Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Fringe topics The Arbitration Committee has issued several rulings on guidelines for the presentation of fringe topics, including: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

This page is for discussion of the wording of the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline, not for discussion of specific theories. To discuss problems with specific theories, articles, and users, please go to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, thank you.

Archives
January to October 2006 October 2006 to November 2007 November 2007 to April 2008 April to June 2008 June 2008 July 2008-1 July 2008-2 July 2008-3 July to October 2008 November 2008-1 November 2008-2

Archives
Previous requests for comment Does this guideline have consensus? (April 2007) RfC on particular attribution section (June 2008) Is there enough argument to downgrade this guideline to the status of an essay? (July 2008) Is the label "fringe" inherently pejorative? (July 2008)

Contents 1 Booth Escaped 2 Questions_about_self-serving_sources.2C_minority_view_sources.2C_and_third_parties 3 Question about unduly self-serving 4 One way 5 Komkommertijd

[edit] Booth Escaped

(discussion moved to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Booth_Escaped

[edit] Questions_about_self-serving_sources.2C_minority_view_sources.2C_and_third_parties

Please join the discussion related to "fringe theories" guideline in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Questions_about_self-serving_sources.2C_minority_view_sources.2C_and_third_parties - Altenmann >t 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about unduly self-serving

Is there agreement that this is a correct statement of Wikipedia guidelines?

Publication of statements by fringe, extremist or self-published sources should not be unduly self-serving. This is primarily a limitation on using such a statement to establish truth. It is not a limitation on using it to state and define what a person’s beliefs are. For example, a scientist may have gained notoriety because he claimed to have produced cold fusion. He may be quoted as saying “I have produced cold fusion” as long as this is presented as his statement and belief and not as the generally accepted belief. This statement, after all, is the reason that an article about him is being written in the first place. --Swood100 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:RSN. Suggest we keep the discussion in one place. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's discuss it there.--Swood100 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One way

2/0 added a shortcut from ONEWAY to a nice little section at the end of the article. I augmented that section with a few salient pieces of advice that I think are relatively uncontroversial and also tried to clean up parts of the prose which were confusing to me:

[1]

Anyway, here's the place to comment on that.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Komkommertijd

Why is komkommertijd listed as an example? If the Dutch synonym for silly season is listed, why is this not the case for similar expressions from other languages? DaMatriX (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not clear that we need this list at all. The basic message is there before the parenthetical. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why "komkommertijd" was added in the first place I don't know, but since it long ago became a redirect to "Silly season", which is also listed, it was completely redundant and I have deleted it. As for why we have the list at all, I agree it does not add anything essential, but it links to further information which is relevant, and I don't see any harm in having the links there: someone may find them useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)