From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  1. Give the editors a reasonable opportunity to find reliable sources after explaining WP:FRINGE. If this doesn't happen, delete all the articles. -- Cryptic  C62 · Talk 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Any mainstream secondary sources about this are likely to describe it as "look, here's this thing people believe in" rather than about the phenomenon itself. CPP articles can be written as "Belief in CPP"; the text can closely follow whatever reliable sources exist to make it notable, which are likely to be written with a healthy dose of incredulity. The best thing with really weird fringe is to insist on a high level of notability - and reliability of sources - at any AfD attempt, and if it survives, limit it to those reliable sources rather than extensively quoting self-published sources, which should be treated as primary sources and only used if referenced by reliable secondary sources. If you do that, complaints about POV will be moot. (Though the complaints will be about censorship, instead.) -- Relata refero ( disp.) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. There are beliefs that can't be tested (Fred "believes in X") - that's okay. There are beliefs that can be tested, have real world explanations, and are found to be nonsense (Fred "believes X cures all cancer"). The article about X should 1) Briefly state what X is, 2) State why some people think X works (giving their cites), 3) Present the reliable source version probably with wiki links to other scientific articles. 4) Try to avoid saying "X is a steaming pile of horse shit believed in by half-wits", because that's unencyclopedic. I'd like to think that if WP presented the argument with sources and neutrally that people would make sensible decisions. But then I look at the steaming piles of horse shit that people believe in, and realise that WP is fucked and will be full of stuff that can only be described as piss-poor nonsense. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Write an article about how cats purportedly see stuff that is invisible (but actually are watching fibers, hairs, and microscopic objects floating in the air), since there's plenty of verifiable sources about that. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Assuming there are sufficient sources to demonstrate that the topic is notable, I would want to see one article, that properly described CPP as a theory and mentions the lack of mainstream scientific research on the subject. I would attempt to convince the supporters that this is reasonable, but if that fails, I'd pursue dispute resolution, but aim to have users that are clearly being tendenitious blocked. Mango juice talk 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. It largely depends on what kind of sources can be found. If there aren't any good reliable ones, it should be put up for deletion. If there are, then it should be improved, and probably condensed into a single article. It's not a scientifically testable belief, for the most part, so pushing science may result in an article too contorted to be useful. Describe the belief (as a belief, and not as Truth), and include any documented criticisms. WP's job is to provide (reliable) information, not tell people what to believe. However, I would add that, since it would be a fringe theory, attempts to add CPP to other main articles, such as Mobile phone would not be appropriate. Sχeptomaniac χαιρετε 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per User:Sχeptomaniac. Perfect. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Merge the lot into one article, and see if the sources agglomerate into something sufficient to sustain an article. Explain this carefully to the creator(s). If no reliable sources (by our definition, not theirs) turn up, AFD. Neıl ☎ 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. If the topic is notable, see if all the CPP articles can be merged into one. If no scientific literature exists, at least ensure that the article is written neutrally, not promoting the views of proponents. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Assess article in terms of normal notability and RS benchmarks, not editor perceived mainstream science standard "Seal of Approval" benchmarks. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, it's not the water-carrier for subjects apparently unseen somebodies need to publish criticisms of but don't. As soon as encylopedia editors play the " silent majority" card it's no use pretending NPOV. Professor marginalia ( talk) 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per User:Sχeptomaniac. But in addition, if there are Wikipedia articles which feature a mainstream scientific perspective on the 'spooky' phenomena in question I would link to them via in-text links or See Also. If there were reliably-sourced scientific explanations for the bulk of the phenomena then these explanations might be summarized as concisely as possible somewhere in the article. E.g. "X-specialists typically explain noise and cross-talk in telephone systems as caused by Y." Nonplus ( talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. I'm not sure what I'd do on this one. Trying to get the article(s) as dense with (reliable) references as possible is a strong contender though. JMiall ₰ 20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. - 1) Insist that all claims made in the article by CPP editors be cited. 2) Include some ("strong" might be too much - it should temper rather than overshadow the article's subject) well-sourced scientific rebuttal of the claims. Applejuicefool ( talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Either merge the CPP articles with a well referenced related article on the paranormal, or (if the subject is sufficiently notable), merge them into one and require that they present a balanced view of the subject with correctly referenced notable arguments for and against. -- Taiwan boi ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Per User:Sχeptomaniac and User:Nonplus DigitalC ( talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. I had other thoughts on this but Marginalia pretty well sums it - treat it like any other topic, fringe or not. Evaluate then decide. Akitora ( talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Since there are no mainstream sources for this article, and it is still deemed notable, one must question its notability. If all content of the article is invalid, there article would have to say something like sources X believe Y, this is not commonly accepted, but no mainstream sources have taken a position on it. However this seems unlikely since and source with no valid sources is hardly notable. Rds865 ( talk) 01:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Neutrality! Put each fact as "Here's what they say," and "Here's what the mainstream says," and give both support and proof against it, even if it's ridiculous. Just mention a few things against the ridiculousness. -- -G.T.N. ( talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Per User:Sχeptomaniac Tt 225 ( talk) 11:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. If your "CPP" example is what I think it is, you have neglected to mention that it (unfortunately) is indeed notable in mainstream media. If "CPP" is what I think it is, the article appears to have reached a tolerable state with substantial scientific discreditation of the claimed phenomena. I have no doubt several good editors worked hard and suffered miserably to achieve that decent result. If "CPP" were not so notable I would gladly and aggressively apply WP:FRINGE against such ghosts-and-goblins nonsense. Alsee ( talk) 12:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. SKS2K6 ( talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Make it neutral, both sides represented. SKS2K6 ( talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Per one above ~ American Eagle 03:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Stick with the reliable sources, whatever they might be. You can't control what has been published about a subject, and you as a Wikipedia editor can't make your own judgments about the credibility of sources. But since this is a controversial subject, make sure you are not making positive claims. Say things like "According to CPP believers, ..." Down the road, if any skeptical sources become published, they should be cited. COGDEN 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. Include, with a note to say that it is not verified. Micro chip  08 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. When dealing with folk beliefs about the supernatural, I tend to believe that you just report the substance of the beliefs. It strikes me as officious and somewhat too obvious to insert the claim that "this belief involves supernatural phenomena. Non-believers therefore will find it dubious." Especially when adding this is original research - my understanding is that the premise is that there are no published sources at this stage from debunkers. CSICOP will probably get around to it anyways. In the meantime, it's not our job to do their work for them. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. as User:Sχeptomaniac says above, it depends on what sources and information is avaliable. All sourced info should be included. Dusti complain/compliment 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. An article on CPP would cover the CPP topic, so its proponents views (via reliable sources) are highly relevant. However in areas where there is a strong scientific input, science also has a strong say on the article. The fact that there are no articles by scientists specifically about CPP (which if CPP is mentioned I'd doubt anyway and look harder) does not mean there are no reliable sources. There are many reliable sources about crosstalk, and the like, for example. The statement that this view (CPP) is not recognized by science, is also relevant. Given the history stated in the question, I'd make one last effort to gain communal consensus, via mediation or RFC (if I were a non-admin), then go that route. Or else, I'd look at the conduct of those in the dispute and form a view whether any were arguing tendentiously or the like, and take measures that way (as an admin). Argued heatedly enough I could see this one heading for Arbitration, which is undesirable since we really should handle it a lot earlier. At present though that's how it is. FT2 ( Talk |  email) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Reword the articles so they have a "it is widely believed that..." tone. Chenzw ( talk · contribs) 11:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  29. The question doesn't provide enough information for me to answer honestly. Are the editors presenting it as scientific? If so, that's pseudoscience and it falls under WP:FRINGE, deserving to have a great deal of mainstream scientific input. If the editors are merely stating it as a common belief and backing that up with sources, it falls under folklore, psychology, and common beliefs, and only needs the barebones of real scientific explanations because no one is suggesting there's a (pseudo)scientific basis for it. Examples: Ghosts (described as a common belief, there's little science in it) contrasted with Electronic voice phenomena (edited by advocates presenting pseudoscience, and as such it deserves mainstream science countering that). -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  30. Cut the article down to sourced information, pro or con. Be as concrete and objective as possible when wording the facts. Doczilla STOMP! 04:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  31. If there are actually any reliable sources at all discussing this so-called phenomenon, the article can stay but should stick to those sources. Otherwise, AfD is our friend.... csloat ( talk) 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  32. If this is a notable belief merge it all to one article that describes the belief and refers to it as a mythos or belief. However keep out stuff that insults scientists or insults those with skeptical views. The article should not be about advocacy or opposition. If there's no evidence it's a notable belief than AfD. Although to an extent I agree with the above person who indicates there might not be enough information in the question to give a reasonable answer.-- T. Anthony ( talk) 14:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  33. Your example does not give us a clue as to how this subject has already been treated in reliable sources. Treatment in Wikipedia must follow the treatment in reliable sources. Expanding on an explanation already proposed in RS does not violate WP:OR, coming up with one on our own does. -- Justallofthem ( talk) 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  34. Each article needs to be judged separately for notability and sourcing. From there insist on NPOV including, per WP:FRINGE, all mainstream views with due weight. Merge, redirect or delete anything through regular processes to determine relative value to the project. 71.139.36.216 ( talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  35. Look to what reliable sources do state and use that as a basis for how to encyclopedicly report these fringe viewpoints. We certainly can state the theories exist and balance with what mainstream scientific community states. People believe foo is true although this is disputed, etc. -- Banjeboi 10:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  36. Nominate the whole group of articles for AfD. Let the community decide whether or not they should be merged into one big article if any sources are found. I suspect the AfD would be successful though :¬) Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  37. Find middle ground between complete removal and complete indifference, using WP:FRINGE as a guide. Guoguo12 --Talk--  19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  38. If the fringe theories are discussed in reliable mainstream newspapers, rely on those sources for statements about the beliefs, delete unsourced claims, and merge the articles down to one on the belief, stating clearly that belief is all it is. If no such sources can be found, AfD is the only option. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Ghost-Other&oldid=1222496434"