Wikipedia:Pseudoscience and related fringe theories: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) restored copy edited version |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) m red |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]] |
|||
{{see|WP:UNDUE|WP:FRINGE}} |
|||
When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views. |
|||
Topics that may be added to the [[:Category:Pseudoscience|pseudoscience category]] so long as there are reliable sources, include the following: |
|||
: '''1. Obviously bogus ideas''': Obviously bogus theories such as [[Time Cube]] may be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur. |
|||
: '''2. Generally considered pseudoscience''': Theories which have a following, such as [[astrology]], but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may also be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur. |
|||
Topics that should not be added to the category, even if there are reliable sources for the claim: |
|||
: '''3. Theories with a substantial and respectable following''': Articles about established ideas and practices such as [[psychoanalysis]], which some critics allege are pseudoscientific but which also attract an academic following, may contain the view that they are pseudoscientific if it is reliably sourced, but it should not be added to the lead or highlighted unduly, and should not be included without qualification. |
|||
: '''4. Alternative theoretical formulations''': Alternative theoretical formulations from within the [[scientific community]], such as [[Modified Newtonian Dynamics]] as opposed to [[dark matter]], which are part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but should they succeed will be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of [[continental drift]] was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for it, and thus the evidence in its favour was dismissed. When the mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as [[plate tectonics]].</blockquote> |
|||
Revision as of 10:29, 21 March 2010
Redirect to: