Revision as of 03:35, 4 January 2014 editRtan248 (talk | contribs)36 edits fixed general pronoun ref. error← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:57, 13 January 2014 edit undo109.153.173.188 (talk) ←Replaced content with 'Your mom is made of green cheese. And butterflies.'Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Your mom is made of green cheese. And butterflies. | |||
{{subcat guideline|content guideline|Fringe theories|WP:FRINGE|WP:FRNG}} | |||
{{nutshell|title=Fringe theory|To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.}} | |||
{{Notice|'''For questions or help with specific examples''', please visit the ].}} | |||
{{Guideline list}} | |||
Misplaced Pages summarizes significant opinions, with representation ]. A Misplaced Pages article should not make a ] appear more ] than it is. Claims must be based upon independent ]. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,<ref>See ], in particular ].</ref> and ] must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. | |||
There are numerous reasons for these requirements. Misplaced Pages is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for ].<ref>See in particular "]".</ref> And for writers and editors of Misplaced Pages articles to write about controversial ideas in a ], it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent ] of reasonable reliability and quality. | |||
The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, ], ], and ]. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any ], that material ] needs a ], and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. | |||
Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several ]. See ]. | |||
== Identifying fringe theories== | |||
We use the term '']'' in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or ] in its particular field. For example, ] depart significantly from ] and have little or no scientific support.<ref>For more criteria, see Trefil, James S. (1978), , ''The Saturday Review'', April 29, 1978, pp. 16–21.</ref> Other examples include ] and esoteric claims about medicine. Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. Two caveats are, that not every identified subject matter has its own academic ], and that the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight. | |||
<span id="PS" /><span id="Pseudoscience" /> | |||
=== Pseudoscience and other fringe theories === | |||
<!-- HISTORY FOR THIS SECTION. This content originated at | |||
]. It | |||
was then incorporated into the NPOV policy and later moved here. | |||
--> | |||
{{Shortcut|WP:FRINGE/PS}} | |||
When discussing topics that reliable sources say are ] or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the ] as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views. | |||
Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. There is an approximate demarcation of fringe theories and pseudoscience: | |||
:'''1. Obvious pseudoscience''': proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that ] is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as ]) may be treated as pseudoscience. | |||
:'''2. Generally considered pseudoscience''': Proposals which have a following, such as ], but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. | |||
:'''3. Questionable science''': Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. | |||
Alternative theoretical formulations from within the ] are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of ] was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as ]. | |||
To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among ]), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in ]), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of ] made by advocates of ]). | |||
==Reliable sources== | |||
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources}} | |||
Reliable sources are needed for any article in Misplaced Pages. They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently ] to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious matter. | |||
Reliable sources on Misplaced Pages include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas. | |||
Subjects receive attention in Misplaced Pages in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular subject are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, because Misplaced Pages policy prohibits ]. The ] policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for ] of primary sources. | |||
==Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories== | |||
{{Shortcut|WP:PROFRINGE}} | |||
Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Misplaced Pages as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "]" rules come into play. Misplaced Pages is neither a publisher of ] nor a ] for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from ] and ], not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as ] in ], is strongly discouraged. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to ] on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of ] material as references, are unacceptable: ]. (See also ], ], ].) | |||
The ] policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given ]. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are ]. | |||
==Notability== | |||
{{shortcut|WP:NFRINGE}} | |||
For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article themselves. To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Misplaced Pages. | |||
A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered ] enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced ''extensively'', and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on ], as "]", or during "slow news days" (see ] and ]). | |||
===Examples=== | |||
Sufficiently notable for dedicated articles: | |||
*] – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be ] and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Misplaced Pages. | |||
*] – Conspiracy theories which aim to show that the Moon landings were fake, while probably not held as true by very many people, have generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that they deserve an article on Misplaced Pages. | |||
*] – a famous ] alleging that ] of ] died in ] and was replaced by a ], ] duplicate named William Campbell. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well {{as of|2013|lc=on}}), this ] was fueled by "clues" found among The Beatles' many recordings. The rumour has been the topic of much ] because its development, growth and rebuttal took place very publicly, owing to The Beatles' enormous popularity. | |||
Not sufficiently notable for dedicated articles: | |||
* ] – The page on ] includes descriptions of conspiracy theories contending that Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped. However, they are not notable enough for a dedicated article. | |||
* ] – The page on conspiracy theorist ] describes his claim that many world leaders are actually shape-shifting reptilians from the constellation Draco. This conspiracy theory is not notable enough for a dedicated article. | |||
==Evaluating claims== | |||
Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. In general, Misplaced Pages should always give ] to established lines of research found in ] and present ] of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as ] – e.g. "An ] has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton." Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully ] to an appropriate source and located within a ] – e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that ]'s ''Prophecies'' are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind." Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations. It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end ], but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose. | |||
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should ''not'' be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the ] itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a ] theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most ] consider the subjects. For example, ] and ] should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research – ], for example – should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given ] in more general discussions of the topic. | |||
==Notability versus acceptance== | |||
===Reporting on the levels of acceptance=== | |||
] can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia—as notable ideas in the public eye.]] | |||
According to ]: | |||
{{Quotation|Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html |title=[WikiEN-l] NPOV and 'new physics' |publisher=Lists.wikimedia.org |date= |accessdate=2011-11-13}}</ref>}} | |||
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with ]) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply ''rejection'', either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as ] unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. | |||
Ideas that ''have'' been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of ], should be documented as such, using reliable sources. | |||
Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Misplaced Pages, but should not be given ]. Misplaced Pages is ] a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any ] in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Misplaced Pages is not a place to ]. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to offer originally ] prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. | |||
]: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., ]), it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Misplaced Pages changes to reflect that change. Misplaced Pages primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future. | |||
===Peer-reviewed sources=== | |||
One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of ]ed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Misplaced Pages, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in ]. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.<ref>A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal.</ref> | |||
Peer review is an important feature of ] that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing ] or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Misplaced Pages on notability grounds. Likewise, ] in Misplaced Pages require high-quality reliable sources. | |||
==Sourcing and attribution== | |||
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability|Misplaced Pages:No original research}} | |||
Misplaced Pages is meant to be a ] of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to ] the text and should not be relied on exclusively as doing so would violate ]. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for ]. | |||
===Quotations=== | |||
While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of ], there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Misplaced Pages article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article. The sourced contribution must simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject. | |||
For example, in the article about ], a verifiably attributed and accurate quote might take the following form: | |||
{{quote|The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association has stated, "Scientists from various disciplines put the most compelling sasquatch evidence to the test. Collectively their conclusions are ground-breaking. There is now scientific proof for the existence of a giant primate species in North America – a species fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots)."}} | |||
Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view. Simply including such a statement in the ] or in a section on scientific evaluation of bigfoot claims is potentially misleading, non-neutral, and lacking in verifiability. The quote should only be included if it can be contextualized in a verifiable and neutral sense as a point of view of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association and not necessarily a factual statement. The ] of editors may even be to not include the quote at all. | |||
=== Independent sources === | |||
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their ] and ], are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. | |||
===Parity of sources=== | |||
{{shortcut|WP:PARITY}} | |||
Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources. However, if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable. Examples of unreliable journals include, but are not limited to: ''The Creation Research Society Quarterly'', ''Homeopathy'', and the ''Journal of Frontier Science'' (which uses blog comments<ref>{{cite web|author=Publisher |url=http://jfspeerreview.blogspot.com |title=JOURNAL of FRONTIER SCIENCE Peer Review Blog |publisher=Jfspeerreview.blogspot.com |date= |accessdate=2011-11-13}}</ref> as its supposed peer review). | |||
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the ] article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. By ''parity of sources'', critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory. | |||
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Misplaced Pages. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of ] should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are ] by reliable sources on those subjects. | |||
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. | |||
===In-text attribution=== | |||
{{shortcut|WP:ITA}} | |||
{{seealso|WP:INTEXT|l1=In-text attribution}} | |||
The careful use of ] is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported. Particularly harsh criticism should be attributed – "Philosopher ] dismisses ] as 'a little driblet of childish ignorance; a mark of mankind's infancy'" – while simple facts – "humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor" – are best left ]. Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree. A careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone will ensure that a reader is not spoonfed opinions as facts and vice-versa. | |||
==Treatment of living persons== | |||
{{shortcut|WP:FRINGEBLP|WP:BLPFRINGE}} | |||
Close attention should be paid on how to treat people who hold fringe viewpoints especially in light of Misplaced Pages's policy on ] (WP:BLP). Misplaced Pages has a lot of material about people who hold unconventional positions on academic subjects. All such material must comply with ''both'' WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE: That is, the level of academic support for the subject's views must be explained, but the article must present this neutrally so as to not unduly disparage the subject. While overly harsh criticism from obscure sources may not be appropriate for inclusion, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography (see ]). | |||
For people mainly notable for reasons unrelated to this guideline but who nevertheless hold fringe views, that person's fringe views shouldn't be given ] in their biography compared to the events that made them notable. | |||
==Mentions in other articles== | |||
{{shortcut|WP:ONEWAY}} | |||
Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if ] connect the topics in a serious and ] way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea ''may'' be discussed in other articles, not that it ''must'' be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives ] to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a ], lest the article serve as a ]. | |||
Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a ]. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of ''one-way linking'' for fringe theories. | |||
Examples: | |||
*] – There are plenty of reliable sources which describe how ] is not ], and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter. | |||
*] – There are no reliable sources about ] which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on special relativity should not mention autodynamics. | |||
Note, however, that the mainstream scientific subjects are discussed and linked to in both of the above articles about fringe subjects (the Astrology article discusses astronomy, and Autodynamics discusses special relativity). | |||
==Useful templates== | |||
*{{tl|Fringe theories}} | |||
*{{tl|Unbalanced}} | |||
*{{tl|NPOV}} | |||
== See also == | |||
;Essays: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] (dealing with fringe advocates) | |||
;WikiProjects: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
;Arbitration requests: | |||
* ] | |||
==Notes== | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
] |
Revision as of 22:57, 13 January 2014
Your mom is made of green cheese. And butterflies.