Jimbo writes, in regards to various speculative theories about physics:

I think this presents challenges for our NPOV policy, but not _special_ challenges. As with any controversial subject, and many uncontroversial ones, there are mainstream views, minority views, and singular views. NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! ...If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. The reason we can do all of that is that, usually, those statements are not controversial to any of the parties in the debate.

I agree fully. My experience on Usenet has shown me that crank theories arise on every science subject; the topics that get the most cranks are relativity, anti-gravity, thermodynamics and "perpetual motion" and anything related to pre-1200s archaeology. (Lots of odd theories are out there about mainstream science and/or "the establishment" somehow surpressing proof of advanced science in ancient India, ancient Egypt, etc.)

Jimbo's clarification makes sense. The only thing I would add is that we should follow the above along with the current provision that Wikipedia is not a place for one's won personal reasearch. If an idea is by only held one person (plus or minus their family members!) their views should not be in any Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, we'd have literally hundreds of pages on relativity or gravity, each idea unique, held only by an individual.

Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

For such topics it best to omit singular views. There are hundreds of people out there who believe they have "proven" that perpetual motion machines exist; each one of them has their own unique theory and mathematical model of why mainstream thermodynamics is wrong, and each would probably want their own Wikipedia article.

Unless a "crank" view starts to become accepted by some tiny percentage of mainstream science, there isn't much of a need or reason to discuss them in our articles.

However, there is a great need for a good article on this phenomenon. We desperately need an article on the scientific and psychological reasons why so many people keep working on perpetual motion machines, why they believe that you can travel faster than light in normal space (*), why they believe that fully modern humans lived 5 million years ago, etc.

Robert (RK)

(*) One very well might be able to travel faster than light, given wormholes, or the Alcubierre warp drive, etc. But none of these violate Einsteinian relativity. They are special cases that are included in relativity; they are accepted as legitimate areas of research by the mainstream scientific community. The problem with cranks is that they are ignorant of, or dismissive of, the very open-minded nature of the scientific community. (Physics is very open-minded; just consider the proliferation of well written papers in highly regarded physics journals on FTL, time travel, quantum computing, etc.) Cranks, by contrast, are characterized by conspiracism and a refusal to allow inconvenient facts to enter into their research.

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com