1002:, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. 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. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with
1128:, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Knowledge (XXG) 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.
1572:
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
1391:) 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
900:
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 or rigour 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
98:, 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, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear.
109:
21:
1033:
relevant but are only sourced to 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 they should generally be considered unreliable. Examples of unreliable journals include but are not limited to: the
1707:. 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
782:
804:
1458:), it is not the place of Knowledge (XXG) to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Knowledge (XXG) changes to reflect that change. Knowledge (XXG) primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.
86:
1443:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) is not to offer originally
1571:
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
899:
To determine whether something is pseudoscientific 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
1311:
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 among groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself
1139:
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
1073:
should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that
1032:
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 about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem
951:
Subjects receive attention in
Knowledge (XXG) 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
947:
Reliable sources on
Knowledge (XXG) may 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
875:
are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so,
1148:
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
1193:
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
1769:
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
1068:
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
Knowledge (XXG). For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of
1081:
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.
1332:—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 Knowledge (XXG).
1531:
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, Knowledge (XXG) should always give
844:
Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.
1326:, that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than six million—are rejected as false by an overwhelming majority of professional historians, although the Holocaust deniers themselves will still occasionally get some public notice and therefore notability.
1470:
research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from
Knowledge (XXG), there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in
1475:. 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.
1482:
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
Knowledge (XXG) as representing
1853:, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. However, the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see
1447:
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.
1604:
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
1210:. 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.
664:, 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.
1591:
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
1052:
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
1061:, 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; Knowledge (XXG)'s verifiability and
884:, it became mainstream. In other cases, an alternative theoretical formulation lacks significant evidence to show its validity, but when such evidence is produced, the theory can become mainstream. Such examples of this are the existence of
1757:
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
703:
and esoteric claims about medicine. Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic
1810:
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).
1844:
Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must also comply with
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on
1639:
Proponents of fringe theories have used Knowledge (XXG) as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then
1356:
Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Knowledge (XXG). The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Knowledge (XXG) as an article is generally covered by
943:
to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter.
2123:
2118:
2450:
302:
729:
Not all pseudoscience and fringe theories are alike. In addition, there is an approximate demarcation between pseudoscience and questionable science, and they merit careful treatment. Poorly conducted research,
2261:
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
2058:
719:
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.
2697:
2290:
760:
Proposals that, 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
2612:
191:
1454:: 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.,
1074:
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
2303:
2098:
1104:
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
1487:
or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Knowledge (XXG) on notability grounds. Likewise,
2944:
372:
1544:
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
1466:
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
1872:
enough to have articles included in Knowledge (XXG) solely on the basis of their advocacy of fringe beliefs. Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough
634:
2443:
2103:
2093:
278:
2870:
2190:
2088:
449:
349:
625:
There are numerous reasons for these requirements. Knowledge (XXG) is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects, and it is not a forum for
2283:
1955:
880:
was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for continents to move and the proposed mechanisms were implausible. When a mechanism was discovered through
2113:
2108:
458:
1587:
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
2903:
1347:
includes descriptions of conspiracy theories contending that Booth eluded his pursuers and escaped. However, they are not notable enough for a dedicated article.
672:
1264:. 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
2627:
2276:
186:
618:. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and
3103:
3169:
2038:
153:
2898:
2637:
2379:
2071:
1665:
1652:
for self-promotion and advertising. Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as
2918:
2704:
2573:
1439:
in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place to
430:
1403:
574:
3164:
2043:
2006:
326:
254:
118:
28:
1144:
Including such a controversial quote needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point of view. Simply including such a statement in the
1703:
policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given
1880:
sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the
3001:
472:
395:
3174:
2891:
2053:
668:
409:
2374:
1641:
1432:
2923:
2300:
1669:
734:
and other types of bad science are not necessarily pseudoscientific – refer to reliable sources to find the appropriate characterisation.
363:
1035:
2913:
2908:
2076:
419:
889:
2928:
2865:
2369:
2147:
2143:
1657:
1563:—e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that
1440:
948:
reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.
630:
414:
1964:
2642:
2602:
2543:
2460:
2388:
2364:
2048:
1901:
1673:
1095:
957:
626:
307:
236:
171:
44:
1579:
Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should
1329:
1054:
2538:
999:
612:
227:
130:
3133:
2954:
2632:
2607:
2553:
2023:
1573:
1420:
been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of
772:) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals that are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as
524:
519:
510:
479:
354:
317:
297:
213:
181:
176:
139:
2996:
2772:
2719:
2692:
2622:
2597:
939:
Reliable sources are needed for any article in Knowledge (XXG). They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently
622:
must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
467:
203:
166:
1194:
actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported. Particularly harsh criticism should be attributed—"Philosopher
1057:
article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By
960:
policy strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for
3118:
2568:
2563:
2533:
2438:
2394:
2322:
1693:
1253:
439:
290:
273:
144:
36:
3080:
567:
2886:
2767:
2687:
2470:
404:
312:
1988:
1976:
1112:. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for
2949:
2855:
2810:
2762:
2757:
2475:
2433:
2399:
382:
377:
268:
263:
1322:
had no genocidal intent against the Jews of Europe, that no gas chambers were used for mass murder at camps such as
2843:
2428:
2359:
2028:
2018:
1771:
1689:
1677:
1653:
1249:
1091:
218:
2838:
2558:
2548:
2315:
1774:. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of
1428:
1427:
Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Knowledge (XXG), but should not be given
1361:. The complicated relationship between the level of acceptance of an idea and its notability is explored below.
600:
541:
339:
1910:
1806:
which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on special relativity should not mention autodynamics.
2709:
444:
715:
or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the
3075:
599:
in its particular field. Because Knowledge (XXG) aims to summarize significant opinions with representation
560:
3142:
3008:
2647:
2523:
2455:
2423:
2384:
1742:
1533:
1358:
688:
608:
604:
596:
484:
241:
208:
2490:
1737:
Fringe views, products, or those who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if
1606:
545:
3013:
2714:
2617:
2528:
2518:
1854:
1281:
708:, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight.
489:
198:
1944:
1660:, are prohibited. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of
549:
3025:
3020:
2513:
2033:
1820:
1720:
1622:
1500:
1370:
1340:
1231:
1162:
1015:
973:
854:
827:
743:
501:
496:
53:
40:
2336:
904:), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in
1849:(WP:BLP). Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given
1484:
1041:
872:
716:
595:
is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or
2860:
2850:
1884:. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a
1881:
1759:
1681:
1488:
1451:
1190:
1113:
961:
344:
1933:
1994:—Inline citation to tag a specific sentence that may use a non-independent source inappropriately.
1387:
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with
1184:
1180:
1075:
995:
930:
687:
in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or
657:
2664:
1803:
1588:
1304:
1199:
1889:
1850:
1754:
1704:
1610:
1261:
1224:
1265:
3085:
2173:
1950:—Inline citation to tag a source which might have been given more prominence than justifiable.
1402:
1344:
1269:
877:
700:
629:. For writers and editors of Knowledge (XXG) articles to write about controversial ideas in a
1885:
1877:
1858:
1763:
1708:
1700:
1649:
1609:, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given
1541:
1145:
1125:
1003:
940:
641:
95:
2268:
1601:
1315:
1300:
1135:, a verifiably attributed and accurately preserved quotation might take the following form:
1124:
While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of
1070:
901:
761:
543:
2160:
1869:
1862:
1846:
1753:
be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives
1685:
1661:
1560:
1556:
1545:
1444:
1257:
1207:
1206:"—while simple facts—"humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor"—are best left
1150:
1062:
953:
934:
653:
645:
3065:
1584:
1455:
1421:
1101:
881:
769:
1970:—Inline citation to tag a specific sentence that may use a fringe source inappropriately.
1873:
1738:
1645:
1593:
1537:
1479:
1472:
1388:
1109:
619:
615:
1583:
be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the
1408:
1273:
1195:
905:
731:
705:
692:
533:
1105:
991:
661:
649:
640:
The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies:
3158:
2734:
1436:
1396:
1395:, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as
1308:
792:
765:
712:
590:
3042:
1921:
1799:
1319:
1277:
909:
607:
or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be
3070:
990:
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their
776:, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
633:, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent
2787:
1597:
1564:
1467:
1223:
For what to do with a subject that does not qualify for a separate article, see
814:
1256:, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy
913:
1576:, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose.
1793:
1789:
1785:
1323:
1285:
773:
1312:
more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Knowledge (XXG).
1260:: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are
1108:
the text and should not be relied on exclusively as doing so would violate
1412:
can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia—as notable ideas in the public eye.
2124:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question
2119:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
1549:
893:
1065:
policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.
603:, a Knowledge (XXG) article should not make a fringe theory appear more
1284:
of fringe theories and their proponents, and there continue to be many
1202:
as 'a little driblet of childish ignorance; a mark of mankind's infancy
1132:
696:
2059:
Knowledge (XXG):Why Knowledge (XXG) cannot claim the Earth is not flat
1688:: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from
667:
Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several
2241:
1406:
Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the
1248:
The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from
908:), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of
1644:" rules come into play. Knowledge (XXG) is neither a publisher of
1401:
796:
1745:
way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea
699:
and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include
885:
2272:
1796:, and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter.
547:
764:
is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g.
550:
103:
80:
15:
2099:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
1552:
has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton."
1307:—The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be
2148:
Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight
1462:
Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance
2973:
1927:—There is a current dispute about the article's neutrality.
952:
is inappropriate, because Knowledge (XXG) policy prohibits
1491:
in Knowledge (XXG) require high-quality reliable sources.
1399:
unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.
1788:—There are plenty of reliable sources which describe how
652:. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any
39:
may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect
2161:
Synthesis of published material that advances a position
1555:
Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully
1424:, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.
1286:
completely unreliable sources masquerading as legitimate
1153:
of editors may even be to not include the quote at all.
1049:(which uses blog comments as its supposed peer review).
2104:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Climate change
2094:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
1835:
1828:
1728:
1630:
1522:
1515:
1508:
1378:
1239:
1170:
1023:
981:
862:
835:
751:
68:
61:
2191:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
2089:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
791:(Non-scientific statement claiming to be scientific):
1956:
Knowledge (XXG):Template messages/Sources of articles
1435:
a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any
1208:
stated simply as facts rather than recast as opinions
871:
Alternative theoretical formulations from within the
795:
proves that running water emits electricity when the
711:
When discussing topics that reliable sources say are
2613:
Do not disrupt Knowledge (XXG) to illustrate a point
2114:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
1982:—Inline citation for a source that may be unreliable
1140:
fitting the descriptions of sasquatches (bigfoots)."
3050:
3038:
2981:
2971:
2937:
2879:
2819:
2795:
2785:
2742:
2732:
2672:
2662:
2582:
2498:
2488:
2408:
2344:
2334:
2109:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
1770:understanding and remove the threat of creating a
1280:). Even reputable news outlets have been known to
1336:Not sufficiently notable for dedicated articles:
673:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories/Arbitration cases
2451:Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources
2172:For more criteria, see Trefil, James S. (1978),
876:will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance,
1137:
1110:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies on original research
27:This page documents an English Knowledge (XXG)
2242:"JOURNAL of FRONTIER SCIENCE Peer Review Blog"
2039:Knowledge (XXG):Creating controversial content
1559:to an appropriate source and located within a
2284:
2072:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Alternative Views
1296:Sufficiently notable for dedicated articles:
568:
8:
3039:
1749:be discussed in other articles, not that it
115:For questions or help with specific examples
2945:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
2044:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories for dummies
2007:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories/Noticeboard
1666:Knowledge (XXG) is not an advertising venue
35:Editors should generally follow it, though
3047:
2978:
2831:
2792:
2739:
2669:
2495:
2341:
2291:
2277:
2269:
1696:, not the proclamations of its adherents.
1664:material as references, are unacceptable:
1613:in more general discussions of the topic.
1536:to established lines of research found in
1452:Knowledge (XXG) is also not a crystal ball
575:
561:
333:
160:
126:
2054:Knowledge (XXG):Scientific point of view
1882:notability of fringe theories themselves
1617:Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories
2135:
1682:notability guidelines for fringe topics
1478:Peer review is an important feature of
1126:Knowledge (XXG)'s neutral point of view
1078:by reliable sources on those subjects.
637:of reasonable reliability and quality.
532:
509:
457:
429:
394:
362:
325:
253:
226:
152:
129:
2077:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism
691:in its particular field. For example,
587:In Knowledge (XXG) parlance, the term
450:Deletion guidelines for administrators
3170:Knowledge (XXG) neutral point of view
2203:Mysteries in History: Ancient History
2174:"A consumer's guide to pseudoscience"
2144:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
1892:promotes nor denigrates the subject.
1802:—There are no reliable sources about
1365:Reporting on the levels of acceptance
1149:necessarily a factual statement. The
7:
2216:Ten Discoveries That Rewrote History
2049:Knowledge (XXG):Scientific consensus
1902:Knowledge (XXG):Neutrality templates
1741:connect the topics in a serious and
1596:consider the subjects. For example,
1096:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
849:Alternative theoretical formulations
3104:List of all policies and guidelines
1272:", or during "slow news days" (see
1036:Creation Research Society Quarterly
3165:Knowledge (XXG) content guidelines
3143:Summaries of values and principles
2984:
2822:
2585:
2411:
2024:Knowledge (XXG):Be neutral in form
1318:—Claims of Holocaust deniers—that
1131:For example, in the article about
890:Norse colonization of the Americas
43:. When in doubt, discuss first on
14:
1100:Knowledge (XXG) is meant to be a
813:(no claim that it's scientific):
601:in proportion to their prominence
3053:
2798:
2745:
2675:
2628:Please do not bite the newcomers
2501:
2347:
1495:Evaluating and describing claims
1330:Moon landing conspiracy theories
1055:Moon landing conspiracy theories
817:has magic reindeer that can fly.
802:
780:
717:scientific or academic consensus
107:
84:
19:
3175:Knowledge (XXG) fringe theories
2230:Princeton University Press pg 7
2061:(dealing with fringe advocates)
1762:, lest the article serve as a
902:proponents of creation science
92:Fringe theories in a nutshell:
1:
2638:Responding to threats of harm
2380:Biographies of living persons
2029:Knowledge (XXG):Cherrypicking
2019:Knowledge (XXG):Academic bias
1847:biographies of living persons
1686:general notability guidelines
1258:general notability guidelines
1092:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1063:biographies of living persons
193:Don't disrupt to make a point
2705:Criteria for speedy deletion
2574:Paid-contribution disclosure
2244:. Jfspeerreview.blogspot.com
2226:Lemonick, Michael D. (2003)
2180:, April 29, 1978, pp. 16–21.
1739:independent reliable sources
1670:Links normally to be avoided
1352:Notability versus acceptance
1000:independent reliable sources
373:Categories, lists, templates
2375:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1815:Treatment of living persons
1642:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1214:Coverage in Knowledge (XXG)
1047:Journal of Frontier Science
799:are aligned with the stars.
725:Spectrum of fringe theories
679:Identifying fringe theories
654:novel analysis or synthesis
214:Other behavioral guidelines
119:fringe theories noticeboard
3191:
2189:Based on Arbcom ruling in
1818:
1718:
1715:Mentions in other articles
1620:
1498:
1368:
1341:Theories of Booth's escape
1282:publish credulous profiles
1262:independent of the subject
1229:
1222:
1185:Assert facts, not opinions
1178:
1160:
1089:
1013:
971:
928:
852:
825:
741:
695:depart significantly from
693:fringe theories in science
131:Knowledge (XXG) guidelines
51:
45:this guideline's talk page
3098:
2834:
2310:
1868:There are people who are
1546:simple statements of fact
219:WMF friendly space policy
2034:Knowledge (XXG):Coatrack
1965:Unreliable fringe source
1678:Autobiography guidelines
355:Other editing guidelines
318:Other content guidelines
187:Don't bite the newcomers
3081:Licensing and copyright
2301:policies and guidelines
1888:biography that neither
1076:rarely if ever included
1006:, independent sources.
658:likely to be challenged
2201:Conklin, Wendy (2005)
1413:
1142:
3076:Friendly space policy
2866:Broad-concept article
2370:Neutral point of view
2214:Hunt, Patrick (2007)
1778:for fringe theories.
1701:neutral point of view
1431:. Knowledge (XXG) is
1405:
1359:notability guidelines
912:made by advocates of
642:Neutral point of view
303:Don't copy long texts
96:neutral point of view
2643:Talk page guidelines
2603:Conflict of interest
2544:Ownership of content
2389:Copyright violations
2365:No original research
2299:Knowledge (XXG) key
2228:Echo of the Big Bang
2083:Arbitration requests
1680:.) For this reason,
1674:Conflict of interest
1542:neutral descriptions
1485:scientific consensus
964:of primary sources.
958:no original research
873:scientific community
822:Questionable science
646:No original research
237:Talk page guidelines
172:Conflict of interest
2539:No personal attacks
2461:Don't create hoaxes
2178:The Saturday Review
2159:See in particular "
1607:denialist histories
1189:The careful use of
1181:In-text attribution
1157:In-text attribution
968:Independent sources
701:conspiracy theories
308:Don't create hoaxes
117:, please visit the
3134:List of guidelines
2955:Template namespace
2633:Courtesy vanishing
2608:Disruptive editing
2554:Dispute resolution
1989:Third-party-inline
1977:Verify credibility
1804:special relativity
1684:are stricter than
1489:exceptional claims
1441:right great wrongs
1414:
1305:Intelligent design
1200:intelligent design
697:mainstream science
520:Naming conventions
298:Offensive material
182:Disruptive editing
177:Courtesy vanishing
3152:
3151:
3094:
3093:
3034:
3033:
2997:Project namespace
2967:
2966:
2963:
2962:
2904:Dates and numbers
2871:Understandability
2781:
2780:
2728:
2727:
2720:Revision deletion
2693:Proposed deletion
2658:
2657:
2623:Gaming the system
2598:Assume good faith
2484:
2483:
1958:, in particular,
1904:, in particular,
1574:criticism section
1473:original research
1345:John Wilkes Booth
1270:News of the Weird
1059:parity of sources
1010:Parity of sources
954:original research
878:continental drift
811:Not pseudoscience
669:arbitration cases
635:secondary sources
627:original research
585:
584:
390:
389:
350:Understandability
249:
248:
204:Gaming the system
167:Assume good faith
125:
124:
102:
101:
79:
78:
29:content guideline
3182:
3129:
3128:
3119:List of policies
3114:
3113:
3071:List of policies
3058:
3057:
3056:
3048:
3044:
3041:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2979:
2975:
2972:Project content
2832:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2793:
2789:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2740:
2736:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2670:
2666:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2569:Child protection
2564:No legal threats
2534:Ignore all rules
2506:
2505:
2504:
2496:
2492:
2439:Reliable sources
2416:
2415:
2414:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2342:
2338:
2323:Ignore all rules
2305:
2293:
2286:
2279:
2270:
2263:
2259:
2253:
2252:
2250:
2249:
2237:
2231:
2224:
2218:
2212:
2206:
2199:
2193:
2187:
2181:
2170:
2164:
2157:
2151:
2146:, in particular
2140:
1993:
1987:
1981:
1975:
1969:
1963:
1949:
1943:
1938:
1932:
1926:
1920:
1915:
1909:
1896:Useful templates
1863:WP:BLP § Balance
1851:undue prominence
1838:
1831:
1760:see also section
1731:
1694:reliable sources
1646:original thought
1633:
1602:creation science
1594:reliable sources
1538:reliable sources
1525:
1518:
1511:
1480:reliable sources
1389:reliable sources
1381:
1316:Holocaust denial
1301:Creation science
1266:April Fool's Day
1254:reliable sources
1242:
1205:
1173:
1071:creation science
1026:
984:
925:Reliable sources
865:
838:
809:
806:
805:
787:
784:
783:
762:perpetual motion
754:
713:pseudoscientific
689:mainstream views
683:We use the term
656:, that material
620:reliable sources
616:reliable sources
597:mainstream views
577:
570:
563:
551:
440:Deletion process
334:
293:
292:Non-free content
274:Reliable sources
194:
161:
127:
111:
110:
104:
88:
87:
81:
71:
64:
23:
22:
16:
3190:
3189:
3185:
3184:
3183:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3148:
3126:
3125:
3111:
3110:
3090:
3054:
3052:
3030:
2985:
2983:
2959:
2933:
2887:Manual of Style
2875:
2823:
2821:
2815:
2799:
2797:
2777:
2773:Page protection
2746:
2744:
2724:
2688:Deletion policy
2676:
2674:
2654:
2586:
2584:
2578:
2502:
2500:
2480:
2471:Patent nonsense
2466:Fringe theories
2412:
2410:
2404:
2348:
2346:
2330:
2306:
2297:
2267:
2266:
2260:
2256:
2247:
2245:
2239:
2238:
2234:
2225:
2221:
2213:
2209:
2200:
2196:
2188:
2184:
2171:
2167:
2158:
2154:
2141:
2137:
2132:
2085:
2068:
2015:
2003:
1991:
1985:
1979:
1973:
1967:
1961:
1947:
1941:
1936:
1930:
1924:
1918:
1913:
1911:Fringe theories
1907:
1898:
1842:
1841:
1834:
1827:
1823:
1817:
1776:one-way linking
1735:
1734:
1727:
1723:
1717:
1658:AfD discussions
1637:
1636:
1629:
1625:
1619:
1585:Book of Genesis
1529:
1528:
1521:
1514:
1507:
1503:
1497:
1464:
1456:plate tectonics
1422:science fiction
1385:
1384:
1377:
1373:
1367:
1354:
1294:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1234:
1228:
1221:
1216:
1203:
1187:
1177:
1176:
1169:
1165:
1159:
1122:
1102:tertiary source
1098:
1088:
1030:
1029:
1022:
1018:
1012:
988:
987:
980:
976:
970:
937:
927:
922:
894:Big Bang Theory
882:plate tectonics
869:
868:
861:
857:
851:
842:
841:
834:
830:
824:
807:
803:
785:
781:
770:water fuel cell
758:
757:
750:
746:
740:
727:
681:
662:reliable source
581:
552:
544:
459:Project content
405:Manual of Style
313:Patent nonsense
291:
286:Fringe theories
192:
140:Guidelines list
108:
85:
75:
74:
67:
60:
56:
48:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3188:
3186:
3178:
3177:
3172:
3167:
3157:
3156:
3150:
3149:
3147:
3146:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3122:
3099:
3096:
3095:
3092:
3091:
3089:
3088:
3086:Privacy policy
3083:
3078:
3073:
3068:
3062:
3060:
3045:
3036:
3035:
3032:
3031:
3029:
3028:
3023:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3006:
3005:
3004:
2993:
2991:
2976:
2969:
2968:
2965:
2964:
2961:
2960:
2958:
2957:
2952:
2950:Categorization
2947:
2941:
2939:
2938:Classification
2935:
2934:
2932:
2931:
2926:
2921:
2916:
2911:
2906:
2901:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2883:
2881:
2877:
2876:
2874:
2873:
2868:
2863:
2858:
2856:Disambiguation
2853:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2835:
2829:
2817:
2816:
2814:
2813:
2811:Editing policy
2807:
2805:
2790:
2783:
2782:
2779:
2778:
2776:
2775:
2770:
2765:
2760:
2758:Administrators
2754:
2752:
2737:
2730:
2729:
2726:
2725:
2723:
2722:
2717:
2712:
2707:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2690:
2684:
2682:
2667:
2660:
2659:
2656:
2655:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2640:
2635:
2630:
2625:
2620:
2615:
2610:
2605:
2600:
2594:
2592:
2580:
2579:
2577:
2576:
2571:
2566:
2561:
2556:
2551:
2546:
2541:
2536:
2531:
2526:
2521:
2516:
2510:
2508:
2493:
2486:
2485:
2482:
2481:
2479:
2478:
2476:External links
2473:
2468:
2463:
2458:
2453:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2436:
2434:Citing sources
2431:
2426:
2420:
2418:
2406:
2405:
2403:
2402:
2400:Article titles
2397:
2392:
2382:
2377:
2372:
2367:
2362:
2356:
2354:
2339:
2332:
2331:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2311:
2308:
2307:
2298:
2296:
2295:
2288:
2281:
2273:
2265:
2264:
2254:
2232:
2219:
2207:
2194:
2182:
2165:
2152:
2134:
2133:
2131:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2121:
2116:
2111:
2106:
2101:
2096:
2091:
2084:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2074:
2067:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2056:
2051:
2046:
2041:
2036:
2031:
2026:
2021:
2014:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1983:
1971:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1939:
1928:
1916:
1897:
1894:
1840:
1839:
1832:
1824:
1819:
1816:
1813:
1808:
1807:
1797:
1783:
1733:
1732:
1724:
1719:
1716:
1713:
1662:self-published
1635:
1634:
1626:
1621:
1618:
1615:
1527:
1526:
1519:
1512:
1504:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1463:
1460:
1383:
1382:
1379:WP:FRINGELEVEL
1374:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1334:
1333:
1327:
1313:
1293:
1290:
1274:junk food news
1244:
1243:
1235:
1230:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1196:A. C. Grayling
1175:
1174:
1166:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1121:
1118:
1087:
1084:
1028:
1027:
1019:
1014:
1011:
1008:
986:
985:
977:
972:
969:
966:
926:
923:
921:
918:
906:parapsychology
867:
866:
858:
853:
850:
847:
840:
839:
831:
826:
823:
820:
819:
818:
800:
756:
755:
747:
742:
739:
736:
732:research fraud
726:
723:
706:specialization
680:
677:
631:neutral manner
583:
582:
580:
579:
572:
565:
557:
554:
553:
548:
546:
542:
540:
537:
536:
530:
529:
528:
527:
522:
514:
513:
507:
506:
505:
504:
499:
494:
493:
492:
482:
477:
476:
475:
462:
461:
455:
454:
453:
452:
447:
442:
434:
433:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
417:
412:
399:
398:
392:
391:
388:
387:
386:
385:
383:Disambiguation
380:
378:Categorization
375:
367:
366:
364:Categorization
360:
359:
358:
357:
352:
347:
342:
330:
329:
323:
322:
321:
320:
315:
310:
305:
300:
295:
288:
283:
282:
281:
271:
269:External links
266:
264:Citing sources
258:
257:
251:
250:
247:
246:
245:
244:
239:
231:
230:
224:
223:
222:
221:
216:
211:
206:
201:
196:
189:
184:
179:
174:
169:
157:
156:
150:
149:
148:
147:
142:
134:
133:
123:
122:
112:
100:
99:
94:To maintain a
89:
77:
76:
73:
72:
65:
57:
52:
49:
34:
33:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3187:
3176:
3173:
3171:
3168:
3166:
3163:
3162:
3160:
3145:
3144:
3140:
3136:
3135:
3130:
3123:
3121:
3120:
3115:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3101:
3100:
3097:
3087:
3084:
3082:
3079:
3077:
3074:
3072:
3069:
3067:
3064:
3063:
3061:
3059:
3049:
3046:
3037:
3027:
3024:
3022:
3019:
3015:
3012:
3011:
3010:
3007:
3003:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2995:
2994:
2992:
2990:
2980:
2977:
2970:
2956:
2953:
2951:
2948:
2946:
2943:
2942:
2940:
2936:
2930:
2927:
2925:
2922:
2920:
2917:
2915:
2912:
2910:
2907:
2905:
2902:
2900:
2899:Accessibility
2897:
2893:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2885:
2884:
2882:
2878:
2872:
2869:
2867:
2864:
2862:
2859:
2857:
2854:
2852:
2849:
2845:
2844:Summary style
2842:
2841:
2840:
2837:
2836:
2833:
2830:
2828:
2818:
2812:
2809:
2808:
2806:
2804:
2794:
2791:
2784:
2774:
2771:
2769:
2766:
2764:
2761:
2759:
2756:
2755:
2753:
2751:
2741:
2738:
2731:
2721:
2718:
2716:
2713:
2711:
2708:
2706:
2703:
2699:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2691:
2689:
2686:
2685:
2683:
2681:
2671:
2668:
2661:
2649:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2641:
2639:
2636:
2634:
2631:
2629:
2626:
2624:
2621:
2619:
2616:
2614:
2611:
2609:
2606:
2604:
2601:
2599:
2596:
2595:
2593:
2591:
2581:
2575:
2572:
2570:
2567:
2565:
2562:
2560:
2557:
2555:
2552:
2550:
2547:
2545:
2542:
2540:
2537:
2535:
2532:
2530:
2527:
2525:
2522:
2520:
2517:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2509:
2507:
2497:
2494:
2487:
2477:
2474:
2472:
2469:
2467:
2464:
2462:
2459:
2457:
2454:
2452:
2449:
2445:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2437:
2435:
2432:
2430:
2429:Autobiography
2427:
2425:
2422:
2421:
2419:
2417:
2407:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2393:
2390:
2386:
2383:
2381:
2378:
2376:
2373:
2371:
2368:
2366:
2363:
2361:
2360:Verifiability
2358:
2357:
2355:
2353:
2343:
2340:
2333:
2325:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2313:
2312:
2309:
2302:
2294:
2289:
2287:
2282:
2280:
2275:
2274:
2271:
2258:
2255:
2243:
2236:
2233:
2229:
2223:
2220:
2217:
2211:
2208:
2204:
2198:
2195:
2192:
2186:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2169:
2166:
2162:
2156:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2139:
2136:
2129:
2125:
2122:
2120:
2117:
2115:
2112:
2110:
2107:
2105:
2102:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2090:
2087:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2075:
2073:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2060:
2057:
2055:
2052:
2050:
2047:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2027:
2025:
2022:
2020:
2017:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1990:
1984:
1978:
1972:
1966:
1960:
1959:
1957:
1954:
1946:
1940:
1935:
1929:
1923:
1917:
1912:
1906:
1905:
1903:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1893:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1866:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1837:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1825:
1822:
1814:
1812:
1805:
1801:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1784:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1777:
1773:
1772:walled garden
1767:
1765:
1761:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1714:
1712:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1697:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1654:sock puppetry
1651:
1647:
1643:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1624:
1616:
1614:
1612:
1608:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1575:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1509:WP:EVALFRINGE
1506:
1505:
1502:
1494:
1492:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1476:
1474:
1469:
1468:peer-reviewed
1461:
1459:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1437:systemic bias
1434:
1430:
1425:
1423:
1419:
1411:
1410:
1404:
1400:
1398:
1397:pseudoscience
1394:
1390:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1364:
1362:
1360:
1351:
1346:
1343:—The page on
1342:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1310:
1309:pseudoscience
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1291:
1289:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1226:
1218:
1213:
1211:
1209:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1186:
1182:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1156:
1154:
1152:
1147:
1141:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1127:
1119:
1117:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1097:
1093:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1077:
1072:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1009:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
983:
979:
978:
975:
967:
965:
963:
959:
955:
949:
945:
942:
936:
932:
924:
919:
917:
915:
911:
907:
903:
897:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
874:
864:
863:WP:FRINGE/ALT
860:
859:
856:
848:
846:
837:
833:
832:
829:
821:
816:
812:
801:
798:
794:
793:String theory
790:
789:Pseudoscience
779:
778:
777:
775:
771:
767:
766:Stanley Meyer
763:
753:
749:
748:
745:
738:Pseudoscience
737:
735:
733:
724:
722:
720:
718:
714:
709:
707:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
685:fringe theory
678:
676:
674:
670:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:Verifiability
647:
643:
638:
636:
632:
628:
623:
621:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:fringe theory
578:
573:
571:
566:
564:
559:
558:
556:
555:
539:
538:
535:
531:
526:
523:
521:
518:
517:
516:
515:
512:
508:
503:
500:
498:
495:
491:
488:
487:
486:
483:
481:
478:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:Project pages
466:
465:
464:
463:
460:
456:
451:
448:
446:
443:
441:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
428:
421:
418:
416:
413:
411:
408:
407:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
384:
381:
379:
376:
374:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
361:
356:
353:
351:
348:
346:
343:
341:
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
331:
328:
324:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
294:
289:
287:
284:
280:
277:
276:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
261:
260:
259:
256:
252:
243:
240:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
225:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
200:
197:
195:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
158:
155:
151:
146:
145:Policies list
143:
141:
138:
137:
136:
135:
132:
128:
120:
116:
113:
106:
105:
97:
93:
90:
83:
82:
70:
66:
63:
59:
58:
55:
50:
46:
42:
38:
32:
30:
25:
18:
17:
3141:
3132:
3124:
3117:
3109:
3102:
3066:Terms of Use
3051:
3002:WikiProjects
2982:
2919:Lead section
2839:Article size
2820:
2796:
2743:
2733:Enforcement
2673:
2583:
2559:Sockpuppetry
2549:Edit warring
2499:
2465:
2409:
2345:
2321:
2316:Five pillars
2314:
2257:
2246:. Retrieved
2235:
2227:
2222:
2215:
2210:
2202:
2197:
2185:
2177:
2168:
2155:
2138:
2066:WikiProjects
1945:Undue-inline
1867:
1855:WP:PROFRINGE
1843:
1836:WP:BLPFRINGE
1829:WP:FRINGEBLP
1809:
1800:Autodynamics
1775:
1768:
1755:undue weight
1750:
1746:
1736:
1705:undue weight
1698:
1668:. (See also
1638:
1631:WP:PROFRINGE
1611:undue weight
1589:cosmological
1580:
1578:
1568:
1554:
1540:and present
1530:
1477:
1465:
1450:
1429:undue weight
1426:
1417:
1415:
1409:Face on Mars
1407:
1392:
1386:
1355:
1335:
1320:Adolf Hitler
1295:
1278:silly season
1247:
1188:
1143:
1138:
1130:
1123:
1099:
1090:Main pages:
1080:
1067:
1058:
1051:
1046:
1040:
1034:
1031:
989:
950:
946:
938:
910:water memory
898:
870:
843:
836:WP:FRINGE/QS
810:
788:
759:
752:WP:FRINGE/PS
728:
721:
710:
684:
682:
666:
639:
624:
589:
588:
586:
473:WikiProjects
340:Article size
285:
114:
91:
26:
2710:Attack page
2698:Biographies
2240:Publisher.
1878:independent
1598:creationism
1565:Nostradamus
1445:synthesized
1416:Ideas that
1114:reliability
1086:Attribution
1004:third-party
962:careful use
815:Santa Claus
613:independent
445:Speedy keep
228:Discussions
3159:Categories
3014:User boxes
3009:User pages
2648:Signatures
2524:Harassment
2456:Plagiarism
2424:Notability
2248:2011-11-13
1934:Unbalanced
1690:verifiable
1569:Prophecies
1557:attributed
1548:—e.g. "An
1534:prominence
1250:verifiable
1240:WP:NFRINGE
1219:Notability
1198:dismisses
1179:See also:
1120:Quotations
1045:, and the
1042:Homeopathy
996:prominence
992:notability
929:See also:
914:homeopathy
892:, and the
525:Notability
490:User boxes
485:User pages
242:Signatures
209:User pages
154:Behavioral
37:exceptions
3021:Shortcuts
2715:Oversight
2663:Deletion
2618:Etiquette
2529:Vandalism
2519:Consensus
2395:Image use
2385:Copyright
1821:Shortcuts
1794:astrology
1790:astronomy
1786:Astrology
1743:prominent
1729:WP:ONEWAY
1605:research—
1501:Shortcuts
1393:rejection
1324:Auschwitz
1151:consensus
1024:WP:PARITY
931:WP:SOURCE
774:astrology
497:Shortcuts
480:Templates
199:Etiquette
62:WP:FRINGE
54:Shortcuts
41:consensus
3026:Subpages
2892:Contents
2861:Hatnotes
2786:Editing
2768:Blocking
2514:Civility
2489:Conduct
2444:Medicine
2335:Content
2262:journal.
2001:See also
1874:reliable
1782:Examples
1764:coatrack
1721:Shortcut
1623:Shortcut
1550:electron
1523:WP:FDESC
1516:WP:DESCF
1371:Shortcut
1292:Examples
1232:Shortcut
1225:WP:FAILN
1163:Shortcut
1016:Shortcut
982:WP:FRIND
974:Shortcut
920:Sourcing
855:Shortcut
828:Shortcut
744:Shortcut
660:needs a
502:Subpages
431:Deletion
410:contents
279:medicine
2924:Linking
2851:Be bold
2763:Banning
2205:Page 39
1886:neutral
1870:notable
1859:WP:PSCI
1792:is not
1709:notable
1650:soapbox
1561:context
1191:sources
1133:Bigfoot
941:notable
605:notable
345:Be bold
327:Editing
255:Content
69:WP:FRNG
2914:Layout
2909:Images
2013:Essays
1890:unduly
1648:nor a
1268:, as "
1171:WP:ITA
1106:verify
998:, are
956:. The
935:WP:IRS
888:, the
797:quarks
671:. See
648:, and
534:Search
420:tables
2929:Lists
2880:Style
2130:Notes
611:upon
609:based
511:Other
415:lists
396:Style
2142:See
1876:and
1751:must
1699:The
1692:and
1600:and
1418:have
1303:and
1276:and
1252:and
1183:and
1146:lead
1094:and
994:and
933:and
886:Troy
3043:(?)
3040:WMF
2974:(?)
2788:(?)
2735:(?)
2665:(?)
2491:(?)
2337:(?)
2304:(?)
1922:POV
1865:).
1747:may
1656:in
1581:not
1567:'s
1433:not
916:).
768:'s
3161::
3131::
3116::
2176:,
2163:".
1992:}}
1986:{{
1980:}}
1974:{{
1968:}}
1962:{{
1948:}}
1942:{{
1937:}}
1931:{{
1925:}}
1919:{{
1914:}}
1908:{{
1861:,
1857:,
1766:.
1711:.
1676:,
1672:,
1288:.
1116:.
1039:,
896:.
675:.
644:,
3127:G
3112:P
3055:P
2986:G
2824:G
2800:P
2747:P
2677:P
2587:G
2503:P
2413:G
2391:)
2387:(
2349:P
2292:e
2285:t
2278:v
2251:.
2150:.
1640:"
1227:.
1204:'
808:N
786:Y
576:e
569:t
562:v
121:.
47:.
31:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.