Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories: Difference between revisions

:::::::The disputes that we struggle with aren't hard science. The struggle is around human values. For example: Is autism "a disorder" or "an ordinary variation in human existence"? Should you "believe in" the view of autism you hear from [[Autism Speaks]], or the one from [[Autistic Self Advocacy Network]], or the one from the [[National Council on Severe Autism]]? All of them are based on some scientific facts, and each of them is focused on a different population (split by age and support needs), but there's only one right answer, according to our editors. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I suppose I've always just read the FRINGE guideline as referring exclusively to facts rather than value judgements. So when I see folks arguing that a certain value judgement is FRINGE, I assume they're making a category error. Perhaps the [[is/ought distinction]] looms especially large in my mind. Yes most people (I hope) view Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil" but we still attribute that judgement to a prominent historian in Hitler's bio. The same principle should apply across the project. I am aware of course that certain scientific disciplines like psychology and economics attempt to make prescriptive value judgements (a notorious example being the [[Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders|DSM]]), and even climate science can be interpreted to be prescriptive, but I would argue that in each of these cases we should be attributing sources for value judgements (e.g. "According to [[NOAA]], limiting global warming to 1.5ºC is imperative....") the same way we would with editorial content. When different scientific authorities disagree on such value judgements, we simply examine relative prevalence to determine DUE weight. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:As a draft for [[WP:FRINGEORG]], hows: {{TQ|Like [[WP:BLPFRINGE]] Close attention should be paid to the treatment of organizations who hold fringe viewpoints for the same reasons as [[WP:BLPFRINGE]] , since as a rule they are the focus of controversy, and must comply with [[WP:BLPFRINGE]] and [[WP:BLP]] when applicable. Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP policy's do not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a group's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:BLP § Balance). <br>There are organizations who are notable enough to have articles included in Wikipedia solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs (ie the [[International Flat Earth Research Society]] and the [[American College of Pediatricians]]). Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the organization in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves. [[WP:BLPGROUP]] may apply. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral article.}}? [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 17:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for suggesting this draft, YFNS. I'm not sure we need to be so closely paraphrasing [[WP:FRINGEBLP]] though. And just FYI, [[International Flat Earth Research Society]] is a redirect to a section of another article ([[Modern flat Earth beliefs]]). [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 20:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)