Talk:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

First use of the term
A discussion at MOS:NEO suggests that this article, created 2016, is the source for all later uses of the exact term "Sagan standard". Three sources were helpfully produced in that discussion to disprove the suggestion, and I have added two here though, apologies, not following the established citation pattern for this FAC. I hope someone can fix the style of the refs, and that editors agree it's useful to include them. The sources may not be particularly "reliable" but they support the statement that the term was in use. Any earlier examples would be great, of course. @Silverseren @RoySmith. Pam D  07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * IMO a move to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" would be much more recognizable CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and have started a move request below. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

truzzi
in the article lead, should "a year prior to Sagan" be replaced with "two years prior to Sagan"? the article body states that sagan first used the phrase in a washington post interview in 1977, and that truzzi's publication in parapsychology review appeared in 1975. the cited quoteinvestigator source reports that sagan's version was published in december, and truzzi's version in late 1975, so it looks like sagan's interview appears closer to two years after truzzi than to either one or three years after truzzi.by the way, the quoteinvestigator source mentions that truzzi's wording appeared in a letter rather than an article, which appears to be similarly asserted by this article published in philosophia. dying (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Exercerbates?
Halfway throught the second paragraph of the section titled "Analysis and criticism" appears this extraordinary sentence (italics added): "Additionally, there are concerns that, when inconsistently applied, the standard exercerbates racial and gender biases." Surely the word intended is "exacerbates" and should be corrected. 75.118.14.168 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Correction has been made. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sagan standard → Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – Many people expressed similar ideas long before Sagan and the phrase itself seems to be the most common form. For example, David Deming's paper "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?" discusses the topic at length without once calling it the "Sagan standard". Other aphorisms and adages are used directly as the title of their articles, e.g. All models are wrong, Perfect is the enemy of good and The pen is mightier than the sword and this seems to work well. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that not only should we not move an article while linked from the Main page (which is for three more days), but not even discuss a move today. Here we promise some of Wikipedia's best articles, and then the first thing a reader sees is not content but a tag. Can we perhaps postpone the discussion? - If we discuss I oppose, in favour of the short name that honors the writer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The move discussions take 7 days and so there will be no immediate effect. The discussion was started because my attention was drawn by the main page appearance.  Other editors will likewise be paying attention and so this is a good time to address this issue which has been raised repeatedly by editors above and elsewhere. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is enough connection between concept and name for a this. (Yes, it has been discussed before, and each time it's been kept as being acceptable; I have no idea why this is being relitigated when the consensus keeps being to keep the article). - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's constantly being relitigated because the term "Sagan standard" is entirely unfamiliar. I read Broca's Brain when it was first published in 1979.  Throughout the years, I've never once heard the term "Sagan standard". Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be unfamiliar to you, but looking through the sources shows the opposite. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the FAC. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: The requested-move banner was hidden for the past 7 days, so relisting for more notice (and because I don't see a consensus by weight of arguments). The article is no longer on the main page, so that opposing point no longer applies. And this is not about whether the keep the article but whether to change the title. SilverLocust 💬 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Skepticism has been notified of this discussion. SilverLocust 💬 19:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. The most recognizable way to refer to the phrase is the phrase. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. According to Ngrams, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a commonly-used phrase, while "Sagan standard" is so uncommon that it doesn't even register as an Ngram. Google Scholar shows 2050 results for "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and only 58 results for "Sagan standard" . Malerisch (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per Malerisch. I'm very familiar with the phrase but not calling it the "Sagan standard". Skimming the article's sources I see "a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan", "Sagan's dictum", "Sagan's statement", "Carl Sagan's Balance", and "Carl Sagan's aphorism", or no reference to Sagan at all. While there are a number of Google results with it, I don't see "Sagan standard" as widely or consistently enough used to have as the article title. Reywas92Talk 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:Article titles, we should try to utilize concise titles when possible. There is no reason to switch to this behemoth 51 character title. The status quo is fine. ~ HAL  333  02:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and those above. The WP:COMMONNAME of the phrase, by far, is the phrase itself. BD2412  T 17:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per OP and Malerisch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the first section's quote colored in an orange-red?
Is this supposed to indicate something in particular? I feel like most articles I've read do not generally color these types of quotes. Am I mistaken? Indochina2 (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Undefined term
This article uses the term "science communicator" multiple times, but does not define the term. It is not a part of standard written English, and thus it should be defined or described, particularly for those not "in the know" of science or American popular culture. Minturn (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What? We’ve had an article about science communication since 2007. It is very much a part of the English vernacular. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)