Wikipedia:Fringe theories: Difference between revisions
→Sufficiently notable for dedicated articles: as of => template & no need to link the year |
cleaned up version... no substantive objections on talk. See the talkpage. |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[[Image:Martian face viking cropped.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the [[Cydonia Mensae|Face on Mars]] can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.]] |
[[Image:Martian face viking cropped.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the [[Cydonia Mensae|Face on Mars]] can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - as notable popular phenomena.]] |
||
This guideline advises which [[Fringe theory|fringe theories]] and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. |
|||
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a |
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more [[WP:N|notable]] than it actually is.<ref>For other pertinent guidelines, see [[WP:NOTABILITY]].</ref> Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,<ref>For information on determining "prominence", see [[WP:WEIGHT]].</ref> it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, [[WP:RS|reliable]], and [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a [[WP:Neutral point of view|neutral manner]] if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it. |
||
Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several [[WP:RFARB|arbitration cases]]. See [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases]]. |
Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several [[WP:RFARB|arbitration cases]]. See [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases]]. |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
A fringe theory can be considered [[WP:NOTABILITY|notable]] if it has been referenced ''extensively'', and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also 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 the theory, and not the theory itself — 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 [[April Fool's Day]], as "[[News of the Weird]]" or during "slow news days". (See [[junk food news]], [[silly season]], ''[[komkommertijd]].'') |
A fringe theory can be considered [[WP:NOTABILITY|notable]] if it has been referenced ''extensively'', and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also 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 the theory, and not the theory itself — 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 [[April Fool's Day]], as "[[News of the Weird]]" or during "slow news days". (See [[junk food news]], [[silly season]], ''[[komkommertijd]].'') |
||
Fringe theories should receive attention in Wikipedia 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 fringe theory are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute [[WP:NOR|original research]]. [[WP:NOR]] strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for [[WP:PRIMARY|careful use]] of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia. |
|||
==Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories== |
==Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories== |
||
Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia 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 "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of [[WP:OR|original thought]] nor a [[WP:SOAP|soapbox]] for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]], not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppetry]] in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD discussions]], |
Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia 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 "[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of [[WP:OR|original thought]] nor a [[WP:SOAP|soapbox]] for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]], not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppetry]] in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD discussions]], are not allowed. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to [[shill]] on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of [[WP:SPS|self-published]] material as references, are unacceptable: [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not an advertising venue]]. (See also [[Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided|Links normally to be avoided]], [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Conflict of interest]], [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|Autobiography guidelines]].) |
||
The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. |
The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
==Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims== |
==Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims== |
||
Notable topics 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 [[Genesis|Book of Genesis]] 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 [[physical cosmology|cosmological]] theory. On the other hand, subjects such as [[creationism]] or [[creation science]], which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis. |
Notable topics 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 [[Genesis|Book of Genesis]] 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 [[physical cosmology|cosmological]] theory. On the other hand, subjects such as [[creationism]] or [[creation science]], which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis. |
||
==Notability versus acceptance== |
==Notability versus acceptance== |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
===Parity of sources=== |
===Parity of sources=== |
||
{{shortcut|WP:PARITY}} |
{{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. |
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. 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. |
||
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 or other reliable sources. For example, the [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations]] article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used. |
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 or other reliable sources. For example, the [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations]] article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used. |
||
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 Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of [[creation science]] should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject |
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 Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of [[creation science]] should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject and since the views of adherents can only be determined from works that also lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects. |
||
===Particular attribution=== |
===Particular attribution=== |
||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
*[[Apollo moon landing hoax]] — This particular conspiracy theory, while probably not held as true by very many people, has generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that it deserves an article on Wikipedia. |
*[[Apollo moon landing hoax]] — This particular conspiracy theory, while probably not held as true by very many people, has generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that it deserves an article on Wikipedia. |
||
*[[Time Cube]] — an all-encompassing but difficult to comprehend proposition espoused by [[Gene Ray]], self-proclaimed "Doctor of Cubicism". His Time Cube covers time, human behavior and many other things. Not addressed by scientists or philosophers (who are in Ray's words "stupid and evil"), it is still notable as an [[Internet meme]] and source of humor. |
*[[Time Cube]] — an all-encompassing but difficult to comprehend proposition espoused by [[Gene Ray]], self-proclaimed "Doctor of Cubicism". His Time Cube covers time, human behavior and many other things. Not addressed by scientists or philosophers (who are in Ray's words "stupid and evil"), it is still notable as an [[Internet meme]] and source of humor. |
||
*[[Paul is dead]] — a famous [[urban legend]] alleging that [[Paul McCartney]] of the [[United Kingdom|British]] rock band [[The Beatles]] died in [[1966 in music|1966]] and was replaced by a [[look-alike]], [[sound-alike]] duplicate. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well |
*[[Paul is dead]] — a famous [[urban legend]] alleging that [[Paul McCartney]] of the [[United Kingdom|British]] rock band [[The Beatles]] died in [[1966 in music|1966]] and was replaced by a [[look-alike]], [[sound-alike]] duplicate. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well [[as of 2008]]), this [[conspiracy theory]] has been fueled by "clues" found among The Beatles' many recordings. The rumour has been the topic of much sociological examination because its development, growth and rebuttal took place very publicly, owing to The Beatles' enormous popularity. |
||
===Warranting mention in other articles=== |
===Warranting mention in other articles=== |
Revision as of 17:29, 1 December 2008
This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page. |
Fringe theory in a nutshell:
|
This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects.
Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.
Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.
Identifying fringe theories
We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.
A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also 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 the theory, and not the theory itself — 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 April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days". (See junk food news, silly season, komkommertijd.)
Fringe theories should receive attention in Wikipedia 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 fringe theory are in news sources, then a level of detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources in addition to these; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.
Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories
Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia 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 "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are not allowed. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable: Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided, Conflict of interest, Autobiography guidelines.)
The discussion of a fringe theory, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or in non-scientific contexts. The same holds true for conjectures and theories in other academic disciplines.
Evaluating scientific and non-scientific claims
Notable topics 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 Book of Genesis 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 cosmological theory. On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.
Notability versus acceptance
Reporting on the levels of acceptance
According to Jimbo Wales:
[...] 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. [1]
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) 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 pseudoscience 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 science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.
Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. 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 Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized 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.
Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: 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 (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.
A note about publication
One important bellwether 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 peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.
Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG).
Sourcing and attribution
Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source 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 verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links.
Quotations
While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia 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 Bigfoot, a verifiably attributed and accurate quote might take the following form:
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 lead 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 consensus of editors may even be to not include the quote at all.
Independent sources
While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe idea is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. It can also provide a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint.
Parity of sources
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. 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.
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 or other reliable sources. For example, the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article may include material from websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed. Critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not reliable sources, since the accusations themselves are not peer reviewed. Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, the most reliable sources available should be used.
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 Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science since peer-reviewed journals routinely reject submissions relating to the subject and since the views of adherents can only be determined from works that also lack peer review. Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are excluded by reliable sources on those subjects.
Particular attribution
Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim.
For example, a statement that someone is "the only scientist who says this idea is untenable" is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of inappropriate particular attribution. However, other phrasings can still inadvertently imply that only one person is critical of the fringe theory, for instance, stating that a particular person "says this idea is untenable" when there are actually others (including experts) in addition who hold the same view. In a fringe topic, it is possible, even likely, that more people share misgivings about a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject, and such phrasing can therefore be misleading as to how many people actually share those views.
When using sources written by authors who are a reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions. Facts do not require in-text attribution since they are not solely the opinions of people.
Examples
Sufficiently notable for dedicated articles
- Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience 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 Wikipedia.
- Apollo moon landing hoax — This particular conspiracy theory, while probably not held as true by very many people, has generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that it deserves an article on Wikipedia.
- Time Cube — an all-encompassing but difficult to comprehend proposition espoused by Gene Ray, self-proclaimed "Doctor of Cubicism". His Time Cube covers time, human behavior and many other things. Not addressed by scientists or philosophers (who are in Ray's words "stupid and evil"), it is still notable as an Internet meme and source of humor.
- Paul is dead — a famous urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of the British rock band The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike, sound-alike duplicate. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well as of 2008), this conspiracy theory has been fueled by "clues" found among The Beatles' many recordings. The rumour has been the topic of much sociological examination because its development, growth and rebuttal took place very publicly, owing to The Beatles' enormous popularity.
Warranting mention in other articles
- Port Chicago disaster conspiracy theory — There exists a theory that this disaster (which itself is of unquestioned notability), held by official reports to be an ammunition-loading accident, was actually a detonation of a nuclear weapon with the intent of testing the effects on American soldiers. This theory has been proposed by one journalist, and he has published on it almost exclusively through his own self-published website and e-book, which many other non-mainstream websites and publications have parroted. The theory probably does not deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mention in the main Port Chicago disaster article, since its Internet presence is very large due to the aforementioned fringe websites. The exact wording of the mention is of course dictated by NPOV and other content guidelines.
See also
- Wikipedia:Scientific consensus
- WP:COATRACK
- Wikipedia:Snowball clause
- Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions (parody)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views
Notes
- ^ For other pertinent guidelines, see WP:NOTABILITY.
- ^ For information on determining "prominence", see WP:WEIGHT.
- ^ For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science.