Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories (2nd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories
I created this page in the hopes that it would be useful as a kind of watchlist for pseudoscientific theories, and as a collection of curious crackpottery in the style of http://crank.net/. I guess I was forgetting that I was creating the page on a wiki, instead it became a magnet for the kinds of people who support these theories. They would claim that the page is inherently POV, and I'm ashamed to admit that they were probably right. The other thing they have done constantly in the two years since this page was created, is add various mainstream theories to the page, in an effort push the POV that these mainstream theories are just as legitimate as whatever minority theory they support. These efforts have been largely successful, since most Wikipedians are not prepared to argue such a subjective point on such a regular basis. I have copied the page to my user space (User:Tim Starling/List of crackpot theories) and modified it to a mainstream POV, for the benefit of Wikipedians who wish to use it for monitoring crackpots. I'm now more than happy for the main namespace copy to be deleted. Tim Starling 14:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) The article itself is fine. What the others have said: this list itself is not passing judgement on the theories listed (and "theory" needs to be taken in its scientific meaning), it only lists articles in which notable views of the theory as alternative to mainstream, speculative or disputed are discussed. That's verifiable, and not POV. Hate the editors, not the article. JRM · Talk 21:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC) Count Iblis 15:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Tim, as a matter of fact, I do think an article of this kind is a good adition to an encyclopaedia. I don't know how to vote for it yet. Abstain for now.-Poli 14:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Move to List of fringe theories or a similarly clear title. -- brian0918  &#153;  15:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It was originally at List of speculative or fringe theories. It was moved in February 2004 by Eclecticology. This was accepted by consensus. He said at the time "I can accept the change in the title from "sciences" to "theories". I pondered that possibility myself and decided that "science" in some usages was a much broader term. It was "fringe" in the old title that I found unacceptable." -- Tim Starling 16:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Alternative, speculative or disputed theories are those that don't (yet) enjoy mainstream support.  String theory would be a good example of such a theory, phrenology and astrology also, though the latter two have been falsified to the satisfaction of most observers whilst the theorists are still trying to work out how to falsify string theory. Intelligent design should be on the list because it doesn't have a scientific framework--it's an inference from ignorance.  Creationism in its "Young Earth" form is falsified and old-earthers' hypotheses tend to founder on lack of parsimony.  Not an article that is without problems, but a very good resource and shouldn't be deleted. Brian's idea of moving could be considered after this VfD, it may have some merit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, it may be a better idea to split the article up into sub-articles, or sub-headings, separating "alternative", "pseudoscientific", "disputed", and "speculative" theories. Otherwise, you're giving as much credit to astrology as you are to string theory, when the latter is an actual scientific theory. The simpler solution seems to be to go with the original intention of the author and stick to "theories" that don't have the potential to become part of mainstream science. -- brian0918  &#153;  15:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, some of these theories are fluid, and in any case there may be quite a lot of overlap. I don't have a problem treating astrology as "an actual scientific theory" because if it couldn't be formulated in a scientific manner we couldn't put it on the list.  Typically astrology is falsified by examining birth data and testing correlations between independently produced lists of character traits and astrological readings produced independently by individual astrologers from the same data.  There are interpretations of astrology which cannot be falsified in this way (for instance, astrological consultation as a kind of counselling), but those are not scientific. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Almost every scientific theory is disputed by someone. You can't list them all and still be able to make a serious claim to NPOV. Nor is it useful to mix up respectable mainstream proposals such as string theory with pseudoscience such as Time Cube, that just causes offence. The problem is, there's no NPOV way to draw a line between the two categories. It's just a troll-magnet. -- Tim Starling 16:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree that "almost every scientific theory is disputed by someone", there are good criteria for determining if a hypothesis is fringe science, is falsified, or of indeterminate status (String theory is close to being a legitimate theory, but currently lacks demonstrable predictive power) etc. If you missed out string theory then it would be POV, and we shouldn't be worried about causing offence (to whom?) Troll magnet?  That's Wikipedia. Look, are we making an encyclopedia or trying to win a popularity contest? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete there is too much crackpottery on wiki; it needs rolling back William M. Connolley 15:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * Keep, excellent piece and entirely appropriate here james gibbon  15:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Technically, every theory would fall under speculative and disputed, since if there were no question at all, it would be a law rather than a theory. While I can see the merit in an article like this (by keeping crackpottery out of the other articles), I feel that we should respect the author's wishes to delete it. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  16:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Two notes: "Scientific theory" and "theory" are two different terms, with different meanings (summarized by another user below). Also, "respecting the author's wishes" isn't really valid on Wikipedia. -- brian0918  &#153;  19:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I'm afraid that "Starblind" does not understand what the term "theory" means. A scientific theory is just as factual as a law. And whether the author likes it or not, I think this page is useful and treats of an important topic - not of what is right, but what people consider right even when it is highly delusional. Deleting this page would be blinding ourselves to the facts just as much as they are blinded to the facts. Franc28 18:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, its a fascinating list. I can see that its a dispute magnet, and would need active patrolling.  But then, so are many/most articles on religion and politics, and WP has many articles on religion and politics; dispute does not mean 'not a valid article'.  Many religion/politics articles have NPOV stickers slapped on them.  Note article has categorization problems: polywater was an academic disaster from a highly regarded and respected researcher. Time-cube by contrast is crank, in which only one person on this planet believes in. Luminiferous aether was once a respected theory ... I'd like to see a distinction between "theories that were once taken seriously by academics" and "theories that were never taken seriously" (i.e. crank topics, creationism). linas 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see the problem. Tim's original list had only crackpot theories on the list. But then someone started adding non-crackpot, highly-speculative-but-academically-acceptable theories to the list. And thus it becomes a complete mess. How about we rename the thing to the pejorative list of crackpot theories? That would clarify the issue a whole lot. linas 19:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I was all for keeping it until this batch of changes was made, and left uncontested for two weeks. The inclusion of force carrier and reincarnation was particularly inappropriate. An article becomes unmaintainable when the population of editors wanting to bias the article towards a particular minority view greatly outnumbers the number of editors willing to fight for NPOV. About the name change: don't you think that would offend the many editors who hold those beliefs? -- Tim Starling 20:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tim, what you're describing here is a good case for cleanup. We don't delete articles just because they've been edited into a non-neutral state. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I have to change my vote; I can now see that Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Protoscience an the various sub-cats, such as Category:Pseudophysics and Category:Pseudoarchaeology provide a much more complete and comprehensive view of the subject than this list does. I just wish that WP software provided a mechanism to allow watching of the addition or removal of an article from a category. (without having to watch the article itself).  linas 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Upon further review, I withdraw my vote. I see that this article looks a lot healthier then I remember it being. It looks to be a good intro to the topic of pseudoscience. linas 1 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sorry, Tim, but I will never vote to delete articles on the sole ground that they're hard to maintain, either because they run the risk of POV or because people with dubious ideas start attacking it. If anything, it's a sign that you may need to rethink the list criteria and make them even clearer, to prevent as much debate as possible. Maybe even a move. That is material for the talk page, though, not a deletion debate. Once you've done that, and there's still a lot of heat, you're down to digging the trenches and hoping the community will take care of it.
 * Delete Alternative to what? Every theory is speculative; that's why it's a theory and not a law. --Xcali 21:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm... ignorance. -- brian0918 &#153;  21:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, you bet. Suckers. --Infradig (andrew) 22:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See this person's previous user page to see who we're dealing with:
 * "I do not believe in the RST any more than I believe in Relativity, String Theory, Nuclear Theory or any other scientific theory. To me doctrinal belief in a scientific theory is as absurd as belief in a bank (whatever that means). I do however find the RST highly (almost uniquely) unusual and it has maintained my interest (though not always actively) over many years."
 * -- brian0918 &#153;  22:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is your point? I supported a fringe theory that was deleted but perversely believe this page itself should not exist. I see no contradiction. Also, please stop adding useless personal attacks to peoples comments, its against VfD policy. --Infradig (andrew) 05:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks? Saying "ignorance"? I'm ignorant of things too. We all are.... especially YOU! :)  -- brian0918  &#153;  18:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-confessed crackpot-stuff is by definition not-encyclopedic and just draw flies to the ointment. Equally, per comments above: every theory has its disputations and thus every single one of them would need to be collected here. The scientific, the sociological, the economicsical (esp. these ones!), the political ad nauseam. Congrats to the author for deciding to VfD it. -Splash 23:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep These theories exist, and some of them exist famously. I consider this to be an excellent compilation of contemporary and traditional non-mainstream thought. Supporting these ideas does not follow from listing them. I have always felt that the best way to out a kook was to expose his ideas. Denni &#9775; 00:12, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. If the title was more to the point it wouldn't be such a problem. I don't think "draws flies" is a great reason to delete something (might as well delete a lot of other topics if that is it). If it was renamed so that it was clear that this is a list of things which are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community as legitimate, I think it'd be a lot easier to deflect people. IN ANY EVENT, I don't think it is has drawn more POV pushers than most controversial articles do. --Fastfission 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and NPOV as needed. Interesting list. --cesarb 02:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep excellent well summarised list. JamesBurns 03:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - IMHO the only reasons to delete soenmthing like this would be if it were proved to be seriously POV, was being used as a cruft-generator, or if it was irrevocably edit-warred. As a list it is surely admirable. --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. I would suggest that point 5: Adhered to by a limited group be dropped as a criteria for incusion in the list. This is too vague and will lead to disputes. Only crackpot theories should be iuncluded. To decide whether or not you are dealing with a crackpot theory is simple. just check out peer reviewed scientific journals (with the exception of the Journal of Creation Science, of course).
 * Keep. When I saw it going by on Recent Changes I fully expected it to be deletable junk; but it's not:  it's an excellent list, NPOV, and a fascinating read.  Title is fine with me. Antandrus  (talk)  16:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't usually participate in VfD debates, but since Tim mentioned my comments when this list received its present title, I felt that I should. Thanks for mentioning it, and I still agree with what I said then.  The consensus at the time was with the intent of finding a term with a broad acceptibility.  It had to satisfy the scepticism of mainstream science without descending into the pejorative.  It also had to make a home for a wide range of subjects with varying degrees of acceptability, and recognize the fact that the adversaries for any two given subject will vary.  If this list is to be abandoned then we will need a better compromise that does all this and more. Eclecticology June 28, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is actually useful to me and I would hate to lose it.  It is bound to be somewhat POV, given the nature of disputed theories, but it retains its broad interest.  It may benefit from a narrower mission, however.  Perhaps separating the theory groups would lower the level of wingnuttery.S.N. Hillbrand 30 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)
 * Delete - the range is too huge, criteria too broad, and the scope for abuse too big (on either side of the issues) to be useful. What would be useful is an article on how to evaluate the merit of theories.  Pseudoscience is blatantly POV.  --Leifern June 30, 2005 23:20 (UTC)
 * Note: Leifern is claiming that the term "pseudoscience" is inherently POV, not that the article is POV. See the article's talk page. While I agree with him, Wikipedia is no place for original research. -- brian0918 &#153;  30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)


 * keep. This is very useful as a place to catalog disputed theories. Even if not presented as fact, such theories need to be presented as ideas for the encyclopedia to be complete.  The name is as un-POV as it can get, and although the potential for abuse is high the alternative (of trying to ignore such theories) sweeps a body of human knowledge -- the study of alternative theories in their own right -- under the rug.


 * keep but revise. This is a useful list.  Part of the trouble is that this has come to include all kinds of things.  For example, luminiferous aether and the steady state theories were widely accepted for quite some time, but now are discredited.  Others are new and under active consideration (such as string theory) or are subject to ongoing debate (such as creationism).  Perhaps a notation such as:
 * * Luminiferous aether (discredited) ...
 * could be used. Other designations could include
 * "disputed" (for previously accepted theories that are now "on the ropes"),
 * "alternative" (for newer theories that may be accepted in the future),
 * "fringe" (for theories with staying power that have only a limited following), and
 * "unaccepted" (for theories like creationism that have a popular following but are not accepted by the scientific community. Hopefully this will give that entry some needed NPOV.)
 * ["Crackpot" should never be used: Not only is it an insult, but if something is really crackpot (in that it lacks a following) it should not even appear in Wikipedia.]
 * Do realize that in times past, both relativity and continental drift would have been included here. --EMS | Talk 1 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)


 * Keep. If a better title and criteria can be developed then move. This is a good and useful article. -Willmcw July 1, 2005 21:02 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no solid criteria as to what qualifies as "alternative, speculative and disputed theories". Virtually everything has been disputed at some time or another. I fail to see why creationism is included when it is disputed by evolutionists, yet evolution is not included when it is disputed by creationists. (I'm an evolutionist, by the way). Dsh34 2 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
 * That is just the name of the article. How about you try reading the article. -- brian0918  &#153;  3 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a shame the alternative theory folks are so determined to prove their idea is right that they risk losing a resource that may actually increase their following (and perhaps attract someone who may eventually prove their ideas correct to the larger scientific community), as well as widens the viewpoint of researchers who don't necessarily believe them, possibly leading to advances on other fronts.  This is a great resource for rainy day reading, as well as sparking interest in other areas, such as the history category of Wikipedia.  Hopefully, the announcement that there has been trouble will assist with keeping an eye on this page, although I'd suggest mentioning these problems to the larger Wikipedia community, for further help regarding this situation.  As far as the "theory acceptance is always changing" argument, we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is always changing as well, and as such, should continue to reflect those changes as they are made.  The important part is the theory's status at the present time.-- Scott_R 13:53, Jul 3, 2005 (EST)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.