 | This is an
essay on
Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
While assessing WP:NFRINGE or notability of a Wikipedia articles on Fringe theory, a commmonly found problem is users basing their opinion on the sources published by authors and publishers associated with fringe theory. This is wrong.
WP:FRIND states, quote:" 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.
Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines ask for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
, also applies for fringe.
WP:NFRINGE explicitly states that the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources.
[1]
We shouldn't base encyclopedia articles on "sources" that are either deluded or grifting. Horoscopes are either one or the other... Cultural and social topics deserve better coverage than supermarket tabloids or their digital equivalents. [2]
Does not represent Mainstream view on this topic
| “ | An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. | ” |
Astrology is a fringe theory and all the sources used are books on fringe theory. WP:MAINSTREAM view is lacking. The article represents fringe point of view in the voice of Wikipedia.
- Lack of coverage in general media. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are online dictionaries or books on special topics. Article also violates WP:NFRINGE and WP:PSCI.
References
Useful Templates
 | This article may present
fringe theories, without giving
appropriate weight to the mainstream view and explaining the responses to the fringe theories. (November 2021) |
| This is an
essay on
Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
While assessing WP:NFRINGE or notability of a Wikipedia articles on Fringe theory, a commmonly found problem is users basing their opinion on the sources published by authors and publishers associated with fringe theory. This is wrong.
WP:FRIND states, quote:" 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.
Wikipedia's
general notability guidelines ask for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
, also applies for fringe.
WP:NFRINGE explicitly states that the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources.
[1]
We shouldn't base encyclopedia articles on "sources" that are either deluded or grifting. Horoscopes are either one or the other... Cultural and social topics deserve better coverage than supermarket tabloids or their digital equivalents. [2]
Does not represent Mainstream view on this topic
| “ | An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. | ” |
Astrology is a fringe theory and all the sources used are books on fringe theory. WP:MAINSTREAM view is lacking. The article represents fringe point of view in the voice of Wikipedia.
- Lack of coverage in general media. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are online dictionaries or books on special topics. Article also violates WP:NFRINGE and WP:PSCI.
References
Useful Templates
| This article may present
fringe theories, without giving
appropriate weight to the mainstream view and explaining the responses to the fringe theories. (November 2021) |