the child imply notability of the parent? I think it is time to raise this issue at WT:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just had a brain storm... could we make "Fringe Theory" into a dab page... pointing to the conceptual children: Fringe science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theory etc.? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Then so let it be done! Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

shifting to dab page

OK... I have set up the start for a dab page... Feel free to add articles that relate. Would someone who knows about hatnotes and all that formating stuff please fix it up properly. thanks Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a dab page to me. I think "List of fringe theories" would be a more appropriate title. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A "List of fringe theories" would be a list of individual theories, like:

• 7 World Trade Center was deliberately imploded,
• The Knights Templar fought at the battle of Bannochburn
• A Perpetual motion machine exists

What we are trying to account for is the fact that we can establish that specific sub-classes of Fringe Theories are notable, but we are having problems establishing that the supra-class Fringe Theory is notable. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we redirect "Fringe theory" to this category I just started: Category:Fringe theory? --Atomic blunder (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a cross namespace redirect, discouraged in Wikipedia. I'd suggest creating a List of fringe theories article (and citing each entry per WP:RS and WP:V) - paying very close attention to NPOV - and have a "See also" link to the category. After doing that, you can make Fringe theory a redirect. The better way, however, is to write an article describing what a "fringe theory" is (again, cite the stuffing out of it!) and have a section on representative fringe theories from various fields, including phlogiston theory (which was originally considered "mainstream") and note that Darwinian evolution was originally considered a fringe theory, too. B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that if there is not a standard, documented definition of "fringe theory" that you can cite here, all you would be producing is a rickety house of cards that could easily be blown down at the first AfD. B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Were are the reliable sources to show that the term "fringe theory" is used outside of Wikipedia to describe each of these concepts ? I could claim that the word "pooky" can mean a grapefruit, an unpleasant smell or a particular shade of blue, but that doesn't make it so. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the fact that the term is frequently used to discribe specific theories that fall with in these categories. As a rough indicator, see: this google book search... and this Google search (they are not sources, but they are an indication of what sources exist on the web). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the fact that the term is frequently used to discribe specific theories that fall with in these categories. As a rough indicator, see: this google book search... and this Google search (they are not sources, but they are an indication of what sources exist on the web). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As for potential sources that may directly tie the term to the sub-topics... we should look through this and this for the use of the term in respect to conspiracy theories... we have this book and these that seem to tie it to psuedohistory. (that Skeptics Encyclopedia seems to pop up a lot on these searches... and may be about more than just scientific Fringe theories... it definitely should be checked)

I definitely understand the limitations of Google searches... all I am saying is that they give enough of a hint that sources probably exist that this page (whether article/list/dab page or something else) would probably survive an AfD nom, and that those of us who are trying to build an article/list/dab/whatever should be given some slack to do so. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. Then I await with interest the appearance of reliable sources that show that the term "fringe theory" is used to generically describe all theories in each of the quoted groups, not just specific theories. I believe you are already being given a lot of slack - if a new editor had produced this sort of unsourced arbitrary list article I am sure it would have been prodded or taken to AfD within 24 hours. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I again suggest redirecting "Fringe theory" to the category I recently started: Category:Fringe theory. Editor B.Wind mentioned that the essay WP:CROSS discourages certain cross-namespace redirects, however, it also states, "Currently, the general consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted (although very old ones might retain value for extra-Wikipedia links), and that Pseudo-namespace redirects (CAT:, P:, MOS:, etc) may freely be used." Therefore, according to my interpretation, a redirect to a category or a portal is okay. Redirecting to a newly created "Fringe theory" portal may be a better idea. See WP:Portal. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't redirect articles to categories (different name spaces)... you often have a main article and a Cat with similar names. I have no problem with creating a Fringe theory category and placing relevant articles within it. Warning: This category will be VERY controvercial (editors will definitely argue about whether specific article topics qualify for inclusion in the category), I would strongly advise creating very firm inclusion guidelines and be ready to monitor the cat constently to inforce those guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a guideline that the category is for fringe theory in general and is not to be used for specific fringe theories. Specific fringe theories can go into a subcategory. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the dab page Fringe so it displays the contents of the Fringe theory category. Suggest that "Fringe theory" and "Fringe theories" be redirected to Fringe. --Atomic blunder (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a dab page

I have removed the {{disambig}} template because it is not appropriate for this page. The template's text says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title", which is clearly not the case here, and its documentation says it is "to be placed at the bottom of any article that exists to help readers find other articles with the same or similar names", which also does not apply to the list of articles on this page. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Shifting to user space

My intentions were good... my execution was flawed. I started this with the assumption that it would be easy to find sources on the topic. It is obvious (now) that my assumption was wrong. I do think this is a notable topic, one that is worthy of an article. So I will continue to work on digging for sources and building an article ... but it is obvious that there is resistance to having this article stay in main space while I do so. (actually... Given the speed with which this was challenged, I sense that there is some degree of hostility towards even having an article on the topic ... but if so, that is your problem, not mine.)

So... I am shifting my efforts to user space. If anyone is interested in trying to actually build an article, please let me know and I will be happy to work with you. I am determined to write at least a start level article on the topic... one that establishes notability, is properly cited, NPOV etc. I hope there are like minded editors out there who will join me.

Until then... please redirect this page where you will.Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question

I added in the recent edit concerning the Shakespeare Authorship Question, along with a great reference to a major NYTimes survey amongst college Shakespeare professors. I think it's an excellent example, as a great (but declining) majority of academics believe that the issue is completely unworthy of discussion, many insisting that there IS no issue. Doubters are actually labled as heretics or insane. Much to the chagrin of the more strident mainstream scholars, the survey showed more support than they believed was the case. My addition was quickly deleted with nothing raised here on the talk page. I reverted it and am willing ,of course, to discuss. My take is that since this is just a stub article, let's see what we can do to expand it. If it grows to a reasonable length, then we can be more picky about what goes in and what does not. For now, lets focus on expanding the prose. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's normal procedure to remove disputed content so I've deleted it. Let's have a discussion here before it's re-added. Personally, I don't think it is a good example since it remains a fringe theory according to the very source you provided. In other words, just because a fringe theory is increasinlgly being seen as possible by a growing number of scholars, it doesn't mean it's no longer a fringe theory. --Loremaster (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good example because Smatprt is selectively quoting the survey. Indeed, to the question "Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?", 2% answered "Has profound implications for the field;" 3% "An exciting opportunity for scholarship;" 61% "A theory without convincing evidence;" and 32% "A waste of time and classroom distraction." So IOW, only 5% have a positive opinion, so part of that 6% and 11% he quotes are probably either being scholastically cautious or think the question is referring to textual studies of co-authored plays. In fact, I'm surprised the Shakespeare authorship question is not listed as a prime example of a fringe theory, since a greater percentage of people believe in flying saucers than the idea that somebody else wrote Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Responding to LoreMaster, perhaps - in the case of a "controversial" edit. But I don't think this qualifies as that - it's simply stating facts and providing a mainstream reference. The more important policy would be that deleting material is never the preference. Edit it, but don't delete it (unless of course it is deemed controversial as to content). More to your main point though - the edit did not say that it was "no longer" fringe, although now it is more often called a "minority view" - as opposed to say Moon Landing Hoax or Holocaust Deniers, which (I would venture to say) are extreme fringe with no academic support, and no growth in support as with my example. I think it is actually helpful to show how things change - over time - and the progression they take, which make this a worthy example. Since you misunderstood the edit, perhaps you can explain your position in light of what the edit actually said? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you listing the Shakespeare Authorship Question as an increasingly popular fringe theory but nothing you have said suggests that it is no longer a fringe theory and that's the issue. --Loremaster (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good suggestion/compromise, so I have made the edit using your language. Cheers. Smatprt (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a poor example of a fringe theory, and it is held by no serious researchers. This seems to be an attempt to increase the profile of this "question" on wikipedia, and suggest it has wider support than in reality. The examples we have are ones that have had huge impact and are notable both inside the relevant scientific field and to the public at large. A wider consensus would need to be reached to add this poor example. Verbal chat 09:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain your first statement a bit more? In light of the Times survey of college Shakespeare/Lit professors, as well as this expanding group [[1]]? This data seems in direct conflict with what you are saying. Does this not jibe with Loremaster's suggestion of an increasingly popular fringe theory? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in a newspaper survey, when newspapers exist to sell newspapers (especially Murdoch titles). This is a dead donkey story. I started a related discussion on the noticeboard. Verbal chat 15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic Revisionism, again

I have reverted to the former consensus version brokered by Verbal several months ago. Before changing this version, please discuss here. Also, it would be helpful if these comments[[2]], were also discussed and a consensus reached.

In regards to this:[[3]] latest change, much of which was already discussed here [4], below are several references that support the view that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is an example of Historical Revisionism, which has been defined at this Fringe theory article as "novel re-interpretations of history". Making the change from Historical Revisionism, to Pseudohistory should be discussed by the regular editors of this page. Should the change be made? Should both categories be included?

• Shapiro (Contested Will, Simon and Shuster), makes the connection that searching for topical allusions within the plays has turned into revisionist history - "What began with a disguised author's hidden life blossomed into far-reaching and revisionist history: 'the inner story in the plays,' Donnelly writes, makes visible 'the struggles of factions in the courts; the interior view of the the birth of religions; the first colonization of the American continent... In the end, finding a disguised signature or an embedded autobiography or even rewriting world history wasn't enough...'.
• Albany Times, clearly labeled SAQ researchers as "revisionist scholars" - "In the 1950s, revisionist scholars favored playwright Christopher Marlowe as the true Bard of Avon."
• Warren Hope and Kim Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy (MacFarland and Company): "This history of the subject is quite different. It is written from the point of view that there is an authorship question, that it is important, and that the right answer has already been found and broadcast among us"; "In short, this is a history written in opposition to the current prevailing view"

• Newsweek Magazine: "Edward de Vere, widely regarded as the leading contender, died 12 years before Shakespeare, requiring a revisionist chronology of the plays."

• New York Times article on Moliere authorship debate: "Statisticians like Labbé think they have found the ultimate tool to determine authorship, and they use it to aggrandize their position in the field." In [Forestier's] eyes, a strictly scientific approach to authorship is dangerously revisionist, because it omits the textual analysis."

According to the article, "historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. The revisionist assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change." That definition seems to apply to the Shakespeare Authorship Question:

• The "event" (obviously) is the writing of the plays and poems. Did Shakespeare of Stratford write them alone or as part of a group? Or was he just a front man for a group or some other writer?

• This "event", in the eyes of authorship revisionists, has been interpreted incorrectly by the majority of scholars. These authorship doubters reinterpret orthodox views and question the motivations and decision-making processes of orthodox scholars.

The article also states: "Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo."

• The sections in bold accurately describe current authorship studies going on at Brunel University and Concordia University, where the university-sanctioned Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre recently opened. Smatprt (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudohistory vs. revisionism redux

Here's the discussion. Please stop reverting the edit against editorial consensus and please let's not revisit this again. And if you recall, you were the one who wanted to get the SAQ included in this article as a notable example. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - that discussion is an excellent example of no agreement, and no consensus. Simply saying the issue is "settled" does not make it so. In regards to this particular edit, there was no discussion and no consensus to make the unilateral changes that Tom made and has restored.Smatprt (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"It seems reasonable to me to keep SAQ off of the negationism page, but it seems reasonable to put it on the pseudohistory page. I don't think it really belongs on the Historical Revisionism page because it isn't usually considered to be that way. Compare Jesus Myth Hypothesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)" from this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly an example of consensus, but rather an excerpt from an unfinished (or abandoned) discussion from another article. Changes to this article need to be discussed here. Making unilateral changes that don't even keep the proper references intact should not be condoned.Smatprt (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent POV reversions over the SAQ

Smatprt, look at this section on this page. You were the editor who added the Shakespeare authorship question to the article as an example. Note the article section heading reads "Notable examples", plural, so trying to excise it under the pretence of adding a better example doesn't hold water. Also note the examples are of fringe theories, not pseudohistory, so whether the refs specifically name it as such (as the refs at pseudohistory do) is immaterial.

If you are seriously trying to make the argument that the SAQ is not a fringe theory, please do so. But the refs supplied are all WP:RS, and the motives behind your continued attempts to delete it are very transparent.

I also note that at the end of the examples discussion on this page, you claim that Hope and Holston state that the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism. In fact there is no such statement in that book, but I have not pointed that out because the consensus at the pseudohistory page is that it is an example of pseudohistory, and not historical revisionism. I am only doing so now to highlight the methods you are employing to push your POV. I don't know what you think the outcome of all this is going to be, but I can guarantee you it won't result in a sanctioned violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom - my initial addition was deleted due to lack of discussion. The following discussions, here and at the notice board, were thorough and resulted in an addition that had gained consensus. However, you have ignored such procedures. First you changed the wording of the addition without any discussion, replacing a neutral classification with a pejorative term. Then you failed to match the reference to the addition, again without any discussion. You also know full well that I did not come up with the Hope and Holston reference - that was found and added by an uninvolved editor at the Fringe notice board. But you know that, as I have had to remind you of it now several times.

Let me get this striaght. You areu denying that you wrote this?

I would agree with both approaches, but with the addition of "historical revisionism" somewhere, as it shows an example of precisely what is mentioned in the article. Something along these lines:

• "An example of historical revisionism in the field of literature is the contention that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him (see: Shakespeare authorship question), with the reference to Warren Hope and Kim Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy; second edition, 2009, McFarland & Company".
• Then, as Verbal suggests, adding a few other examples that represent the different kinds of theories mentioned in the lead paragraph. Smatprt (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not - which hardly proves any point you are trying to make. I repeat - I did not add the Hope and Holston reference. It was suggested by an uninvolved editor during the above referenced discussions.Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the point. Who added the H&H ref is immaterial, and I made no argument about that; you are the person who evidently think that's what I contended. The point is that you used it for a statement that is not in the ref. The larger point is that you were the person who insisted the SAQ be included in this article, and now you want it presented on your own terms, which are not supported by any independent, reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You also completely misrepresent "consensus". Just because you and and another editor agree on something, that does not mean you have gained consensus. And it is you who continue to push your own POV - adding pejorative labels wherever you can, deleting material you personally disagree with, and removing content repeatedly.

Frankly, you and I will never agree on this, so outside opinions from uninvolved editors are going to be required. In the meantime, will you consider backing off from your campaign and allow the community to weigh in? Smatprt (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly content to seek outside opinions from editors uninvolved with the SAQ. In the meantime, the default page as per Wikipedia policy is that which contains reliable, sourced information. As to your claim that "This ref trumps the claim that there is no academic support for this topic", Business Wire is not a reliable source. It distributes press releases for anybody who writes one. Brunel University is ranked at the bottom in its class. Concordia is ranked in the bottom half of Oregon universities. To put that into perspective, Oregon State, at the top of that list, is in an unranked third tier among national universities. In addition, your conclusion that the SAQ "has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic" is blatant WP:OR and has no business in this article.

Again - your just belaboring your point to the extreme. The web-ranking of universities (which you misrepresent by the way)? Seriously? What on earth does that have to do with anything? Business Wire is not RS - says who? It merely reports that the courses exist and that the Research Centre exists. Are you saying these universities do not support research into the SAQ, which is the real meat here? The problem is that you keep saying that there is no academic support, etc - and these two universities prove you wrong. Can you not even admit that?Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent the rankings? And I do not "keep saying that there is no academic support", I say that almost no academics support it. A few academics have supported alternative authors almost since the theory was proposed, but they are very few and the support is marginal. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote your pet theory. That you and other Ofordians are trying to do so is obvious to everybody, no matter how much you protest. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Now this is a perfect example of your attempts at misdirection. Not only does this link to a statement that I did not make, you have cleverly taken it out of context. Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand my point. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that I need to address this statement of yours: "And it is you who continue to push your own POV - adding pejorative labels wherever you can, deleting material you personally disagree with, and removing content repeatedly."

I do not "push my own POV" or delete material "that I personally disagree with". I think anyone who reviews your editing history and mine will readily see who is pushing their own POV. I delete material that is in the wrong place. If it is not connected to the topic in a serious and prominent way by independent reliable sources, it has no business being in an article on that topic in any kind of encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia. The very fact that a topic is listed in an encyclopedia gives it a certain amount of authority. Sprinkling a fringe theory in every conceivable article is an attempt to lend that topic more authority and implied scholarly esteem than is actually the case, which is the reason why Wikipedia has such policies as WP:ONEWAY and WP:WEIGHT. These are basic principles you need to understand if you're going to edit Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course you push your own POV. For example - you deleted any mention of the SAQ from the article on Shakespeare's Plays, saying the authorship issue has nothing to do with the plays. Are you really saying that (with a straight face)? Smatprt (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So if a group happens to believe that Shakespeare's plays have hidden messages that tell us when the world is going to end, an link to Apocalypse is warranted? I really think you have no understanding of WP:ONEWAY. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made what I hope is an acceptable compromise. The section merely calls for examples of fringe theories. They don't need to be further classified or explained. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples discussion

I feel that unless a WP:RS is found stating that the Shakespeare question is a prominent/notable/seminal/.. example of a fringe theory/revisionist-history it should be left out. Long discussion of the topic should definitely not be added to this page, there is an article for that which we wikilink to. A better example to my mind, should one be needed, is Cold fusion - which was taken seriously, is now fringe, but still has some respected adherents. Verbal chat 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. So edit the article accordingly. --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind including Cold fusion, but we actually need several more examples... examples from different fields of study. The one thing I like about using the Shakespeare question as an example is that it is non-scientific in nature. I don't really know enough about the Shakespeare question to judge whether it is fringe or not, but if we do replace it we should do so with something non-scientific in nature. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I did quickly find an interest quote in the New York Times in relation to an Authorship question being "dangerously revionist" from "Georges Forestier, an authority at the Sorbonne on 17th-century theater" (see the article here, 2nd to last paragraph: [[5]]. This particular case is over the doubted authorship of Moliere, but makes the point that ""Statisticians like Labbé think they have found the ultimate tool to determine authorship, and they use it to aggrandize their position in the field." In his eyes, a strictly scientific approach to authorship (the same approach used by various Shakespeare authorship researchers, esp Thomas Looney) is dangerously revisionist, because it omits the textual analysis.". I will look for other sources as well, but this is certainly to the overall point of authorship studies, in general, being revisionist. Finding sources that call it a Fringe Theory are numerous and I will supply those shortly. Smatprt (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another (again, 2nd to last paragraph) in which redating of the plays (as is the case with several authorship candidates including the leading alternate candidate De Vere) is noted as "revisionist": [[6]]. The quote concerns "requiring a revisionist chronology of the plays." Smatprt (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like something that says it is notable or important amongst fringe theories, I already know it is a ridiculous fringe theory, and it is easy to find sources for that. Verbal chat

Here is one from Univ of Wis pseudoscience section paper on the Authorship: "For sheer longevity, no conspiracy theory can match the notion that William Shakespeare did not write the plays that have been attributed to him." Here is the whole article: from Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences Department: [[7]]. Smatprt (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Another better example might be AIDS denialism. Verbal chat 08:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again - here is the RS you asked for: from Univ of Wis pseudoscience section paper on the Authorship: "For sheer longevity, no conspiracy theory can match the notion that William Shakespeare did not write the plays that have been attributed to him." Here is the whole article: from Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences Department: [[8]].Smatprt (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Then take it to the conspiracy theory article for discussion there. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you are being just stubborn and overly picky. You know what the source is saying - that no theory (which everyone agrees is fringe according to WP definition) can match this one for sheer longevity. If you want further RS, please note that Stanley Wells, the foremost Shakespeare scholar in the world, has devoted a full chapter in his latest book to the subject, and noted Shakespeare scholars Matus and Shoenbaum have provided similar coverage. The discussion on the noticeboard has 4 editors agreeing that this belongs in the article. Isn't your POV that is being the true obstacle here? Smatprt (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the accusations. The source says conspiracy theory - take it there. I don't see the agreement that your lengthy wording should be included, only that examples should be included and that this may be a good one. Verbal chat 14:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and both kinds (revisionist and conspiracy) are Fringe as the article clearly states. I've also provided sources on the revisionist category - the best one being the article on Moliere (which mentions Shakespeare in precisely the same exact context). I'm not tied to overly "lengthy wording" - but it shouldn't hang there like a stub, but have some short explanatory line like the one above it does. Maybe the short quote from the Moliere article about using a scientific approach to determining authorship being "dangerously revisionist"? Smatprt (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Smatprt... I think it has now been established that the Shakespeare question is indeed considered a fringe theory, and one that is note-worthy enough for us to use as an example. I will also note that our article mentions conspiracy theories as a sub-genre of Fringe theories... so I don't think the "take it to the conspiracy theory article" argument holds any water. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I question why Smatprt is arguing so strenuously here that anti-Stratfordism is a fringe theory yet on the Shakespeare authorship question page he goes to great lengths to keep that description off the page. On the talk page he writes, "Just because an abusive Stratfordian used the term in a brief, dismissive and error ridden 6 page chapter in someone else's book, does not give you carte blanche to use the "exact" language here. . ." So tell us, Smatprt why the double standard? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of a game Tom is playing here, but I answered this 2 days ago and another editor answered in similar terms. To quote my post of Jan 24 "" the difference is that "Fringe" to the general reader sounds like nutcases, which I imagine is your aim. Fringe, here on Wikipedia, is much softer and refers to minority and alternative views. To quote "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Unfortunately, the general reader does not know this distinction, which is why the use here is misleading. Does that make sense? I believe that is what Paul was trying to say when he went with "marginal". I'm trying my best Tom. Thanks. Smatprt(talk) 16:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)" and on Jan 25th, editor Schoenbaum wrote ""Fringe" carries the connotation of "lunatic" fringe, which is unwarranted." And of course, Paul - on Jan 23rd - wrote "fringe is too much WP jargon to be useful". So three editors, including one mainstream stratfordian editor, all recognized the same problem with using the term in the article prose. So no double standard, just common sense and fair play. Smatprt (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I've supplied various references as has one editor on the Noticeboard page. How would you like to proceed? What do you think of this proposed language:

• An example of a historical revisionism would be the Shakespeare authorship question, where authorship doubters have used the scientific method to propose numerous alternate authorship candidates, and have suggested altering the assumed chronology of the plays in order to match the historical time frame of the various nominees. However, Georges Forestier, a mainstream authority on 17th-century theater, believes that a strictly scientific approach to authorship is "dangerously revisionist". Smatprt (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Far too long (and misleading). We should have a short paragraph of examples that does not give undue weight. For example, 'Examples of FT include the "dangerous" historical revisionism of the Shakespeare authorship question (ref), the controversial and unaccepted scientific phenomenon of Cold Fusion (ref), and the belief that HIV and AIDS are not linked (ref).' Wording to be discussed. The links should provide the detail. Verbal chat 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that we just say...

• "An example of a fringe theory in the field of literature is the contention that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him (see: Shakespeare authorship question)."

...and leave all the details to the Shakespeare authorship question article itself. All we need in this article is a simple textual list (ie in paragraph form, not bulletpointed) of a few examples from different fields of study. The purpose of this article is to explain what a fringe theory is... and examples help with that goal... This is not the place to argue that something is a fringe theory, or explain why it is considered a fringe theory. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that, though I feel we should add at least three such examples as one unitto avoid giving one fringe theory undue weight. Best, Verbal chat 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with both approaches, but with the addition of "historical revisionism" somewhere, as it shows an example of precisely what is mentioned in the article. Something along these lines:

• "An example of historical revisionism in the field of literature is the contention that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him (see: Shakespeare authorship question), with the reference to Warren Hope and Kim Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy; second edition, 2009, McFarland & Company".

• Then, as Verbal suggests, adding a few other examples that represent the different kinds of theories mentioned in the lead paragraph. Smatprt (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've slightly reworded the addition to remove the "(see: ...)". I also added the "dangerously revisionist", but I think now I've used the wrong source. Smatprt, can you please confirm/fix the source, or remove the "dangerous"? Verbal chat 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

you are right - dangerous isn't in the source that was suggested on the noticeboard, so I removed it. Smatprt (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the Shakespeare Authorship Question is definitely a sufficiently prominent example of a fringe theory to be used as an example. Even in the inter-war period, it was well enough known for Sellars and Yeatman to joke about it in 1066 and All That. And there's Patrick Moores's famous "It is transparently obvious to any scholar that William Shakespeare's plays were written not by William Shakespeare, but by another author of the same name." Of course, I take a rather less benvolent view of its fringe nature than Smatprt. ISTR his objecting to my quoting the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare on the nature of the fringeness and the appropiateness of Thomas Looney's surname. So do use as an example of fringeness but not of one that has come into the mainstream.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples discussion #2

I am moving this section here for discussion purposes. As of the last edit, here is what we have now:

Notable examples

• The claim that the Holocaust did not occur or was greatly exaggerated.

• The claim that Shakespeare did not write the plays and poems attributed to him.

The problem I have, is simply listing examples without any explanation. In its present form, we have two extremes - Holocaust Denial, perhaps the most repulsive of al fringe theories (at least in my opinion), and the SAQ, a far less pernicious example. Having these two examples back to back seems to equate them in some way, which I find problematic on several levels. So to open this discussion - what is this section intended to convey. How do we determine appropriate examples? Smatprt (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Having these two examples back to back seems to equate them in some way." Yes, it equates them as examples of fringe theories. There is no getting around that. It does not make an argument that they are morally equivalent, except to people who are not rational. There's no help for the perceptions of irrational people and there is no obligation to cater to them. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you will attract some editors to discuss your problems. The section calls for examples; those are two. If the contiguity of the layout bothers you, intersperse more examples between them. It is worth noting that you are the editor who added both examples. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made a compromise edit that should be acceptable. Your purpose is to keep it off the main page, as is apparent from your editing. There is no reason to keep the information, which is accurate and sourced, off the page "for discussion purposes". I see no other editors joining in the discussion, so I'll alert a few so that discussion can happen. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe instead of a list, we could go with "notable examples range from the controversial denial that the holocaust occured, to the benign idea that Shakespeare did not write his plays and poems." It could be a little WP:weasel-y, but it'd get the job done in distancing the two. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes... present it as a range. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples seem valid, there is no comparison implied between listed items. Either rewrite as a range as mentioned above - or - find more valid examples to insert between these two. And I've [I see that Tom Reedy (seems there was an edit conflict there)] restored the list, please don't edit war during a discussion. Vsmith (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC) Amended comment [] Vsmith (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Reedy and Ian Thomson. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. This whole thing is just an attempt to promote a POV in favor of a discredited fringe theory by trying to remove all mention of it being a fringe theory. The same editor is up to the same shenanigans on other articles. The examples should stand. DreamGuy (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am not trying to remove all mention of it being a Fringe Theory. It's the additions of further pejorative labels that I object to. I have actually argued that given Wikipedia's broad definition of Fringe (practically anything that is outside the mainstream), that the SAQ does indeed fall under that label. But adding "lunatic fringe" or "pseudo-whatever" labels seems to be going beyond what would be considered neutral language. I had originally suggested adding the SAQ as an example of historical revisionism, which was neutral language and gained a consensus here and at the Fringe Notice Board. Then TomReedy changed the wording from "historical revisionism" (neutral) to "pseudo-history" (pejorative). This change was made without discussion or consensus. Thus my recent edits.Smatprt (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fringe theories differ significantly from the mainstream, not "just practically anything outside the mainstream". For academic and scientific subjects, its methodology is an important component of what sets it apart from mainstream. The Shakespeare authorship question is a clear example of this.

• Historical revisionism is a recognised scholarly process of which the SAQ is not an example, unless you mean Historical revisionism (negationism). This has been explained to you time and again. There was never any consensus that it was revisionism, either here or at the noticeboard. After your reversion of 10 April, I left it in place while it was discussed at the noticeboard and at Verbal's talkpage. A good way to tell whether you have consensus is to see how many people are reverting your edits here, at Pseudohistory, and at Historical revisionism and how many are reverting mine.

• It is unfortunate that adherents of SAQ theories have been called the "lunatic fringe", but the world outside Wikipedia is not under any constraints to use neutral language, and it has been referred to as such from its beginning up to the present day. Let me know if you need examples. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with TR's comments. Second, there must be a differentiation clearly made between minority and fringe theories. Otherwise, it will be easier for those with fringe positions to obfuscate reality in order to promote their pet theory. Third, whether referring to something as "pseudo-history" is pejorative or not is not the issue. I mean, sure, Wiki editors themselves should not introduce their own pejoratives, but if that is how a particular fringe theory is referred to by multiple reliable sources, we have an obligation to present it as such using the reliable source's own words (or by a reference to their own words). For example, the Moon landing hoax article uses the pejorative phrase "conspiracy theory" multiple times. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories is Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, polite (politically correct?) term for insubstantial, unsubstantiated beliefs that should not be presented in Wikipedia articles as legitimate views on a subject (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories). Wikipedia policy distinguishes a so-called fringe theory from a minority view in a field of scholarship, which should be given proportionate treatment in an article to satisfy the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. To be blunt, what Wikipedia calls a fringe theory is a pronouncement that has no support among scholars in a subject and, more importantly, no legitimate basis for anyone to believe that it is true.

This article treats fringe theory as though it were used in real world scholarship as a catch-all term for various forms of nonsense. In my experience, it isn't. The term fringe theory is very rarely used in the real world, although lunatic fringe is sometimes heard. In real world science and math, the most common terms are pseudoscience (the most polite word), junk science (made popular by the US Supreme Court's opinion in the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals), crank, and crackpot. In science, fringe theory is an oxymoron: a scientific theory, by definition, must be based on valid scientific principles and reasoning, and supported by scientific observation or experiment. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon, based on scientific principles but not yet supported by observation; but a hypothesis is still part of scientific work, even if it is later proven to be wrong (as the majority of hypotheses by good scientists are).

There is a discussion above that proposes examples of fringe theories that were later accepted. There are none that I am aware of. Advances in science are always, by definition, new. There are always some scientists (some of the best) who are slow to accept new scientific ideas; that is healthy skepticism, because most new scientific ideas turn out to be wrong (which does not make them fringe). That does not mean that new scientific ideas are fringe (i.e., crackpot) theories until they are widely accepted. The big bang theory of cosmology was never fringe, even before it became the prevailing view; it was a valid extrapolation from observational data based on scientific principles and reasoning and was published in a peer reviewed journal. Copernicus's heliocentric theory was never fringe; many astronomers accepted it quickly, others didn't, and it was later very substantially improved by Kepler. Kepler's theory was quickly accepted because it fit the observational data better than Copernicus's theory and was simpler (although Copernicus's heliocentrism was revolutionary, his theory retained a lot of erroneous baggage from the prevailing theory).

In my opinion, this article does belong in Wikipedia. It has nothing to say beyond pointing to the various types of ideas that are never part of legitimate scholarship, each of which is already well covered by Wikipedia. I doubt that other encyclopedias have articles on fringe theories as a topic of their own. I suspect that this article exists as a (false, in my opinion) analogy to, or projection of, our internal Wikipedia:Fringe theories content guideline.—Finell 11:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Shakespeare Authorship Question is definitely a sufficiently prominent example of a fringe theory to be used as an example. Even in the inter-war period, it was well enough known for Sellars and Yeatman to joke about it in 1066 and All That. And there's Patrick Moores's famous "It is transparently obvious to any scholar that William Shakespeare's plays were written not by William Shakespeare, but by another author of the same name." Of course, I take a rather less benvolent view of its fringe nature than Smatprt. ISTR his objecting to my quoting the Oxford Companion to Shakespeare on the nature of the fringeness and the appropiateness of Thomas Looney's surname. So do use as an example of fringeness but not of one that has come into the mainstream.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh Peter, seriously? Are you really advocating using Wikipedia to make fun of someone's name?? So I suppose that if you wrote a book on erectile dysfunction, it would be fair game to criticize the work because your name was "Peter"? :)

I know your distaste of the SAQ is extremely profound, and you have made parroted statements about "unanimous" academic scorn (which is not true, of course), but don't you think you are going a bit far? By the way, I have never said that the SAQ has been accepted by the mainstream. It would be nice if you would not mislead other editors this way. Smatprt (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Kuhn and pardigm shift

On the issue of fringe theories becoming accepted, surely Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm shift deserves a mention? There are also some examples there which could be adopted.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles on both this topic and especially pseudohistory are woefully—even misleadingly—incomplete. The problem is finding editors who know the subject and who are willing to waste countless hours having their edits undone by people with an agenda or who know next to nothing about it. Of course, that's the main problem with the rest of Wikipedia also. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has excellent rules, such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The problem is that some editors don't feel bound by them, whether or not they know the subject. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP has excellent rules, but the procedures for enforcing them are tedious and burdensome for people who value their time. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many useful ways in which one can promote a climate of opinion which respects the rules, namely obeying them oneself (not forgetting WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF), and advocacy of them in edit summaries and on talk pages. This doesn't always work, but in many cases it avoids the need for actual enforcement.

But looking specifically at the case of the pseudohistory article which you raised, there's a substantial paragraph called Pseudohistory#Description. It has no references at all, and this fact has been flagged since March 2009. The paragraph seems to be at best a clear breach of WP:NOR. Maybe someone did "waste countless hours" on writing it, but it has no legitimate defence against deletion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It does now, and the mystery is why it wasn't sourced at the time it was added, because it obviously follows the source and it took me all of three minutes to find it. With the Internet, Google Books, Amazon.com, and Wikipedia, we truly live in a Golden Age of scholarship if we'll just pick up the tools laying at our feet. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. I hadn't realised that there was such a direct source for it all. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Solomon cut?

I don't know, but I came here with fresh eyes and saw a trainwreck. This is not an article that is supposed to list examples of fringe theories. This is an article that's supposed to discuss fringe theories. Find sources about fringe theories in general and write the article about fringe theories in general.

Sample outline:

I. Lead

II. Mainstream academia

A. Academic consensus

B. Elitism

II. Amateur theorizing

A. History

B. Current status

C. "Crankism"

III. Sociology and philosophy of knowledge

A. Dialectic

i. Hegel

ii. Draper

B. Positivism

i. Comte

ii. Philosophy of Science

C. Skepticism

IV. Popular considerations

A. Sensationalism and tabloid journalism

B. Enthusiasts

V. References

See what I mean? Incorporating lists gives undue weight to the fringe theories themselves. This is an article about the concept of fringe theories, not a list of them.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This entire brouhaha (in the secondary sense: an episode involving excitement, confusion, turmoil, etc., esp. a broil over a minor or ridiculous cause) dates back to January with this edit and this discussion, and exposes the inherent weakness in a compromissory process that favours the dogged persistence of tendentious editors. Usually Wikipedians grow weary and give way, but it quits working when they run into an editor with the same persistence.

Wikipedia is probably the most-consulted reference source in the history of the world, and it has a responsibility to provide accurate and up-to-date information. There's a lesson here for Wikipedians who tire of the encyclopedia being used as a WP:SOAPBOX. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the edit you are referring to was fine since it wasn't sourced to a reliable, third-party source (no, polls referred to in the New York Times do NOT measure academic consensus reliably). That a ridiculous list and argument happened after that edit is unjustifiable and ultimately a terrible waste of time. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

It appears to me that the consensus here is that the placement and characterisation of the Shakespeare authorship question in this article is appropriate as it now stands. Would the editors weigh in on this so it won't come up again unless something changes? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Tom - the nearest thing to a consensus is to provide a range and some context - see comments above by BlueBoar, Ian.thomson and Vsmith. (I'm not sure how on earth you could have missed those comments). Note the suggestion: "notable examples range from the controversial denial that the holocaust occured, to the benign idea that Shakespeare did not write his plays and poems.", "Yes... present it as a range."; "Either rewrite as a range as mentioned above - or - find more valid examples to insert between these two." Please don't try and force a consensus based strictly on what you want. Learn to compromise. Otherwise it appears you want to equate Holocaust denial with the SAQ. I feel that personally you would like to see it that way, but is that really best for Wikipedia?

To me it appears there are 3 options:

• Leave it as it is (your preference - which lacks consensus)

• Use the wording I provided above (my preference - which lacks consensus)

• Provide a range and some context (suggested by Ian.thomson and supported by BlueBoar and Vsmith).

In the spirit of compromise, I would agree to the third suggestion and would endorse the wording proposed by Ian. Smatprt (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "feelings" are beside the point. "Otherwise it appears you want to equate Holocaust denial with the SAQ," is a prevarication, to put it mildly. I wrote, "Yes, it equates them as examples of fringe theories. There is no getting around that. It does not make an argument that they are morally equivalent, except to people who are not rational", and I also wrote, "If the contiguity of the layout bothers you, intersperse more examples between them."

I did not miss any comments, but apparently you did. I count:

• present as a range: Ian.thomson and Blueboar
• present as range or intersperse other examples: Vsmith
• agrees with Ian and me (whatever that means): Loremaster
• Let it stand: DreamGuy, Bill the Cat, Finell, Peter Cohen, and GentlemanGhost.

Let me point out that not one person agrees with your original contention that the SAQ doesn't belong in this article.

This dispute has been going on since July 14, and now that it's winding down you're trying to start another one on The Winter's Tale page. Frankly, I'm tired of wasting my time with these kinds of disputes. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, when you continue to blatantly lie make misrepresentations to every editor on this page, it makes it impossible to reason with you or develop a compromise. You state above that my original contention was that the SAQ "doesn't belong in the article", and then you post a link to prove your point. Do you expect people not to follow the link?? The subject line states "source no longer supports current version, so deleting rather than arguing over sources." In other words, you rewrote the sentence, but kept the old reference (which does not support your new version). This was pointed out to you by both Dab and I, but you ignored us and then posted misrepresentation after misrepresentation. I have always supported the SAQ as an example of Fringe (given Wikipedia's broad definition of the term), but I do not support equating it to holocaust denial or the like. Your aim has been to present the SAQ in as bad a light as possible, and listing it out of context alongside Holocaust denial accomplishes your goal. In the spirit of compromise, Blueboar, Vsmith and Loremaster all agreed with Ian.thompson, who saw the problem, and offered a solution. And your listing of GentlemanGhost as supporting your version may not be accurate. He wrote "I don't see a problem" under the section where I proposed different wording. Who knows what he meant? This is why I asked him to clarify. Smatprt (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You say, "I have always supported the SAQ as an example of Fringe (given Wikipedia's broad definition of the term)," yet in addition to your first deletion, you've deleted it 1 (your reason was "undue weight"), 2 (added Holocaust denial as a "better example"), 3 (refs were strained and asked for discussion at talk), 4 (didn't like the refs and felt compelled to delete it in order to discuss it), 5 (has to be deleted in order to discuss it), 6 (invoke fictitious "procedure" that requires deletion to discuss), 7 (claim that you're following Bold-revert-discuss, forgetting who got the ball rolling) times from 16 July to 30 July. So you've deleted it eight times total. The only thing that changes is your rationale.

On July 28 you asked me to discuss on the talk page. However, I was on the talk page on July 15. You were asked to discuss this on July 14, yet you couldn't get around to it until six reverts later after I finally started a discussion. Then you said I had made the change (more than a month earlier) "without any discussion", despite my edit summary based on the noticeboard discussion and my pointing out to you one of the many discussions about this on July 15.

You go on to say, "but I do not support equating it to holocaust denial or the like. Your aim has been to present the SAQ in as bad a light as possible, and listing it out of context alongside Holocaust denial accomplishes your goal." Holocaust denial? You were the editor who added it.

You say you deleted the example because "you rewrote the sentence, but kept the old reference (which does not support your new version)." Fine. I provided four WP:RS sources, plus I added the language that the SAQ was a "less pernicious example". That was on July 28. Why are we still having this discussion?

And just to make things clearer, three different editors have reverted you since this dispute began. We've all been reverting only one editor: you.

I'm sure you consider all these "blatant lies", but the edits speak for themselves. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure Tom, keep taking things out of context. My rationale changes based on the changes/deletions/additions you keep making. Here, you are simply trying to claim consensus when there is none - just as you have done on other pages. No amount of diffs is going to change that.Smatprt (talk)

And yet the "changes/deletions/additions [I] keep making" boil down to one basic edit: upholding your addition to this article of the Shakespeare authorship question as an example of a fringe theory.

I see our revels now are ended and this comedy lurches to a conclusion. Strangely, the placement (i.e. included in this article) and characterisation (i.e. as an example of a fringe theory) of the Shakespeare authorship question in this article is exactly how it stood when I asked for a consensus weigh-in, so I suppose you were in agreement after all. Sometimes we just don't know our own minds, do we? Good work on the examples, BTW. Had you done so earlier all this energy expended could have been better used powering a small village hospital. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No tom, I provided a range/intersperse with others as suggested by Ian, VSmith, et al. The reason I didn't just add these before was that previous discussions [[9]] indicated that any additions should be discussed first. BTW - this was the procedure reference that you accused me of "making up". That's what I mean about your constant misrepresentations. Smatprt (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You've really got to stop with these encores, Smtprt; the audience wants to go home after a while.

"I provided a range/intersperse with others as suggested by Ian, VSmith, et al." You mean this suggestion?: "If the contiguity of the layout bothers you, intersperse more examples between them. It is worth noting that you are the editor who added both examples. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)"

Oh, wait a minute; that's me. You must mean this one, a couple of hours later: "Maybe instead of a list, we could go with "notable examples range from the controversial denial that the holocaust occurred, to the benign idea that Shakespeare did not write his plays and poems." It could be a little WP:weasel-y, but it'd get the job done in distancing the two. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)"

But wait a minute! The edit providing context within a range had already been made two days earlier! But then you reverted it!

I gotta admit I'm just having fun now, but I do have one piece of advice: don't ever go on a reality TV show unless they spot you a big handicap. Although TV reality is different, it's not so different as to be characterised as a "blatant lie", Tom Reedy (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

you mean blatant liar someone who misrepresents the facts. Smatprt (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider the current contents of Fringe theory Notable examples paragraph to be weird and ludicrous. It would make much more sense to drop the section altogether and instead say "Examples can be found in the articles Pseudohistory and Fringe science / Pseudoscience", the last two of which need to be merged in any case. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that is not the purpose of this particular discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for the use of the terms "lie" and "liar". In the future I will use the more civil term "misrepresentation".Smatprt (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

SAQ placement

I have kept Tom's recent revert in place, but have also added the following:

"Similarly, the Shakespeare authorship question formerly enjoyed no support from the academic community but now has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic."

• Ref #1: link to Shakespeare Authorship REsearch Centre at Concordia University: http://www.authorshipstudies.org/library/index.cfm

• Ref #2: link to Brunel University course description: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/courses/pg/cdata/s/shakespeareauthorshipstudiesma

• Ref #3: “Questioning Shakespeare”,Critical Survey Volume 21, Number 2, Summer 2009, guest edited by Brunel University Professor William Leahy. For those that do not know of Critical Survey, it is a leading British journal of literary studies, published and distributed by Berghahn journals under the general editorship of Graham Holderness of Hertfordshire University. The editorial board includes Jonathan Bate, Catherine Belsey, Michael Bristol, Leah Marcus, Annabel Patterson, and Stanley Wells, among other notable Shakespeareans. According to Bate, Critical Survey is “an essential journal for anyone interested in the critical debates of our time.”

• Ref #4: Link to Press Releases from Concordia and Brunel Universities: http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/4322743-1.html;http://www.authorshipstudies.org/library/index.cfm

It seems to me that given the nature of paragraph #2, the SAQ fits better there. I have supplied 4 references (3 to academia and 1 to verify the existance of the first 2). That might be overkill in regards to references, but with the number of refs being supplied by Tom, I wanted to at least try and keep up. Smatprt (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The place for those refs would likely be in the article Shakespeare authorship question, perhaps they are there already, haven't looked. However, as an example of a "fringe theory" that has been accepted ... no. The acceptance of plate tectonics as an outgrowth of continental drift is a valid and unquestioned example and appropriately used as such. To attempt to use a still disputed theory as an example that is perhaps "less fringe" is inappropriate. So I removed it. Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not indend to imply that the SAQ has been "accepted" and if my edit stated that then I would agree with you completely. My intention, however, was to add to the paragraph that starts "the status of a theory can change" - so stating that the SAQ formally had "no" academic support, but has now changed to "some" academic support is (in my opinion) information worth sharing - especially since the refs support this information. This sets the SAQ apart from such topics as Holocaust Denial, Moon Hoaxes, and the like. I am certianly not aware of any public institutions of higher learning that offer courses and encourage new research in "Holocaust Denial" or "Moon Hoaxes". Maybe what I am proposing is some better catagorization when we come to the various examples we choose to list. Thanks for allowing me to clarify this.Smatprt (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps better wording would be:

• "Status of a theory can change. For example, the Shakespeare authorship question formerly enjoyed no support from the academic community but now has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic, though is still contested by a majority of scholars. Continental drift, however, has moved from being a contested, fringe theory in geology, to becoming very widely accepted as plate tectonics within the scientific community."

You're trying to shoehorn it in from the wrong end. This is an article describing fringe theories. It should simply be listed as it is now, and there should be no comparison at all with plate tectonics or the germ theory of disease, (which would be a good one to add). The only wording that would accurately describe it from the right end would be "Academic scholars are almost unanimous in dismissing such theories, but two universities offer programs on the subject." Of course, to be fair and neutral, we'll need to mention the university courses and lectures offered on UFOs, alien abduction, and Holocaust denial, etc. But since this is an umbrella article, details are not really needed. A simple statement of the theory and what it entails should be sufficient. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's some pisrepresentation of the Brunel course going on. A lot of the course is about the theory as a contested theory. Holocaust denial, cold fusion etc. can all be examined in that sort of way without giving any credit to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from the course outline: "The Shakespeare Authorship Question: What are the alternatives to Shakespeare as author? Outside speakers put their case to students, who will assess the historical and cultural context of this century-old debate." they are obviously approaching the question from a neutral ground and within an academic context. And they certainly are not attaching a pejorative label, or using the course to tear down the entire concept (which would be the case of Holocaust Denial, etc.). So your charge of misrepresentation is not accurate. Smatprt (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

However the courses are presented (and you certainly can't claim neutrality for the Concordia program), they don't by any stretch support the statement that the SAQ "has achieved some degree of acceptance as a legitimate research topic" from the academic community. That the SAQ is regarded as legitimate by its promoters at Concord goes without saying. To try to turn those two programs into being representative of the academic community is WP:OR (as well as being non-factual) and constitutes WP:PROMOTION. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(I notice you wrote "Pisrepresentation", which (if we accepted your last statement in the section above), I suppose is appropriate coming from an editor named "Peter"? (I'm just kidding everyone - but since Peter is advocating using Wikipedia to make fun of Thomas Looney's name, I thought I'd play along) :) Smatprt (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that it is still considered a fringe theory, as per the multiple references cited. This does not mean that the theory is is untrue, but the rubric at Wikipedia has always been verifiability, not truth. Verifiably, rightly or wrongly, it is still considered by most to be a fringe theory. As long as we're not using what's written in this Wikipedia article as the basis for decisions on editing Shakespearean Authorship Question, I don't see a problem. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GG - could you clarify what exactly you don't have a problem with? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm confused. I've been away for a while and I come back to find y'all still arguing about this. Now. This rather pathetic article is on Fringe Theories yes? Smatprt included an example of a Fringe Theory, and it was removed despite referencing it being taught on an academic course. Now, in a discussion we already had somewhere else, Nisidani specifically said that the Shakespeare authorship question wasn't legitimate because no main stream scholars agreed with it, the advocates weren't academics, and it wasn't taught anywhere. See the paradox? So here's my question. Exactly what is the point in deleting reliably sourced material from an article that is badly in need of something, anything. By your rationale, the SAQ doesn't even qualify as fringe, which is, of course, ridiculous, as by that logic virtually nothing does. Like I've said before, whether you agree with it or not, like it or not, it exists. Therefore it is. So tell me something. The SAQ doesn't qualify as fringe. Why? You can't argue on one page that it can't be talked about because it's too fringe, and on another it can't be talked about because its not fringe enough. Bertaut (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Example of Fringe-to-Accepted Mainstream Theory

Another example of a fringe theory that eventually became accepted science is the Big Bang Theory. Perhaps there should be a list of such theories (?). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find reliable source that state that a mainstream theory was once a fringe theory, we could make such a list. That being said, weren't all mainstream theories fringe at the first? --Loremaster (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was simply offering an example. Another example is Helio-centric view of the solar system. And, yes, I think most, if not all, mainstream theories started off as fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If true, we will need to clarify that some fringe theories will most probably always remain fringe (pseudoscience) while others have the possibility of becoming mainstream (protoscience)... --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Those may be good terms to incorporate into WP:FRINGE ... people tend to get upset when we label a topic as "FRINGE"... it is often seen as being a complete dismissal of the topic... but that is not what is intended. Here on Wikipedia we don't make a value judgement between "pseudo" and "proto"... both are considered FRINGE. If we pointed that out in clear language, we might help more people understand the policy better. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --Loremaster (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plate tectonics was considered part of "the lunatic fringe" back when it was still called continental drift (Plate tectonics: an insider's history of the modern theory of the Earth By Naomi Oreskes pg 72) and Heliocentrism supporters were similarly called lunatics (The reception of Copernicus' heliocentric theory pg 311). Similarly what were once mainstream theories become fringe as how we think the universe changes. Astrology, the existence of Vulcan (hypothetical planet), Élan vital, and many others became fringe as the concepts they suggested either didn't work or didn't fit into latter explanations.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Verification needed for plate tectonics

Can someone verify the source for the claim plate tectonics used to be a contested, fringe theory in geology only to become very widely accepted within the scientific community? I don't personally doubt that it is true but someone added a “verification needed” tag a while ago and no one has done anything about it. --Loremaster (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is a source that says it was a contested (although "fringe" is only implied) theory. In part, it says:

Wegener's ideas were very controversial because he didn't have an explanation for why the continents moved, just that there was observational evidence that they had. At the time, many geologists believed that the features of the Earth were the result of the Earth going through cycles of heating and cooling, which causes expansion and contraction of the land masses. People who believed this were called the anti-mobilists. The mobilists were in the opposite camp and supported Wegener's ideas, since many of them had seen evidence for continental motion, especially in the Alps.

Although Wegener's "continental drift" theory was later disproved, it was one of the first times that the idea of crustal movement had been introduced to the scientific community; and it laid the groundwork for the development of modern plate tectonics. As years passed, more and more evidence was uncovered to support the idea that the plates move constantly over geologic time.

So, does this suffice? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've checked Bell's book (Google books is great for that) and it passes verification. Reworded slightly as continental drift was transformed into plate tectonics during the 50s - 60s. The NASA educators website would seem perhaps less of a WP:RS maybe. Oreskes book, The Rejection of Continental Drift, would probably be relevant here - I've got a copy somewhere, haven't looked at it for awhile. Vsmith (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Another good ref would be At The Fringes Of Science by Michael W. Friedlander 1998. Used as a ref in fringe science {perhaps this stub should be merged there). Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be opposed to a merge because fringe theory covers more than pseudoscience. That being said, thanks for the good ref. --Loremaster (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a better example: "The remark was made in the course of a symposium on continental drift that exemplified greater diversity of opinions than paleontology can offer. Doctor van der Gracht's dictum becomes amusing when it is noticed that on his particular (p. 2) subject the verdict of paleontologists is practically unanimous: almost all agree in opposing his views, which were essentially those of Wegener." [...] "The fact that almost all paleontologists say that paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point and would do so were it not that the adherents of these theories all agree that paleontological data do support them. It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence." [...] "The known past and present distribution of land mammals cannot be explained by the hypothesis of drifting continents. It can be accommodated to that hypothesis only by supplementary hypotheses effectively indistinguishable from those involving stable continents and not really involving or requiring drift. This distribution could be explained in terms of transoceanic continents but it is more consistent with fully stable continents. There appear to be no facts in this field that are more completely or more simply explicable by transoceanic than by stable continents and the supposed evidence of this sort is demonstrably false or misinterpreted. The distribution of mammals definitely supports the hypothesis that continents were essentially stable throughout the whole time involved in mammalian history." G.G. Simpson (1943), "Mammals and the Nature of Continents", American Journal of Science 241:1-31.

Scheidigger (1953), "Examination of the physics of theories of orogenesis", GSA Bulletin 64: 127—150 was AFAIK was the last formal rejection of Wegener's theory before Carey, S. W. (1958), "The tectonic approach to continental drift", in Carey, S. W., Continental Drift—A symposium, Univ. of Tasmania, pp. 177—355 came out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Better explanation of Fringe needed

This article says fringe is "is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." But the article does a really poor job of explaining just what that is.

Is the idea that the Great Sphinx of Giza thousands of years older then is generally believed fringe? Yes. Is it crackpot, Pseudoscience, or cult science? No.

The same is true of the Pre-Clovis theory. In fact, given that for the settlement of Australia from 42,000 to 48,000 BP we know that boats of some kind needed so the idea that similar boats were used to cross the Bering Strait is possible and that any coastal settlements before the appearance of Clovis from 13,500 to 13,000 BP would have been wiped out by rising sea levels.

The wording really needs to reworked so that fringe is not so POV on the Pseudoscience end of things. While we are on it, way too much time is being spent on the Shakespeare authorship issue' debate it on that talk page not here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, who says the Great Sphinx thing isn't crackpot pseudoscience? As far as I know all reputable sources consider it to be so. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about the greater age based standard geological theoriesregarding the weathering of rock such as Schoch not theories based on astrological data such as the Orion Correlation Theory. The first is based on firm geological theories regarding the weathering of rock while the second is based on applying an astrological cosmology (Babylonian astronomy introduced by the Greeks c332BCE) likely unknown to the ancient Egyptians.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Continental drift ad nauseam

The 'continental drift' case is mentioned time after time, here and on the various associated wikipedia sites, as the example of once-was-fringe-theory. It is getting boring and not particularly credible to place so much reliance on this case. Are there no other notable cases? John Pons (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor integration

The page is a poorly integrated with other material. For example there is a reasonable definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience and a nice diagram, which is relevant. Also, it may be useful to know that Wikipedia has a policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE John Pons (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Added reference to the policy, and its core principles.

Added some material relating to the spectrum, so that the integration is more explicit.

'There is a spectrum from pseudoscientific to fringe theories to protoscience to alternative theoretical formulations to orthodox science.However, the demarcations between these are not always clear. 'John Pons (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fringe science vs fringe theory

is there a difference between the topic of both articles ? If yes, should Wikipedia:Fringe_theories also have a wikipedia:Fringe_science counterpart :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any difference, and it is confusing in that the accident of whether someone lands on fringe theory or fringe science will determine what the reader thinks wikipedia is saying about the subject. I suggest a merge proposal? Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, this article is not self-consistent, in that the diagram says fringe means "Treated with scientific method" but the introduction says "Examples include ideas that purport to be scientific theories". Obviously it should be one thing or the other or the article should highlight that there is disagreement. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets not mix up article space and policy pages... while there is a distinction to be made between sub-topics of Fringe ("Fringe Science" vs. "Fringe History" vs. "Fringe Theology" vs. "Conspiracy Theory", etc.) thus justifying separate articles to explain the nuances and specifics of each sub-topic... we do not need a separate policy on each sub-form of "Fringe theory". From a Wikipedia policy prospective, all "Fringe" topics can be dealt with using the same basic rules and guidance. From a policy prospective there is no difference between one type of Fringe theory and another. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we don't want to mix up policy pages with articles. But neither fringe theory nor fringe science are policy pages, and both POVbrigand and I struggle to find any difference between the topics, which means we can't see the justification for two articles on the same topic. Wikipedia:Fringe theories is the wikipedia policy page, and I wouldn't support changing it because of whatever is going on with fringe theory and fringe science. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, going to propose this is considered for merging with Fringe Science. Personally I think Fringe Science is currently the better article and includes most of what is here. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging in which direction? I could see merging the material at Fringe science into this article (as Fringe science is a sub-set of the broader topic of Fringe theory)... I would oppose merging in the other direction. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think fringe science is the better article. I think that fringe field can encompass several fringe theories, for instance with cold fusion (I am an SPA for cold fusion) there are many (too many) different theory proposals to explain the claimed phenomenon. I would say that fringe science encompasses all fringe fields, ie the fields that are not within the mainstream. Within each of those fields many different theories might be proposed, each of which could be close to mainstream or too far out. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that our article on fringe science is better written, and more complete than this one... the solution to that is to improve this article.

I disagree that Fringe science encompasses all fringe fields... There are many fringe fields that fall outside the scope of fringe science. Two examples: a) Conspiracy theory: the Fringe theory that the Freemasons are secretly manipulating various governments has nothing to do with Fringe Science. b) Fringe history: the historian Ian Mortimer has suggested that Edward II of England was not killed at Berkley Castle on 11 October 1327, but escaped to Europe and lived for several more years... his theory is not accepted by the mainstream and thus qualifies as "fringe" ... but that theory does not fall within the scope of fringe science. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The first line in Fringe Theory says: "A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". Fringe theory is now so wide that sometimes there is no field of study, e.g. the conspiracy theory example above about the freemasons. Perhaps a disambiguation page would be an answer, e.g. something along the lines of "A fringe theory can be taken to mean: Fringe Science, Conspiracy Theory, ... But then where would fringe history go? Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate between two topics/subjects that have the same name... such as two or more people named John Jones. There are not two topics that can be called "Fringe Theory"... instead we have a single very broad topic that contains multiple specific sub-topics... sort of like the way the broad topic of "History" has sub-topics like "Military history", "Biography", "Economic history" etc., or the way Science has sub-topics like "Physics", "Chemistry", "Geology" etc. I see this article as the "overview" that leads the reader to articles on more specific sub-topics of "Fringe Science", "Fringe history", "Conspiracy theory", etc. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So you say that Fringe theories is everything outside of mainstream science, including conspiracy theories. Do you think fringe theory also includes pseudoscience and "crackpot"-science. I think most conspiracies theories are indistinguishable from pseudoscience so I reckon you agree.

But if fringe science is a subset of fringe theories, and within this fringe science there are several non-mainstream or "alternative" theories proposed. Those theories to me are very much scientific and a completely different class than pseudoscience or crackpot. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that Fringe Theories is "everything outside of mainstream science"... mainstream history and mainstream theology both fall outside of mainstream science after all, but neither is Fringe.

Fringe theory includes anything outside of "mainstream". Fringe theory can be divided into overlaping genres... including (but not limited to) Fringe science, Fringe History, Fringe Theology, Conspiracy theory... and each of these have their own sub-sub-genres. Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that fringe theory is wider than fringe science, so we had to keep fringe science and link to it. As discussed above, a disambiguation page wasn't the right way to do it. So I've updated the page Fringe theory in a major rewrite, building on what Blueboar started. I thought it would be a horrendous job, so I was only planning to start it - but if you look at the "see also" categories, it seems that apart from pseudoscience, the term is only used in pseudohistory, pseudoarchaeology and conspiracy theories. I think I've covered them all, so now we just wait for people to improve the article in the usual way? If you agree we can remove the "merge" tag. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

An excellent re-write. The article is much better. The next step is to improve it with sources. --Blueboar

Very good rewrite, we can build on this. The first question is if fringe science spans the whole spectrum including pseudoscience and crackpot as you have now written or if fringe science is slotted in between pseudoscience and protoscience/mainstream science as is stated in the fringe science article. Maybe both views are in use.

It is already much clearer now, but still I feel we cannot enough highlight that fringe theories go from conspiracy theories and pseudoscience on one side to scientific conjectures on the other. So the same expression fringe theory is used to describe an honest scientific proposal that is "just" not (or not yet) mainstream, but also to describe a solidly disproven superstition or belief. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Fringe is an inclusive term, and does cover a wide range of things... from "loony crackpot idea with no basis in fact", all the way through "seriously proposed but not (yet) accepted". Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

When I say Cold Fusion/LENR is fringe I think of the latter, when other editors say Cold Fusion is fringe they think of the former. I guess that difference in understanding is responsible for roughly 80% of the talk page volume. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So, everyone agrees its Fringe. They just disagree as to why. What's the problem? Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• coincidence: Blueboar and I both decided at exactly the same time to remove the merge banners; result was I did it for Fringe theory and he did it for Fringe Science :)

Nope... no coincidence... I saw your removal here and agreed, so I followed suit at the other article. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So the merge issue is sorted, but carrying on POVbrigand's point "that difference in understanding [of what is meant by the term 'fringe science'] is responsible for roughly 80% of the talk page volume". That's why I put in the bit to say the term should be avoided, but Blueboar, whilst agreeing with the sentiment, disagreed that it should be there because it was an editorial comment (see Talk:Fringe science#Editorial comment in the lede). So to answer Blueboar's question "everyone agrees its Fringe. They just disagree as to why. What's the problem?", the problem is that a lot of discussion is wasted until editors eventually realize that they are arguing about different things. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the different understanding pre-sets the goal of the argumentation on the talk page.

I can give you an example for cold fusion, hopefully not tl;dr. There are many peer reviewed papers in respectable journals from many different credible scientists, so cold fusion might fit the description of a fringe field that is "seriously proposed but not (yet) accepted". When I edit in content that is verifiable from reliable sources to explain what is happening in this fringe field, other editors who believe that cold fusion is a "loony crackpot idea with no basis in fact" will feel that my edits are POV pushing and tendentious and this conflict creates useless discussions on the talk page. Arguments are made that question the reliability of the sources, going as far as dismissing respected scientific journals or that the fringe topic does not "deserve" a detailed explanation on Wikipedia, in contradiction (I believe) with WP:UNDUE. When primary sources are offered as reference, secondary source are demanded. When secondary sources are provided it is argued that the authors are fringe-adherents thus unreliable and that only mainstream secondary sources are allowed, because everything else is "just crackpot".

The problem for the fringe field of Cold Fusion is that the field itself spans from crackpots with "look at my cool cold fusion experiment"-youtube-videos to respected scientists who follow scientific standards. Trying to make this differentiation clearer to the WP-reader, which I believe is fully legitimate and backed by WP-policies, is already seen as POV-pushing. I firmly believe that in order to edit NPOV the editors needs to understand what is going on inside the fringe field, but having detailed knowledge of the fringe field will inevitably lead to the allegation of being proponent, because "who else would invest so much time on a clearly crackpot idea". It is just too easy to dismiss the contribution of an editor who is not keeping with the mainstream view as the work of a proponent of fringe who misuses wikipedia for the Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. Especially when it comes from an SPA with a username hinting in that direction, like me :-)

So I think the misunderstanding of the catch-all nature of the expression "fringe theory" and the apparent fact that WP:FRINGE does not make this differentiation clear enough either are key to hours of agony on the talk page. --POVbrigand (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup... all that sounds like a fairly typical debate for an article on a Fringe topic. But what has all that to do with this article? Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

:-) I wanted to highlight that it is very important to make it absolutely clear that "fringe theory" is very broad. I hope that in future WP:FRINGE will also have a clearer explanation and that that might lead to a better understanding of motives behind editor's conduct and less talk page arguing. More peace and harmony for the editors on the contentious topics and even better NPOV articles for the WP-readership. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quasicrystals - Dan Shechtman

I would add the 2011 Nobel prize for Dan Shechtman for his Quasicrystals as further example of now mainstream that previously was fringe. [10]

And maybe we could make a link to paradigm shift. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Offtopic, Roger Davies has clarified the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You are now broadening your account outside of its cold fusion focus. Can you please now disclose your non-SPA account. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC) You are now losing control and blatantly showing your preoccupation in my former account, which is nothing you should worry about. Why don't you just AGF instead of telling what you think I am not allowed to edit on WP. --POVbrigand (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC) There is no need to get angry, I am assuming good faith, I'm not sure if accusing me of "losing control" is assuming good faith, but that is unimportant. I am merely asking the question since the impression given previously was that this particular account would be limited in scope to cold fusion only, since you still appear to have the intention of re-using your old account in the future. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Roger davies has

Continental drift - bad example

Continental drift is probably a bad idea of a fringe theory that became mainstream. The original theory never got the mainstream acceptance because there never was a scientific theory suggested; there was no mechanism. There was some suggested mechanisms but they all turned out to be wrong, if there was a theory it would have been the Expanding_Earth_theory, but it was invalidated and superseded by Plate tectonics as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of another example that would be better? Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As you have phrased it IRWolfie-, it reads as if continental drift is still a fringe theory! Obviously something has to change for a fringe theory to become mainstream, but I think continental drift should be given credit for getting it right, rather than saying fringe theories by definition are wrong and the mainstream is always right. Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a rejected theory, it was superceded by a new theory. That is the what occured. That is why it's a bad example. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Just like Cold Fusion is used by many as the perfect example of pseudo science pathological science, continental drift is used as an example of fringe that became mainstream. We should report here what secondary sources say and not what we ourselves think of the situation. The example of continental drift is good. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Aarghdvaark and POVbrigand. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with Aarghdvaark, POVbrigand, and SamuelTheGhost. warshy^talk 22:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

My change was based on reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that says it was a fringe theory that became accepted. The current book ref just states that plate tectonics encompassed and superseded continental drift. Nothing regarding fringe status. WP:SYN in operation there.

The concept as first developed presented evidence for the movement of continents, but lacked an acceptable mechanism - however, Holmes postulated convection currents rather early on as a mechanism but lacked "convincing" evidence for those skeptical of the concept.

The article now states: the theory of continental drift has moved from being a contested, fringe theory in geology, to becoming very widely accepted in the form of the theory of plate tectonics[3] - one of the outstanding scientific successes... and that is problematic for two reasons. First, the reference cited doesn't support that and secondly, the theory of continental drift didn't turn into plate tectonics - it was only a part of plate tectonics along with sea floor spreading, subduction ...

If it's to be kept as an example here, a better source is essential along with rewording. Vsmith (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes better sourcing is necessary and rewording might be beneficial too. My view is that for some of the "fringe that became mainstream" stories the whole idea is dismissed as completely impossible and its proposer prone to ridicule and mockery by the mainstream scientists, well beyond the limit of reasonable opposition.

Continental drift did not become mainstream science before there were significant changes to the theory and it evolved into the accepted theory of plate tectonics. So while one can come to the defence of mainstream scientists and say that "continental drift" was not perfectly correct, it should be self evident that the theory proposal was key to the paradigm shift that followed and therefore vindicated.

I think we should also link to Semmelweis_reflex to illustrate this point. --POVbrigand (talk)

Your suggestion is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

For you maybe it is, that's why I started with "My view ...", although I have read several sources that more or less state the same. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't keep the example of Continental drift because the theory behind it never became accepted, it was invalidated and replaced, as the sources show. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To describe continental drift as having been "invalidated" is rubbish.

Continental drift was first proposed in a comprehensive manner by Alfred Wegener ... in 1912. His radically new interpretation of Earth history aroused international interest and violent controversy. By 1930 the majority of earth scientists had abandoned the drift hypothesis ... Interest in continental drift has revived dramatically in recent years as a result of advances in rock magnetism, geochronology and oceanography. Sea-floor spreading, a concept first introduced about 1960, has given rise to plate tectonics ... Today ... the weight of evidence does favour a modified continental drift theory.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That it was superseded was hardly rubbish, it's how reliable sources portray it. I notice you are quoting a 30 year old verison of encyclopedia Britannica. The modern verison http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/134899/continental-drift instead says of continental drift: This concept was an important precursor to the development of the theory of plate tectonics, which incorporates it i.e superseded. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I quoted from a version of the encyclopedia that I happen to own. Thank you for providing a more recent reference, which entirely rightly says that the theory of plate tectonics incorporates that of continental drift. To describe continental drift as having been "invalidated" is rubbish. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think equivocating over the use of the word "invalidated" is pointless. The issue is that Continental drift was superseded as the reliable sources mention (like the one I added to the article, I can get more). That the suggested mechanisms (expanding earth etc) were rejected and replaced with another makes it a poor example, a better example is one in which the mechanism itself (i.e the theory) was adopted. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can actually produce a better example, of course we can consider using it in the article. Meanwhile, however, continental drift remains a classic case on which your equivocations do not succeed in casting any doubt. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Endosymbiotic theory? Agricolae (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

References

"Fringe theories meet with varying levels of academic acceptance"

This is an almost totally information-free sentence. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

When taken out of context, perhaps... but in context, it is an introductory sentence that is explained by what follows it. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To me it's not clear from the context what it means. What is it meant to mean? Second Quantization (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've restructured the section in an effort to resolve this problem, and to generally improve the logical flow. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fringe theory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk · contribs) 13:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Overall this is a fairly well done article. I've got some specific comments below along with some suggestions which I feel might help the article cover the subject in a more comprehensive manner.

content

• The first sentence is "A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters." but the definition Fringe theories are ideas which depart significantly from a prevailing or mainstream theory. is materially different, more specific and equally incomplete. The two components to a fringe theory are (roughly): few peopel subscribe and the theory departs from (or just doesn't speak to) a prevailing view.
• "The conspirators are possessed of..." I'm not sure if this sentence served much purpose. We want to include conspiracy theories in a discussion of the constellation of nonsense around fringe theories. As well we should. But I don't think describing what conspiracy theories claim in general serves the reader. We should mention conspiracy theories in some way, but this seems unnecessary.
• The "mainstream impact" section isn't really about mainstream impact. I think we might be well served by having a short section on mainstream impact and a longer section on evolution of various fringe theories. Like, the first paragraph talks mainstream impact and the remaining 4 talk about the evolution of various theories.
• "Sometimes this change is not gradual; in such cases it represents a paradigm shift." While I understand the point this sentence is making (especially as it leads in to a salient example), it conflates "paradigm shift" with "fast" rather than using the more germane meaning of a mechanism by which a community accepts a theory which challenges mainstream assumptions. Paradigm shifts can be fast, but that's not what is important about that term.
• "Such shifts between fringe theory and accepted theories are not always clear-cut." Is the only example we have here Fruedian psycholanalysis?
• Similarly, while the NYT piece (+ reactions) is a good example of false balance becoming accepted, is it the only one?
• "...others in the media condemned the Times..." Who? We're offloading this to Offit, but a reader might want to know.
• "Because advocates of creationism want schools to present only their preferred alternative..." Creationist placement of ID/YEC against evolution as a two sided issue points to a failure of intellectual honesty. It's not super helpful to the reader to frame it as "because they're intellectually dishonest, they create a false balance".

Style

• Article is well linked, well cited and overall fairly clear. No real problems.

additions?

• I'm a little surprised to not see Kuhn anywhere. I admit, he's not exactly au currant in the history of science literature, but if we're talking about the demarcation problem and/or theories moving in and out of the fringe, his is an important (and widely cited) voice on the subject.
• There's an (old) discussion on the talk page complaining about continental drift as an example. I don't think it should be removed, but the point there was about science as a meta-process. The argument goes that science falls in and out of love with concepts or ideas for non-scientific reasons (c.f. paradigm shifts) but that most ideas which were adopted later were not accepted at the time because they lacked a scientific mechanism. Continental drift as it was expressed at the time was rightly in the fringe. Now, I think this argument is pretty self-serving, but it's out there in the literature on how we discuss the topic.
• Actually the aside on behavioral finance highlights the above problem. Behavioral economists were marginalized in the discipline for years for a variety of reasons. The main reason was that BE/BF didn't provide the mechanism for a tractable, testable general theory (I'll go find some sources on this). It wasn't properly "fringe" in 2002, but it certainly was in the 80s.
• Sometimes theories which enter the fringe in one discipline (Fruedian pscyhoanalysis in psychiatry) become central to another--it's pretty hard to read Lacan and following work without seeing how critical theory adopted a method on the way out in another discipline and made it central.

Sources

• Is there a better source than this for the claim "The relationship between psychoanalysis and psychiatry remains complex." Or maybe, is there some more clarity we can give the reader about the source? It looks like this is a complete version of that book available online. Is it?
• It's a bit confusing to mix sfn with full citations in the notes (e.g. Fritze is cited w/ pagination using sfn but cited without pagination using the full cite three times as well). However I don't see any major problems and it clearly meets the GA criteria.

Thanks for your work on the article. I look forward to hearing your replies to the review. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Ed gives us a lot to work with... but I will add one other concern. The article tends to be dominated by discussion of two forms of fringe: conspiracy theory and fringe science. We need more explanation of fringe theories in other academic areas (for example... while we mention pseudo-history in passing, we don't really explain what constitutes pseudo-history or give any examples). Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar and Logos. Additional comments are always welcome. I didn't notice until I completed the review, but the nominator hasn't been active in the past two months. I'm planning to place the review on hold for now. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Pure OR/SYNTH

How can a pure OR/SYNTH article can earn the "good article" status. Ed should try to find at least 1 source first, which clearly defines in detail what "fringe theory" is. By "source", of course, I don't mean the trivial or tangential stuff mentioned/discussed in the deletion discussion. Preliminary discussion here which led to the AfD, will also help to bring the problematic main elements into consideration once again. Logos (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

This article states "Such shifts between fringe theory and accepted theories are not always clear-cut. In 1963, Reuben Fine wrote that mainstream psychology had adopted aspects of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis but that many students of the discipline believed psychoanalysis to be a "lunatic fringe theory which has little to do with scientific psychology".The relationship between psychoanalysis and psychiatry remains complex." I think that statement is to charitable to psychoanalysis. My impression is Freudism is considered by the vast majority of psychologists, psychiatrists and other scholars to be at least as discredited as Lamarckism. I think it would be more appropriate to say Freud's ideas were once mainstream but have now been discredited than to say they have a complex relation to current psychiatry, because that statement implies Freud's ideas are still respected by at least a significant minority of scholars, and I don't think that's true. RandomScholar30 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

relationship to conspiracy theory

Often the two terms are used interchangeably (see Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death ) there shoudl probably be some discussion of thsi Blindlynx (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The two terms overlap, but are not synonymous. Not all fringe theories involve a supposed conspiracy, and not all conspiracy theories are fringe. Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, should this be touched on in the atricle?Blindlynx (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)