Wikipedia:Fringe theories

This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia. This refers to "theory" in a very broad sense, including (self-described) scientific thories, conspiracy theories, or things which in a stricter sense may be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. The guidance refers specifically to the creation of entire articles about said topics, not to the inclusion of alternative points of view in individual articles. The guidance does not speak to the content of the articles, which are still completely subject to WP:NPOV and other policies.

Guidance

• "Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which is likely impossible. The authors of non-mainstream theories sometimes explicitly proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, or because other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, and similar arguments).
• Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents. References that are brought about 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.)
• The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is themself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
• Inventors 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 inventor 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 should 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, should be firmly discouraged, though always in a civil manner. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as duplicitously offering self-published books for sale under the guise of "references", should be strongly frowned upon; as previously stated, Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. (See also Links normally to be avoided.)
• Theories should not receive attention in Wikipedia disproportional to the level of technical detail in the sources from which the article is written. For example, if the only references to a particular theory are in news sources, then a level of technical detail which is greater than that which appears in these news sources is inappropriate, as it would constitute original research. On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources. WP:OR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing primary and/or secondary sources; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.

Justification

The above proposed guidelines are justified as part of the idea that an appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and is seen by other mainstream source as a contender for mainstream status (however problematic they may see this), it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating mainstream source for these non-mainstream theories. If another mainstream source discusses the theory first, however, it allows Wikipedia to not be the primary determinant of what is notable or not. Furthermore, anything with a complete lack of mainstream discussions can probably not be written about in a NPOV manner without some sort of mainstream baseline; doing so risks violating the No original research policy.

It is no less important to avoid making a theory appear less notable, or less "mainstream", than it actually is. In order to work together, guidelines must be consistently formulated and applied; otherwise, they merely provide those with a particular bias, or who are bent on a particular course of action, with an all-purpose set of rationalizations which can be selectively invoked to justify whatever changes or exclusions they desire at the major expense of WP:NPOV. In the context of the fringe-versus-mainstream distinction, this means that care must be taken lest the guidelines in question merely form a pretext for the fringe classification of theories which otherwise satisfy mainstream criteria.

For example, no guideline - e.g., see the fourth proposed guideline above - should make it possible to reclassify a theory which qualifies as "mainstream" by the standards of the first proposed criterion as a "fringe" theory just because a particular editor or group of editors wants it to be, or because of irrelevant accusations relating to other aspects of Wikipedia policy. Nor should any set of guidelines repose the distinction solely with some self-restricted special-interest group or professional organization not legally empowered to determine it, or which selects its members on the basis of criteria that are not substantively relevant to the distinction (e.g., the ability to devote large amounts of time and money to the university system, particularly where notability rests on popular rather than academic publications).

Possible examples

Sufficiently notable for devoted articles

In all of these examples, the content of the articles themselves is not regulated by this guideline, and must of course be in line with the NPOV policy.

• Creation science — most scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion amongst mainstream groups (including but not limited to scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court) give the theory itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it featured 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 mainstream sources (books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA) 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 mainstream scientists or philosophers (who are in Ray's words "stupid and evil"), it is still notable as an Internet meme and source of humor.

Warranting mention in other articles

• Port Chicago disaster — There exists a theory that this disaster, 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 has been parroted by many other non-mainstream websites and publications. The theory does not probably deserve its own Wikipedia article, as there is no mainstream reference to it whatsoever, but could easily have a small mentioning of it in the main Port Chicago 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.