Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)/Archive 3

Merge proposals
Since it seems like discussion is picking up again I moved my earlier proposal into WP space and merged the talk pages. The archives are linked above now, and I split the shortcuts, WP:SCI links to Notability (scientific contributions) and WP:SCIENCE links to Notability (science). Both WT:SCI and WT:SCIENCE link here. I haven't checked WP:FRINGE yet. ~ trialsanderrors 09:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A consensus seems to be emerging on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories that the Fringe theory proposed guideline should cover more than just science articles &mdash; history, pop-culture conspiracy theories and so forth. Based on this consensus, I would advise merging WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE into WP:FRINGE.  Anville 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE don't just cover fringe theories but also possible mainstream theories that haven't received enough attention from the community. (An analogue would be an experimental composer vs. an unsuccessful pop songwriter, both lack the recognition but the thrust of what they attempt to do is very different.) Since the proposals are diverting in scope and they're all getting pretty long anyway I'd say we scrap the merge proposal. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was bold and merged WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE since they seemed disjoint and complementary enough. --ScienceApologist 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotation
The Jimbo quotation adorning the lead of WP:SCI is not actually a quotation from Jimbo, but rather a paraphrase. Anville 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was copied and pasted from WP:NPOV. Looks like it's been changed there, so I took it out. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about including the actual quote from Jimbo, from his post from September 2003 on the mailing list? --Iantresman 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a proposed guideline, so for now it can be edited (and reverted) by everybody. ~ trialsanderrors 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Post merger
I think there are a couple of conflicting arguements in the two proposals, but merging might be a good starting point to cut the propossal down to size and avoid TLDR syndrome. First point: The sections on "items", "hypotheses" and "theories" all seem to cover the same ground and can be merged. There's a bit of a conflict between the more inclusive "items" list and the more exclusive "theories" list. I don't have strong preferences on how inclusive or exclusive the proposal should be, but I care strongly about making the criteria tangible, so that "meets" or "fails" verdicts can be reached by established research protocols. I don't think items list is anywhere near that yet. ~ trialsanderrors 01:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points
I propose that the following points be removed from the items section:
 * 2. "It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator." Other points would already cover this. For example, if indeed part of the scientific community accepts this explanation, then it would be included in a number of peer reviewed journals. TSO1D 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. "It is advocated by at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field." I don't believe that the view of one person is sufficient to warrant inclusion. Again the appearance of the theory in peer reviewed journals or its being supported or examined by major institutions would be more important. Besides, how would one establish who is prominent enough? TSO1D 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the theories section I believe that the point: "The creators have received a major scientific award, such as the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, for it. "Best paper" or "best conference presentation award" are rarely ever considered major." should be removed. If a theory is of a high enough caliber to receive such a prize, then it surely must have already been discussed in important peer reviewed journals. I cannot see how a single article could pass this criteria without also satisfying others. TSO1D 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the two sets still need to be merged, but I am only proposing this so that we can narrow the list of criteria to be included in the final guideline. TSO1D 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with both. The only yardstick for prominence we have right now is notability, and even if the proftest is more restrictive than other bio guidelines, it gives rise to a halo effect: the barest of theories espoused by a barely notable scientist would hva e to be included. ~ trialsanderrors 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible merger of criteria
In general, an item in the field of science is probably sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:


 * 1) There is a non-trivial mention of the item in general or specialized textbooks.
 * 2) It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded.
 * 3) It is or was supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
 * 4) It has been previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
 * 5) It is or was advocated by prominent persons, or by notable individuals in the political or religious spheres, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
 * 6) It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
 * 7) It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
 * 8) It is or was notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
 * 9) It has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants from the same field.

This is a merger of different sets of criteria in the proposal that I think covers most topics and isn't too broad. I combined elements from the "items" and "theories" list and reworded some of the points. I preserved some entirely or just in part and merged with others, but some points I removed entirely as I considered them to be redundant or too broad. I like the hypothesis section, however I don't believe that the full text of that section is necessary. The notability of hypotheses could be judged using the aforementioned criteria, whereas the explanations on POV and Undue Weight are already part of other established policies that apply to all articles on Wikipedia. TSO1D 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think keeping the text of the hypotheses section is important because it summarizes ideas from a disparate set of policies, guidelines, and precedents in a very succinct way. In editting science pages, I have seen the "its only a hypothesis" excuse used to justify the inclusion of material that is technically not encyclopedic. --ScienceApologist 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, wouldn't other parts of this guideline already fulfill that role? I mean, such an argument could easily be countered by explaining that it doesn't fulfill the criteria set out in the main points of the policy. Again, I believe the section is well-written and relevant, but in my view it doesn't offer a fast tool with which to assess other articles. And I don't believe that the section is that concise, by Wikipedia standards. Perhaps it could at least be summarized to a paragraph. TSO1D 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between hypothesis and theory is hard to define, and right now it seems that there is a gaping hole in the criteria. In other words, the criteria that I would consider necessary for any kind of theory or hypothesis now only explicitly apply to "theories". Thus, all of the work being done to refine what counts as notable can be ignored just by claiming "it's just a hypothesis." I am going to be bold in a moment. Sdedeo (tips) 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with how the merger was done and will revert in a second. In particular (ignoring a possible discussion about the "inclusionist" or "exclusionist" bent of some of the criteria), the current set of criteria suffers from a lack of tangible markers. "by a significant part of the general population", "strong criticism", "previously thought of as correct or plausible" means absolutely nothing. We might as well reduce the whole guideline to "there's been some debate about this" if we can't make the individual criteria more tangible. ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK instead of reverting I'm posting a side-by-side comparison below. ~ trialsanderrors 22:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

expansions
I have made some expansions and clarifications to the notability criteria. I don't believe I've changed anything, but I have made explicit what I believe was implicit about the nature of peer review and citations. Sdedeo (tips) 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Peer reviewed journals in the strict sense are not the primary publication medium in many fields of technology, nor are all claimed peer-reviewed journals actually reviewed by experts in any meaningful sense. This is just a suggestion to keep options flexible. User:DGG 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In academic fields they are -- but "technology" as in directly applied to money making maybe not. Can you fill us in? Sdedeo (tips) 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Test case
Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another test case of interest for people working on the proposal is Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden, which focuses on notability criteria for scientists working on fringe theories. Sdedeo (tips) 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do also add test cases to Notability (science)/Test cases. ~ trialsanderrors 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Relax and allow brief mention of non-conventional theories
In the 7 point Criteria list, I changed the "is" to "is or was" or to "was" to include historical scientific material.

I think there needs to be a distinction between the criteria for "Sources" and for other items of relevance, which might receive a link and/or a brief mention in the body of the article, in a special section of the article and/or in the footnotes.

Stricter criteria should be applied to items which are cited as "scientific sources" than to items which are cultural references or critiques which are regarded as "unscientific". For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29 has extensive sections on the Aurora in folklore and popular culture. There are also "uncategorized" and "commercial" sub-sections in the Links section.

If it is OK to link to a tourist village http://www.porjus.eu then why should it be a problem to link to one or more critiques of the mainstream theory, with an explicit note (or within a heading, which indicates) that WP is not presenting them as "scientific"?

If a topic is currently covered by an acceptable "scientific" article then I understand it is unacceptable to create a new article on the same subject, with conflicting or repetitious material, unless it is acceptable under the "Criticism of ..." guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POVFORK. Since ScienceApologist rejects this approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Redshift#List_or_separate_article_for_unconventional_theories)

I think these proposed guidelines need to provide explicit guidance on use of "Criticism of ..." articles where the article being criticised is regarded as being about a "scientific" subject. I think that the focus of some folks on having no mention of or links from a scientific article to non-mainstream perspectives is overdone and censorious.

I know the Wikipedia started with the idea of being just like prior encyclopedias in some ways, but the current situation is far different from that faced by people who were about to commit to print runs of huge books which were to be sold for the next two or so years. WP is a website with hyperlinks and search engine access. There is no financial cost, and little other cost, in adding a heading to say that certain links or discussions regarding a scientific subject do not meet WP's criteria of scientific notability.

I am not saying that a large amount of page space needs to be devoted to non-conventional theories, just that the main article indicates that such things exist and points interested readers in one or more directions if that is what they want to pursue. This seems like a small price to pay for helping people gain a broader perspective, and in many cases come to recognise how loony a lot of the non-mainstream theories are.

Maybe we expect an old print Britannica to not even mention UFOs, but this is 2007, this is the Wikipedia, running entirely on recycled electrons and people's precious attention and efforts. I think it is stifling to insist that every article, including those with excellent scientific content, not have even a mention of alternative perspectives. I am not suggesting that these alternatives be given equal prominence - just that they be mentioned, or that there be a pointer to another article or site where they are mentioned.

I wrote some more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_universe_%28concept%29 about the value of keeping articles on non-mainstream theories, but labelling them as such and enabling the proponents to have a brief summary and a link to their site. Robin Whittle 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if Wikipedia is too tight-assed about enabling readers to reach non-conventional perspectives then a lot of energy will flow to wikinfo.org .Robin Whittle 04:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Robin -- can you be explicit about what you would like to change in the criteria right now? There is absolutely nothing in them that excludes "alternative perspectives" -- as long as they have some respectable representation within the scientific community (on the one hand) or in the political/cultural/media community at large (on the other.) Can you give some examples? Sdedeo (tips) 04:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect a hidden agenda here. Electric universe is very non-notable, but the creators of that article have managed in the past to create an illusion on notability.  That illusion has been shattered, and that article is finally on its way to deletion.  I do agree that we should not remove content because it is not scientifically accepted, but in general such material fails the tests of WP:V, WP:NOR, and often also WP:NPOV.  I for one think that this proposal is now doing a good job of identifying the characteristics that make a theory or viewpoint acceptable in this venue. For those articles that cannot meet these requirement, my advice is to remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. EMS | Talk 05:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

EMS, be careful to WP:AGF. Sdedeo (tips) 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sdedeo - ScienceApologist seems to object to using the "Criticism of ..." 2nd article guideline in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POVFORK - presumably for any "science" article. This 2nd article guideline could satisfy some folks such as me and frustrate ScienceApologist, who indicated in Redshift talk that he would object to (and I guess try to have deleted) any such second article - "I would still object on the grounds I outlined above." So I suggest the draft guidelines we are trying to develop specifically address the use of the "Criticism of ..." second article guideline to clarify whether it is allowable with any or all science articles, any conditions which might apply to its applicability (I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be used for any science article) and to give some guidance on how stringently the new proposed guidelines would apply to that second article. For instance if the "Criticism of" 2nd article involves exactly the same restrictions as for the main article, then this would prevent WP from discussing or linking to some genuine, constructive, critical perspectives - such as those which involve material outside the peer-review system.

I think that making WP so hidebound, on the Internet in 2007 and beyond, will frustrate a significant number of editors and readers, leading them to direct their energy to a system such as wikinfo.org which is devoted to supporting a plurality of perspectives. Wikinfo.org doesn't seem to support math expressions well at present, and I fear that ScienceApologist and his colleagues would object to any link from the WP science article to a non-peer reviewed article, such as one of the same or similar name, at wikinfo.org. So I am concerned about the science content of WP being constrained into a conventionally reliable, but rather uptight, island - in a Web which thrives on links to alternative and related perspectives.

EMS - there's no hidden agenda. I have written more than enough on the talk pages of Redshift, Photon and Tired_light, here and at WP:SCI-talk. I think the emr is not quantized and that the photon paradigm has blinded almost everyone to interactions with sparse plasmas where the particle spacing exceeds the coherence length. I believe such mechanisms will explain the heating of the solar corona and the acceleration of the wind - and probably the cosmological redshift. I don't expect a link to my own partly developed theory, but I think it is a shambles that WP, as currently edited, doesn't mention Ari Brynjolfsson's substantial theory. All that is needed is two or three lines - but some folk really object to such a small addition. I understand the concerns about this expanding into a long list of non-notable theories, which is why I suggested a single link to a "Criticism of" article which is not subject to such restrictions.

I don't use a pseudonym. I think "Electric Universe" is laughable - and have explained why I think it is better to have a brief article which states why mainstream scientists think dimly of it and why it doesn't meet WP's scientific notability standards.Robin Whittle 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, I would say that "criticism of..." articles are rather problematic because they can lead to undue weight within the encyclopedia. Can you come up with a criterion for the creation of such an article? Sdedeo (tips) 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My response is in a new section below: Criteria for "Criticism of ..." POV Fork Robin Whittle 07:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the criteria
I made a few edits to the criteria. For one, I removed the line:
 * It is or was notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community or skeptics.

Any crackpot theory that gets put forward in a public venue will automatically get said "strong criticism". The creator of the now deleted sorce theory article considered the USENET postings that he had garnered said evidence (See Articles for deletion/Sorce theory). IMO, to qualify the criticism should be in the context of or in response to one the other criteria. (An example is criticism in peer-reviewed journal articles, in which case the peer-review requirement is met.)

I also contracted the history requirment to "It is otherwise of historical interest". The deleted text
 * previously thought of as correct

is highly ambiguous. Once again, the author of the sorce theory article thought that his own opinion on the article was sufficient to qualify it under this criteria. As the other standards include "is or was", it seems to me that the historical side is mostly covered already.

Also, I think that note needs to be attached to item 7 making it clear that the "same field" is one which includes the topic in question as a subset. The theory in question cannot qualify as being its own field.

I can understand that people do not want the bar to be set too high here, but if we get too inclusive there is a lot of pure and useless speculation that will end up in Wikipedia. The "No original research" policy was established to keep such things out of Wikipedia, and our criteria ought to respect that. I don't mind Wikipedia erring on the side of inclusion when there is doubt that a topic is really non-notable. However, in most cases there is no cause for such doubts. --EMS | Talk 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

fellow-traveller citations
I removed this. I understand the concern -- sort of -- but I think this is pushing it too far. How does one recognize "fellow travellers", let alone define them? I think we should be careful not to become too exclusive here. To me, a subject that:


 * 1) Get into peer reviewed journals multiple times.
 * 2) Is studied by two groups of people.
 * 3) ...who reference each other.

Seems OK to me. It would be hard for them to break what I think should be a rough cutoff (say, 40 citations or so) simply by citing each other back and forth.

Speaking of that number, does anybody want to start pinning down that number? As a physicist, I know how citations work and feel qualified to talk about them, but not in biology, etc. Sdedeo (tips) 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fellow travellers would be when you have two groups that exclusively publish about one topic and never about anything else, citing each other along the way. --ScienceApologist 18:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think FTs would be prolific enough to generate enough citations to each other to push them over the limit? I've never seen this phenomenon before. Sdedeo (tips) 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about the peer-reviewed conversations Halton Arp has with William Tifft and I do think, yes, there may be an issue. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done some more twaeking of this criteria. It seems me that it is OK if the topic is the work of a single individual.  What is not OK if for that individual to be the only person even so much as commenting on it.  For example, special relativity is the work on one individual (Einstein), but after a few years the number of people working with that theory and/or commenting on it was substantial.  Realize that what we are driving at in this criteria are the identification of works that are having an impact within the scientific community.


 * BTW - I think that the "fellow traveller" business really refers to cross-citations within a limited group a researchers. IMO, the peer-review should handle some of this business, but we can call for citations within a limited group to be excluded.  Even so, we should also include language to the effect that the burden of proof in using such a clause lies with the person invoking it. --EMS | Talk 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the real issue here is something more than peer review which is "critical review". When you look at notable scientific ideas, they are subject not only to considerable citations, but they are subject to critical review. What makes a topic in science notable is, in a sense, the fact that people feel the need to deal with it when they are writing about their own original ideas. Criticism is an important part of the development of truly notable ideas that many of the non-notable ideas lack. For example, MOND may be said to be notable because there are a number of cited, peer-review critiques of it, which separates it from other more obscure (and less notable) ideas. --ScienceApologist 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure we want to get rid of Arp/Tifft debates (is that what you are saying?) Quantized redshift does seem to be worth an article? I think personally I would feel more comfortable making the "fellow traveller" rule something to consider, but not a required check -- would make me more comfortable because otherwise you'll have people saying WMAP and Planck Surveyor are FTs! Of course they are not -- but it is getting trickier to make the criteria now and I am worried there will be a lot more resistance. Leaving assesments of FT status up to the discretion of the people discussing the AfD at the time. I am personally much more interested in getting out simple, easily understood criteria that are sufficiently stringent -- and leaving more subtle marginal (?) cases to discretion and later refinement. Sdedeo (tips) 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. It's not so much "fellow travellers" that's the problem but rather the lack of critical review by other groups, I think. --ScienceApologist 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you are saying, and I think it's an important point. My feeling however is that we should keep in mind that we will have to build consensus on this with a wide range of WP users, and so we should really focus on some sort of "bare minimum" absolute criteria, with a lot of further information to aid people's judgment (and not force their hands.) The WP culture is very "open", and a lot of reasonable people I think will blanch if the WP:SCI page appears too stringent. The criteria have been far too loose so far, of course! Sdedeo (tips) 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that some care should be given to creating these criteria. (In fact I was reworking item 2 because I found it too restrictive.)  However, the loudest screams of "suppression" come from those who want to put their own OR up.  It should not be difficult for an item that is at all notable to pass at least one of these tests, but it should not be easy for items that have failed to be of any popular or scientific impact to get in.  Keep in mind that I have my own ideas on how to change GR, and one thing that I keep asking myself is what bar I want to see set for something like that.  I know that in its current unpublished state my theory does not belong here.  I also know that even its initial peer-review publication will not entitle my theory to an article here.  Yet I also know that if my theory begins to gain traction that it does become proper if not mandatory that an article on it appear.  So IMO this is about setting that standards for determining that an theory has "gained traction" or otherwise become notable. --EMS | Talk 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally and completely. I'm just concerned as to what happens when the debate moves from experts-vs.-cranks out to the wider wikipedia community. I agree with what you are saying though -- just bringing up something to keep in mind that we should make criteria simple, solid and easy to understand, while leaving the rest up to the informed discretion of the wider community (which works surprisingly well once the cranks are diluted down.) Sdedeo (tips) 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think its beginning to look as if theres an attempt by such editors to use their own knowledge to verify the theory or not based on their own specific biases. WP is not for the determination of weither or not its a valid scientific theory. The most difficult issue with such determinations of notability is that notability and Original Research are almost the same thing since the amount of publication/research in this field and its critical analysis(original research) is used as a determination of its notability. I have a feeling this is what is happening with such articles. The mere presence of a good volume of independent publication is enough and any critical professional analysis should not be included no matter what such editors feel (NPA). I'll reference the notes and exclusion sections of NOR

Frankly it shouldn't matter if such "crackpot ideas" are present here and break out into the open, its not up to the academics who edit such things to determine what goes into the debate of the general population. Use of such items screams of (NPA) violations and severe bias. As long as NPOV, V(as defined above in reguards to publication as above or other standards), and the author claims such an idea is a contentious and fringe theory (with or without a category) it is fine

And oh yes I believe "crackpot" is a violation of NPA as well if such people would stop using it 216.8.135.211 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you've been editting Wikipedia under another IP address or username, I don't think you have enough experience to comment on these points. --ScienceApologist 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been around a little while and editing under a username, and I think the question raised is relevant. On the one hand, it is useful that these debates should be conducted by people who know something about the science. However, this is not the place to settle the scholarly issue, just to determine if the matter at hand has some pretensions to science. There have been discussions, such as on the various thermodynamics pages, where the dispute has been about which of two scientifically supported views was correct. This is a trap, and I think we need language saying so. DGG 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria: Side-by-side comparison
It took some juggling, so I hope I got this right. ~ trialsanderrors 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Textbook science"
 * Items list: It is part of the corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge.
 * Theories list: It has been included in general or specialized textbooks.
 * Current: There is a non-trivial mention of the item in general or specialized textbooks.
 * 1) "Possible explanation"
 * Items list: It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator.
 * 1) "Prominent advocates"
 * Items list: It is advocated by at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field.
 * 1) "Peer review"
 * Items list: It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher
 * Theories list: It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded. Inclusion in a peer-reviewed publication, especially in a respected journal with a reputation for rigorous inclusion standards and high impact, is an additional factor to be considered but not by itself a necessary or sufficient criterion.
 * Current: It is represented by a number of well-cited peer-reviewed papers, and is discussed by several researchers or groups of researchers. Self-citations, and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded.
 * 1) "Funding, seminars, awards"
 * Items list: It is supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
 * Theories list: The creators have received a major scientific award, such as the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, for it. "Best paper" or "best conference presentation award" are rarely ever considered major.
 * Theories list: The theory has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants.
 * Current: It is or was supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
 * Current: It has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants from the same field.
 * 1) "Historical interest"
 * Items list: It is previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
 * Theories list: The theory or model historically met any of the above criteria but has since been superseded by an alternative theory, or it has been used as an example in a notable account on the history of science. In this case the article should make note of this status.
 * Current: It is otherwise of historical interest.
 * 1) "Non-scientific advocacy"
 * Items list: It is advocated by a prominent persons or for political or religious reasons, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
 * Current: It is or was advocated by prominent persons, or by notable individuals in the political or religious spheres, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
 * 1) "Fiction"
 * Items list: It is well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
 * Current: It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction. In this case the article should make note of this status. A single article on the theory, even if from a respected media source such as New Scientist or Scientific American, is not a sufficient criterion.
 * 1) "Popular interest"
 * Items list: It is believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
 * Current: It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
 * 1) "Outsider theories"
 * Items list: It is notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
 * Theories list: The scientific merit of the theory is disputed in, or rejected by, the scientific community, but it has received significant attention in political circles and ongoing coverage in the popular media. In this case the article should make note of this status.


 * I want to point out though, that some of these elements had already been removed by the time I tried to merge the two sets. For example, the Nobel one was removed after some discussion. Also, could you please indicate what specifically you disagree with. Do you think that the entire merger was flawed or that only some elements were done badly? TSO1D 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly they have been in flux, I just went back a couple of days and pulled them out. My problem is mostly with the non-transparent way this was done, so I think a side-by-side comparison and a discussion of the itemized list will be beneficial. ~ trialsanderrors 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
My opinions:
 * 1) I take this is the catch-all for everything that is "generally accepted", so Nobel Prize might go here.
 * Didn't you say that you agreed to the removal of the Nobel point. I mean, it just seems that if a theory is worthy of a Nobel Prize, then it would have been discussed in peer reviewed journals already. TSO1D 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except it is easier to end a discussion by pointing out that a contribution got a Nobel Prize than by saying it was cited 87 times over five years. Anybody can search the Nobel website. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have nothing against that. TSO1D 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the award criterion back in, partly to fend off "best conference award" claims from autobiographers. ~ trialsanderrors 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) and
 * 2) seem to have been stricken. OK with me.
 * What does and mean? TSO1D 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "2 and 3 seem to have been stricken" ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "relative to other publications in the same area" was a consensus finding after a lengthy discussion on whether an absoulte number is appropriate and should go back in.
 * Ok, that makes sense, I changed it. TSO1D 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Two current ones can be merged.
 * They could be merged, but in my view that would be a bit too lengthy. But I guess something like this might work: "It is or was supported or examined by major scientific institutions, or has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants from the same field." TSO1D 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Theories version is more explanatory
 * I agree. TSO1D 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Any examples for this that don't meet #9?
 * I don't think I can give a concrete example, but I see as fundamentally a difference of leaders vs. masses. So I guess it is possible for an individual who is otherwise influential to make an assertion that very few accept. For instance, when Hawking stated that mankind will die out unless we colonize space, not many went along with that. TSO1D 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) and
 * 2) can be merged.
 * How about: "It is believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, received extensive press coverage, or or is found within a notable work of fiction"? TSO1D 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm expecting this to take up most of the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how that got deleted, but I don't think I was the one who took it out. However, I don't know if this is really necessary. I mean what examples could there be that are satisfied only by this point? TSO1D 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is the Intelligent design criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's the first thing I though of as well. However, in that case, the theory would have passed because it had the support of many notable personalities as well as a significant part of the general population. I just don't see a case where there would be a strong response from the scientific community without either of those two points also being satisfied. TSO1D 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see this as an open door to trivial and non-notable theories. IMO any item which meets this criteria and merits inclusion in Wikipedia will also meet another of the criteria.  For example:
 * Intelligent design is adequately covered under crteria 7 and 9.
 * An item that is exstensively refuted in the peer review literature qualifies undet criteria 4.
 * An item that is refuted becuase it has a prominent advocate qualifies under criteria 7, etc.
 * OTOH, I can see cases where we would not want to admit items that only meet this criteria. "Sorce theory" (whose article was recently deleted via AfD) immediately comes to mind:  It is not well known, but has been around long enough to have gained quite a bit of criticism, but with almost all of it being in venues like USENET. --EMS | Talk 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about item 10. We need some kind of explicit criterion for what counts as "criticism" (USENET doesn't do it for me) and I think that should be peer-reviewed papers. Thus it seems that 10 would basically reduce to the citation criterion. Sdedeo (tips) 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. TSO1D 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

hey folks
I have no idea what is going on in the discussion in the section above. Could someone enlighten me? Actually, the big problem is that it is too huge -- perhaps we could take one thing at a time? Sdedeo (tips) 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC) OK, I think I figured out what is going on now! Sdedeo (tips) 03:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can start subdiscussions. This got a bit out of hand. ~ trialsanderrors 08:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for "Criticism of ..." POV Fork
This continues from the "Relax and allow brief mention of non-conventional theories" section above. Sorry this is long - I am trying to be helpful.

Sdedeo wrote:
 * In general, I would say that "criticism of..." articles are rather problematic because they can lead to undue weight within the encyclopedia. Can you come up with a criterion for the creation of such an article?

WP:POVFORK includes:
 * In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

Edit wars plague some articles when two or more editors have such divergent views on the subject matter, or on WP rules and guidelines, that they are unable to create a single article which they all agree is satisfactory, or even tolerable. This is especially the case if one or more editors is able to repeatedly delete the contribution of others - which must mean their deletions are sufficiently within WP rules and guidelines to survive arbitration.

Outside encyclopedias and the like, the usual approach to coping with divergent and incompatible viewpoints is to let everyone create their own books, websites etc. This works fine.

A primary aim of WP is to concentrate material relevant to a topic onto one page, with multiple viewpoints presented in ways which are not prejudicial to each other, with reasonable balance (and here it get complicated . . .) in terms of space and the tone of writing etc.

WP aims to present currently accepted scientific theories and notable alternatives. One source of trouble is that a topic might be of interest and genuine value in society in contexts other than "scientific" as defined by WP. That can be handled, such as with Rainbow, by having the start and most of the rest of the article "scientific" and then having separate cultural sections where questions of scientific notability are not important.

Here is a scenario, which I think exists at present. One or more keen editors (and presumably a larger number of readers) are of the view that some significant contributions to scientific debate are occurring beyond the bounds of WP's current "scientific notability" criteria. (Or at least readers want to find an article about something they know, or later decide, is scientifically invalid, despite its pretence to be valid.)

Prevailing editors (that is those whose edits tend to persist, due to their hard work and the fact that their actions are allowed by arbitration) do not allow discussion of, mention of or links to anything concerned with theories and research on "scientific" matters which does not meet WP's notability criteria. Furthermore, these same, or similarly minded, editors prevent or frustrate the creation of articles which attempt to cover the same topic from a different perspective, including with reference to material outside WP's scientific notability criteria.

The result is that some editors feel that WP is too restrictive, and so may be tempted devote their energies in other ways, such as wikinfo.org, which specifically encourages the parallel creation of articles on the same topic with different points of view.

I am interested in WP being as flexible as possible to accommodate such non-conventional material, whilst at the same time not compromising WP's ability to centralise all mainstream interpretations of scientific material in their own, uncluttered, articles. However I am frustrated by the view of some prevailing editors that such articles should not contain a section at the end, before the references and footnotes, pointing to articles or external material which has critical perspectives on this topic, or on the way the article portrays a topic.

My understanding of the "Criticism of ..." 2nd article idea is that it is contemplated by the POV Fork guidelines and that it is regarded as potentially not being a case of the (discouraged or banned) Point of View Fork guideline. I understand that the requirements that the main and 2nd article link to each other with basic summaries of each other is intended to ensure readers know about and can easily read both articles.

I think this approach could enable WP to satisfy more editors and readers than with the current arrangement, where some editors feel that significant aspects of scientific work are completely excluded from WP.

If I thought the peer-review system was perfect and that every single person with anything potentially worthwhile to contribute to science would have no trouble using it, then I wouldn't be so troubled by the current exclusionary arrangements.

The WWW makes it increasingly easy for everyone to communicate directly, via email and especially via their own websites - including qualified scientists and those who do have some contribution to make, but who have no formal qualifications. In the past, peer reviewed journals were the only timely way of making a lasting, easily accessed, contribution to science. Now, they are neither the easiest, or the fastest - and some journals charge page fees. They are also subject to length restrictions, (typically) lack of colour printing, and probably difficulties with handling work which challenges current paradigms. It is also my guess that it would be much harder to get a paper accepted if the author lacks academic qualifications and has no institutional attachment.

Now consider one or more editors who believe strongly that the peer-review etc. notability criteria do not exclude anything of scientific value - or at least that WP should never mention or link to any material which does not meet these criteria. If these editors have no misgivings about the current paradigms of science and are very concerned about the way pseudo-science, extremely loose "New Age" and "post-modernist" (it defies its own identification) thinking and faith-driven religious ideas are being blurred with genuine science in the minds of non-scientists, then they are going to be highly motivated to keep out all discussion or links to a bunch of stuff, some of which a person like me thinks is of actual scientific value.

I think it is better for WP to allow the creation and inter-linkage of two (perhaps more, but hopefully not) articles - the one main article where the current, conventionally accepted, conventionally notable material is presented, and a "Criticism of conventional theories of . . . " article where editors with other perspectives can hopefully get along well enough to create an article which helps readers understand the alternative perspectives.

Many readers will want to read a WP article on a topic, or a theory, which is non-conventional and concerns scientific questions - whether or not they think the topic or theory is scientifically valid. As long as the article links to the mainstream articles of the topics it discusses, and as long as the article references external material whilst providing a summary of it, rather than a complete copy, or the only publicly available copy, then I can't see any problem. (This is an attempt to avoid WP articles puffing up the importance of an obscure thing.)

I don't think it is disastrous if a million articles are created about a million things which do have a genuine existence outside WP, even if they are relatively obscure - provided each such article links to conventional articles about the relevant topics and provided the WP article doesn't give the impression that the topic is any more notable or widely accepted than it really is.

In the past, every word and every article in a paper encyclopedia cost a lot. Now the cost is extremely small - but there are potential problems with clutter of the WP namespace and searches leading to low-key articles when most people want the mainstream article. I know there are problems with excessive articles like this, but I think it must be happening already outside the topics which might be regarded as "scientific". I agree there needs to be constraints and pressure to keep articles and their names well organised, not excessively long etc. But I do not support those who insist that WP allow only one article concerning a particular topic. That can lead to excessive disputes and to the exclusion of potentially valuable material - with the temptation of editors and readers to go to a wiki system which is more supportive of diversity.

If something is conventionally regarded as pseudo-science, then the WP article about it should say so, probably at the start.

The trouble is that to people who have no doubts about the current paradigms, theories which really challenge the prevailing paradigms may be pretty much indistinguishable from seriously misguided science or pseudo-science. I believe the photon and Big Bang paradigms are wrong, and I think some important challenges to these paradigms come from outside the peer-review system. So I think it is worth having plenty of material about WP concerning non-conventional approaches to science, even though I think the vast majority of these approaches are rubbish.

As long as the proponents of non-mainstream theories do not use their WP articles to claim greater notability or credibility than they currently have with mainstream researchers, then I think it is helpful to the public when trying to sort out science from pseudo-science, and for those searching for occasional gold beyond current scientific conventions.

I suggest that the new guidelines we are working on specifically mention a "Criticism conventional ... theories" WP:POVFORK approach to handling a situation where one or more keen editors finds their contributions persistently excluded from the main article. My understanding is that WP:POVFORK does not disallow such a 2nd article.

I suggest the new guidelines suggest the creation of a 2nd article only when all other attempts fail to reach consensus on the contents of the main article. I also suggest:


 * 1) The main article should contain, in its final heading, a brief mention of (not a synopsis) the "Criticism of . . . " article and a link to that article.  This should be before the references and footnotes.
 * 2) The 2nd article should begin with a link to the one or potentially multiple main articles which directly concern the theories or concepts it presents critical viewpoints of.
 * 3) In the body of the 2nd article, there should be mention of and links to articles and external resources which purport to be rebuttals of the alternative theories, the critiques of the original theories etc. which the 2nd article is concerned with.
 * 4) The proposed guidelines for scientific articles not restrict the 2nd article.  This will prevent editors who do not support its viewpoint using science-specific restrictions, such as scientific notability, to delete or alter material in the 2nd article.  The 2nd article isn't necessarily going to be from a scientific viewpoint.  For instance, there may be a purely philosophical position that it is silly to think we can understand the creation of the Universe.

I hope that other people can suggest how this 2nd article approach can be formalised and supported as a last resort safety valve. I hope that this would keep the energies of editors and readers within WP, while allowing the main article to clearly reflect the current conventional scientific consensus, or debate. The only concession I think needs to be made is that a heading and a few lines at the end of the main article must be devoted to mentioning and linking to the 2nd article, and that editors of the main article will need to accept other editors on WP discussing their article, and the theories the article covers, in ways which they would not allow in the main article.

I think these suggestions are very short and simple, but would provide a great benefit in making WP richer and more valuable. I believe that if we try to achieve greater and greater inclusion of seriously incompatible perspectives in the one article, by way of increasingly complex and finely tuned components of these new guidelines, then the result will be over complex WP:CREEP and still condemn editors to endless compromises and/or disputes. Robin Whittle 07:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than TLDR, I'm not sure how this is relevant to this guideline. POV forks are covered under WP:POVFORK, and I don't see any argument why there should be an exception in science articles. This guideline is primary about whether science topics meet the notability thresholds to be included in WP. Once we get POV forks to a disputed article, notability is usually already established. ~ trialsanderrors 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the length of this posting, you (Robin) have still not answered what I identified (for myself) as the central question: How do you decide which unconventional ideas to link to? I gather you want to link to all unconventional ideas, without establishing notability by any criteria (albeit with a disclaimer). This, apparently, is the policy of Wikinfo. I have no interest in using or contributing to Wikinfo, but if it attracts the energies of people who are dissatisfied with the restrictiveness of Wikipedia, then I welcome it. I think we can agree that the issue is one of authority/standards vs. inclusion/diversity. Even with its restrictive/high standards, Wikipedia has more information in any given field than I will ever be able to absorb, so I am grateful to know, when I read an article, that the worst junk has been filtered out, even if that might mean that the next great idea will not be mentioned. Wikipedia is exactly what I want (or darn close). It seems that Wikinfo is just what you want. So why don't you go there and we will both be happy? The way to take advantage of diversity is to let Wikipedia and Wikinfo live side by side, each on its own terms, rather than to water down the policies of Wikipedia. --Art Carlson 09:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Restating my suggested criteria briefly: I propose that when one or more editors are so frustrated with their inability to represent their chosen topics in the main article, then as a last resort, they should create a single "Criticism of . . ." 2nd article.

The main article, such as "Redshift" will then link to the 2nd article, which has a title such as "Criticism of conventional theories of Redshift". Rather than my original suggestion of a separate heading and short description with link, it would be fine to have a link to the "Criticism of . . ." article under the "See Also" which precedes References and External links - because the 2nd article's title is fully self-explanatory. So what I am requesting of the main article's editors is a single line, assuming they already have a "See also" section. If editors who want to document multiple critical theories can't get their act together and share a single page, then I don't think the editors of the main article should have to link to more than one "Criticism of . . ." article.

I recognise that this guideline is primarily about notability standards. My suggestion only makes sense if the 2nd article, and the link to it from the main article, is not subject to the same notability standards, since these notability standards are likely to be the reason why the material in the 2nd article is not accepted in the main article. Since "Criticism of . . . " articles are apparently potentially allowable, they could be a valuable way of allowing WP to carry material without the pretence of mainstream acceptance or high levels of notability and without cluttering up the main article. But this only makes sense if the 2nd article is required to begin with a link back to the main one, acknowledge rebuttals etc. and be free of the science-specific notability standards.

If Wikipedia doesn't tolerate a single "Criticism of . . ." article or constrains such an article with conventional scientific notability restrictions so it can't portray the critiques properly, then Wikinfo.org looks like the next best option. In that scenario, it would be nice for the main Wikipedia article to have a link to the wikinfo.org page of the same name. (But every page on Wikinfo.org would fail scientific notability tests.)

If readers find that Wikipedia's article doesn't contain the non-conventional material they seek, they may look up the topic on wikinfo.org anyway. They may go straight to Wikinfo.org in the first place, since it automatically provides the current Wikipedia article (with poor math formulae and missing images) for any topic it has no article for. Robin Whittle 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole point of having a notability standard is that it is universal. Having a tiered system of notability criterion for different articles on the same subjects is too confusing and ripe for sowing dischord. I'm pretty sure you aren't going to find consensus for such a proposal. --ScienceApologist 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So a sufficient criteria for inclusion of a link or theory in the "Criticism of . . ." article should be frustration? I'm sorry. Not "No" but "Hell, no". --Art Carlson 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Robin, I kind of agree with Art here -- can you come up with a (content-specific) criterion? (I did not have time to read the multiparagraph essay above, but a criterion should be easy to state in a sentence or two.) Sdedeo (tips) 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"an item in the field of science"
I would like this to be a bit more specific, possibly starting out with a small list of which items are covered (theories - check, hypotheses - check, discoveries - check?, scientific creations (substances/organisms) - ???). Also, it seems now that most of the hypotheses section is redundant clutter and the key point "hypotheses are almost-theories and they are subject to the same criteria" can be releagted to a footnote. ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing that is missing is experiments and observations. These would include things like WMAP and DZero. We also might think about technology and inventions as being possibly relevant here. Having a notability criterion for perpetual motion machines would be extremely helpful. --ScienceApologist 14:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with your assessment of the hypotheses section. Though the text makes some good points, most of it can be found in other established guidelines, so there is no need to repeat everything here. A brief footnote should be enough. TSO1D 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for what the criteria should be applied to, my view is as much as possible. The points we have selected are intentionally broad so that they can be adapted to a vast range of items. So in addition to theories, hypotheses, and discoveries, I believe it should also apply to discoveries and scientific creations. The last two items mentioned should be subject to the same approval process as all others. e.g. if it's an important discovery, discussed in peer reviewed papers it will pass. Scientific creations should also be analyzed within this set of parameters. For instance, if indeed it is important, then it will pass at least one of the points, ex. the peer review point, press coverage, book mention, etc. This way an overly specific concept that can be of interest only to the smallest number of people will not have its own article. TSO1D 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed it from "item" to "contribution", which seems to be the term used in the rest of the guideline. Maybe a shortlist in a footnote is in order. ~ trialsanderrors 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Our demarcation problem
The question of "what is science?" or "what is the subject of science?" is not easily solved. I think the best way to approach it is through its subject material and methodology. Ostensibly, any article or part of an article describing natural processes is "science". Likewise, any attempt or claimed attempt that is made to use the scientific method is "science". What do people think? --ScienceApologist 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it may be best to leave this question unanswered. I think "we know it when we see it" is the best choice. Put it another way: have you encountered a difficulty on the WP that required a firm demarcation? Sdedeo (tips) 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When dealing with pseudoscience and claims of the supernatural, this issue can get really dicey. For example, would the article on theistic realism be subject to our standards? --ScienceApologist 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO, science is fundamentally the study of how reality works. As such, it is a broad ranging term, including disciplines such as materials science and even political science.  The restriction to natural processes applies only to the natural sciences, and I should hope that this proposal is more useful than just for that.


 * I also see little use in the "scientific method" part of the above. A true science will use that scientific method exclusively (unlike creationism which is a mix of theology and scientific investigation).  Yet it is realistic for us to rule on whether items that relate to science (such as an article on a new theory on human evolution) belong in Wikipedia whether or not the scientific method is used or not.  For example, it is asked above whether the theistic realism article should be subject to our standards.  My answer is "yes" but with the caveats that the relevant field of study is creationism, and that the article may be notable for theology-related reasons even if it is not notable for science-related reasons. --EMS | Talk 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at it this way: The goal of this standard is to determine whether a topic is notable due to being relevant to science. --EMS | Talk 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well now! OK, reading the Theistic Realism article, it seems to be a question in the philosophy of science. To me it seems that it doesn't really apply to our criteria here and is not something we should deal with? It seems that our criteria are talking about science itself, scientific (or purportedly scientific) ideas -- and not questions in the philosophy of science? But it is a tricky question. Let me think about this more. Sdedeo (tips) 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO, it is subject to this proposal, but not exclusively to it. See my reponse above. --EMS | Talk 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question here is do we need criteria for when this stuff applies? Isn't it clear? Again, what we're trying to do here is deal with fringe and non-notable theories -- all of which spend much time advertising their status as "science". EMS -- since we are dealing with notability, and TR is notable for other reasons (culturally and in academic philosophy) we don't really need to deal with it, no? Sdedeo (tips) 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The guideline can be invoked by any editor who thinks an article makes an appeal to science. The guideline itself shouldn't create demarkations beyond that. If a scholarly-sounding article on Metahemeralism is up for deletion and editors think WP:SCI is the yardstick to measure it against, that's their prerogative. The main issue is that it should be consistent with WP:N in general and other ancillary notability guidelines, so that article who clearly pass WP:FRINGE don't clearly fail WP:SCI and vice versa. ~ trialsanderrors 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What trialsanderrors is saying close to my own viewpoint. This standard can be applied to any article on a topic which is or claims to be related to science.  Indeed, this protocol can potentially be generalized to all academic studies.  That said, it is not a given that an article that fails this guideline cannot qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia under another one.  In fact, I would recommend being liberal both in determining what the "relevant field" is as well as in making it clear that this standard is only one means by which a topic can be ruled acceptable.  Of course, if a topic fails under this standard, another cannot be used unless it is relevant. --EMS | Talk 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think we're in agreement here -- i.e., leaving criteria for the application of the criteria rather open, and not trying to formally define what is and isn't science. Sdedeo (tips) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Terms
What exactly is the purpose of the this section? Would not the concepts represented by these terms already be subjected to the general criteria mentioned above in order to assess their notability. The three points presented there look more like the guidelines for etymology section in a dictionary entry. TSO1D 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Terms don't have the same kind of "trackability" that ideas do in terms of citations, etc. One wants to make sure that cranky terms for ordinary things are excluded. Like, I don't know, calling General Relativity the Preposterous anti-Aether Conception (but now I'm perhaps violating WP:BEANS.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The section was an upshot of the Economic totalitarianism trainwreck AfD where editors argued that the term is valid because there were 90 finds in Google books (about as many as economic fish), but noone could make an argument that the term was actually used in a coherent manner. You can find multiple references on pretty much any two-word combination, but that alone doesn't establish common usage. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also a similar discussion going on at Talk:Chicken (game) about whether a book reference for Peace war game makes that a separate game. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that terms/naming conventions/jargon are important to discuss. I note that there have been hundreds of kilobytes wasted on whether or not "plasma cosmologist" was a meaningful term. If this guideline had been in place, it would be obvious that "plasma cosmologist" wasn't a term to be used in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I see that it's necessary to have this section. What about the second point though? Would it not be enough to have a commonly used term that is supported by multiple citations. Why does it matter if it's origins can be identified or if any attempts have to do so have been published. TSO1D 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that point 2 is problematic. Provenance is perhaps better replaced with attribution. I think what makes a scientific term notable isn't its origins but rather that it is verifiably used by the relevant commentators. --ScienceApologist 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the Economic totalitarianism article was, in its entirety, a Milton Friedman quote. Now nobody argues that if Friedman defines a term it will be picked up by the economic community. But in this case it was a throwaway comment without clear definition and subsequent uses were pretty much unrelated to the Friedman quote. So scattered uses of the same term with different meanings doesn't make it a scientific term. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But that applies more to point 1, there has to be "A commonly agreed-upon formal or informal definition". That's different from trying to trace the earliest uses of the word. TSO1D 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, they might be overlapping. I guess it's more a call upon editors to put more effort into their research than to say "I've heard it somewhere". ~ trialsanderrors 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Next step
We seem to be really honing in on what seem to me to be a great set of criteria here. What is the next step? Sdedeo (tips) 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The next step is to go live and change it from proposed. --ScienceApologist 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The next step would be to see if it gets picked up by editors in AfD debates, then go live and change from "proposed". ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a note on Village pump (proposals) -- this should help draw it to the attention of the wider community and perhaps encourage its use in things like AfD debates. Sdedeo (tips) 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one reads WP:VP. My masterplan to create wider awareness is to monitor for test cases and add the "this is a test case for WP:SCI" to the debates. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, great. Every now and then I stumble onto one of the dark cranky parts of the encyclopedia. Sdedeo (tips) 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Award-winning
Seems like there is a disagreement on whether this is a necessay criterion. I agree it might be mostly redundant, but only "mostly". Awards usually precede press coverage, and they are easier to track for non-academic users than citations. Redundancy alone shouldn't be a reson to remove. If we agree that a major award merits inclusion, then that's a valid criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like a harmless criterion to have -- I agree that anything that meets this criterion will almost certainly meet others. Sdedeo (tips) 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned my skepticism in the past, however I really see no harm that can come of it. And as trials pointed out, it could be more powerful argument than any other point where it applies. TSO1D 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see it doing any good, and like the "criticism" one has a potential for abuse (albeit a far lower potential). I can understand the person not being in Wikipedia before hand, but not the idea.  Given that these are awards for major contributions in their field, the thought that such a winner would not already be in Wikipedia boggles my mind.  If that should happen, we would need to look hard at how and why that was the case!  Also, as I mentioned in my removal, the press coverage of these awards would make the topic notable immediately.  So while I appreciate the intent, all that I see is rendundancy in its use here. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It will probably require a footnote which awards are major. Part of the reason to list it was to fend off claims that "best conference paper" is a major award, as many autobiographers defending their inclusion do. ~ trialsanderrors 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO it would be better to create a section on items that do not establish notablility, and explain why that is the case. I assure you that people will always try to make the case that their award is "major" or "special" if this criteria is present.  That just plain is the nature of the beast.  OTOH, if you say that even a Nobel does not establish notability on its own (but note that the press and academic attention it results in does qualify it), then you have a much more solid way of dealing with this issue. --EMS | Talk 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All criteria have to be corollaries of the primary notability criterion. What the specialized notability criteria do is to state that if X happens we're confident that outside sources exist, even if they're not always easily accessible to the standard editor (not everybody can access JSTOR or Newsbank). Astronauts or NASCAR drivers are not notable by their profession, but by the media interest their profession generates. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- looks like my comment got lost. I think I now agree with T&E and EMS that this award criterion is dangerous -- we would end up having to have an entire section devoted to the exact criteria that make an award notable! And that seems very hard. I think we can all agree that any idea that garners a truly notable award will easily satisfy one of the other criteria, and I think we should thus get rid of the award bullet. Sdedeo (tips) 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a non-argument. We have 500 criteria littered throughout the notability guidelines that contain in themselves gradations of notability. Even our own current criteria are littered with them: "conference with notable participants", "supported or examined by major scientific institutions," etc. Notability discussions will always be fueled by the problem of translating an ill-defined multidimensional space into a binary decision {inclusion/exclusion). As long as a major award clearly bestows notability and it is different in kind from the other criteria it should be listed, even if it mostly overlaps with other criteria and "middling" awards might spur discussion during AfD debates. ~ trialsanderrors 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My argument was that this criterion would require a great deal of additional work (a whole set of criteria to define "notable" award) without measureable gain (anything that wins a notable award will pass other criteria easily.) I believe that this is a valid argument. Can you point to any exception? Sdedeo (tips) 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a negative criterion is dangerous. We will get people saying,it meets negative criterion X and is therefore non-notable. Obviously this isn't the intent--the intent is merely to say that this one doesnt count--but judging by some AfD discussions it will surely be misused. DGG 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just generated an "Irrelevant criteria" section, but have kept this in mind in writing it up. IMO, it is important to have this section to keep future discussions focussed on the real notability concerns.  As for tge possibility of abuse: I really don't see how that can be wholely avoided.  What I did in my writing was to emphasize that these are not negative conditions enough so that anyone trying to use them as such will be immediately recognized as engaging in wikilawyering.  In other words, my goal is to make in difficult (if not impossible) for any such abuse to succeed. --EMS | Talk 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"compelling" reason for term
SA -- I am booting up my crank simulator right now and it tells me that this will surely lead someone to create an article on Preposterous anti-Aether Theory because there is a compelling reason to use it: General Relativity is preposterous and biased against the aether. Sdedeo (tips) 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it appears, just redirect it to general relativity :-). --EMS | Talk 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Even though such an article would obviously be quashed by original research, it'd be nice to head-off that one at the gate. I need a synonym for compelling that isn't as subjective. Crosswords anyone? --ScienceApologist 14:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

justifications section?
Should we have a "justifications" section, just to explain why the criteria are important? To an outsider, our criteria might appear somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps we should be (briefly) explicit about why such criteria are necessary. Sdedeo (tips) 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the "relevant policies" section does? The notability criteria are approximations of what in the past has been considered notable under the general notability guideline, and their reason for being is to create consistency between entries in various fields of science, to cut down on the arbitrariness of deletion discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 11:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Overly restrictive, potentially dangerous?
I'm not sure why this is really necessary. WP:NOR was added to weed out the fringe science cases, and for theories that haven't been written about by people other than their original authors, you're going to fail on secondary sources for WP:V. I'm afraid this is going to lead to people deleting writing about science that, while important within its field, lacks coverage outside specialized sources that, since they haven't seen them and google doesn't index them, must not exist. Notability is not supposed to be a high bar, it's just there to make sure fundamental policy can be met. We're not paper, we don't have to restrict ourselves to popular things. I think there should be at least a line in there that explicitly states that discoveries which are not as widely cited or included in textbooks may still merit a mention as part of a larger, relevant article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd think NOR would be enough wouldn't you? However, the problem being addressed here is not obscurity but notability. There are some extremely obscure ideas which are ]notable (e.g. B-Bbar oscillation) that easily fulfill our notability guidelines. We can include some wording indicating that obscurity does not equate with non-notability, but I think that not only is this guideline necessary, it will help tremendously in the editting of science articles. --ScienceApologist 14:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, just FWIW -- B-Bar oscillation is covered in CP Violation (Bigi and Sanda), a Cambridge Univ Press text on my shelf here, and would yes easily pass notability. Sdedeo (tips) 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NOR really only covers the situation where people develop an idea in the article itself. The question is what to do when an article advances only arguments found in a crank or otherwise non-notable source. BTW -- the paper criterion is much less restrictive than the textbook one, take a look. Sdedeo (tips) 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea
"Notability" on wikipedia has come to be associated with two things: (1) whether a topic can be included or not and (2) significance or importance. Notability guidelines exist so that we can set some kind of community-embraced threshold for inclusion, but it is only necessary to do this in order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't think anyone will ever be able to convince me that any article on a scientific topic should be avoided simply because its inclusion somehow makes the encyclopedia indiscriminate in its coverage. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV do the job 100% in defining what scientific topics are appropriate for coverage, and I'd like to point out that Notability failed as a general principle precisely because it shouldn't apply to areas like science. I would like to see this proposal redirected to WP:NOR, as that is an official policy we already have that gets the point across much better, whereas this perpetuates the false idea that notability applies to everything: it doesn't. Mango juice talk 16:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I truly disagree with this. First of all, I have had to deal with the occasional theory just published in the peer-reviewed journal Foundations of Physics, which is dedicated to publishing new and innovative theories.  Such items qualify under the letter of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:V (although secondary sources are often lacking in that case), but the action still amounts to an attempt to use Wikipedia to introduce the idea to the world.  Secondly, I see no reason why the concept of "notability" cannot be applied to science.  However, in doing so standards need to be created that are appropriate to both science and the needs of this encyclopedia.  For example:  The Pons-Fleishmann cold fusion paper never got published in a respactably journal.  Under WP:NOR, it technically should not be mentioned here.  However, it does achieve notability as a major news item.  The goal of this guideline is to put such concerns into a coherent whole.  I agree that this guideline cannot override the policies, and I honestly believe that it can enhance the enforcement of those policies. --EMS | Talk 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't decide from your example whether to think that such an article should actually be deleted or not. If the article in some way runs afoul of WP:OR or WP:NPOV, it should be deleted with or without this proposal.  And if the article doesn't run afoul of any of the core policies, that is, the article neutrally and factually presents a brand-new scientific theory, I really don't see why it should be deleted -- that could be an interesting and informative article, and it doesn't have any kind of problem with WP:NOT.  But if the article was one that should be deleted, and I were making an argument, I would stick to the real policies and argue that the article is against the policies, rather than making an argument that scientific theories have to be notable and that this one isn't... that second argument is easiliy attacked, because (by the failure, for instance, of WP:N) that argument is not generally accepted, and science is perhaps one of the very hardest categories in which to make that argument.  So, frankly, I think this proposal would not even be of use in such a situation.  Mango juice talk 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are writing is fine and dandy, but what does "notable" mean in this context? There are thousands of theories that get published each year that are exempt from WP:NOR because of their primary publication in a peer reviewed journal, yet most of those won't end up having any impact on the field.  Some ideas immediately gain notice within the field and so easily meet these criteria.  Others need time to build up to a level such that it can be called "notable".  For example, string theory languished for many years because people did not believe that its equations could be solved and/or be self-consistent.  During that period, it was the domain of a handful of researchers whose articles were rarely cited by others, and I would argue that it was not notable during the period.  Once the researchers showed that the equations could be solved and be self-consistent, interest appeared rapidly, and the requirements given herein came quickly to be met.
 * Being a new theory in a peer-review journal really does not "cut it" for me. Here is a personal example:  If you look at my home page you will see that I am trying to modify general relativity.  I intend to get my theory published in a peer reviewed journal this year.  Assuming I do, what does that mean, other than that I have finally gotten something through a peer review?  IMO, not much.  It is when this idea comes to gain ongoing attention from others that it becomes notable, not when it gets published.  WP:NOR was created to avoid the worst abuses of Wikipedia.  Now we are dealing with more subtle issues.  It is those issues that are the focus of this proposed guideline. --EMS | Talk 21:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MJ -- the essential problem is this: crank theory gains adherents, article is made. WP:NPOV is satisfied when the various "he disproved Einstein and is being oppressed" statements are removed. WP:NOR is satisfied because all of the statements are sourced to websites and the odd journal article. WP:V similarly. However, we now have a massive article on a completely fringe subject. Is that a problem? Well, yes and no. It's the same problem you'd have if you had an article on someone's favourite high school teacher. Even if it's sourced and NPOV, it is impossible to maintain to quality standards because only a few adherents work on it. That's why we have notability guidelines for people, and why we need them for theories as well. Sdedeo (tips) 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mangojuice: Wikipedia:Notability failed as a general principle precisely because it shouldn't apply to areas like science.
 * How so? ~ trialsanderrors 11:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm referring back to this comment by Jimbo, back when Notability was called "Importance" - []. But I should remember WP:CCC -- the last time I looked, WP:N was an essay, but it has now become an official guideline.  I suppose I have to give up on this fight in disgust -- the truth is, what I really have a problem with is not the formal concept of notability as it is described on WP:N, but that we're using the term "notability" to describe it, which leads to an extremely large quantity of "!votes" on WP:AFD debates of the form "delete, not notable," which are really simple opinions and irrelevant, and damaging.  I mean, if what notability really means is that we're capable of covering the topic verifiably and neutrally based on proper sources, and that covering topics of that type aren't indiscriminate, then it's really the same thing as the existing policies I already like, except that I like them better because they're more pure, direct, and sensible.  Mango juice talk 16:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that notability is a problem when it is applied subjectively, but when there are clear and distinct criteria outlined for what "notability" entails it becomes a powerful tool for keeping Wikipedia an excellent resource (rather than a big bag of trivia). We should not shy away from describing what is actively happening on Wikipedia and what is happening these days is a trend toward bringing the encyclopedia to higher editorial standards. Editting doesn't just mean adding, sometimes it means excluding. There are other projects that do not style themselves "encyclopedia" that may be better venues for non-notable ideas. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Jimbo lost that battle, and for good reason (although notability is not the same as importance, and the current definition of notability comes very close to encapsulating the substance of the three core policies). I agree they're apt to influcence AfD debates, but not automatically in the negative way you see. Let's face it, there will always be unquestionably notable articles and unquestionably non-notable articles, and then there is this huge grey area inbetween which triggers most of the fights on AfD. The outcomes of most of the fights are pretty random, but I don't really have a problem with that. That uncertainty puts the necessary pressure on editors to move the article towards the white area of unquestionable notability, and as long as notability guidelines help editors to improve articles they're useful to the project. On the argument that they allow editors to vote lazily, there will always be lazy "i(don't)likeit" voters on both sides of the aisle. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples
Are there any cases where an article is compliant with all other policies and fails this guideline? We have NOR for cranks, so I'm curious what makes it not enough. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is probably a good example: Electric universe (concept). Although other policies can vaguely be applied to this case, the conclusion derived from them tend to be more ambiguous. Had this guideline been in effect, it would have provided a more rapid end to the debate. TSO1D 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Over on the relativity pages we recently had an editor hyping the work on an Indian researcher named Unnikrishkan who had some odd ideas relating to the twin paradox. He had obtained publication is a minor, peer-reviewed journal, and that was the basis for wanting to reference this person's work.  Similar ideas had also been put forth 50 years ago by someone named Builder.  An investigation showed that neither article is cited elsewhere, and so this viewpoint is not important to physics.  Yet it was hard to convince the person wanting this material included that it is inappropriate.  (They felt that the material was evidence of a controversy and therefore that this viewpoint required inclusion.)  A guideline like this would have been very helpful in that case, as we had to make the case that the lack of citations and therefore of evidence of impact within the field is a significant concern. --EMS | Talk 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, again, Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden -- passes WP:NOR easily, and with a little tweaking would pass WP:NPOV, but is entirely based on the non-notable, self-published research of a retired physicist. Sdedeo (tips) 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither of those are good examples: Electric universe (concept) is about to be deleted at WP:AFD thanks to WP:V and WP:RS concerns. And Harold Aspden is a person that fails WP:BIO/WP:PROF.  So again.. any examples of articles that should be deleted under this proposal and not under existing policies / guidelines?  Mango juice talk 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well -- OK, you're right on Aspden (our person criteria are just WP:PROF essentially.) But EU does have "reliable sources" as far as I can tell -- they are just not sufficient under the criteria here -- look at the references. Perhaps SA can weigh in though with his thoughts. Sdedeo (tips) 21:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Proponents can argue that it has reliable sources, it just really doesn't, not to the level we really need, as SA argues quite well in point 5 of his nomination. You can't expect the rules to be so perfect that no debate would have good points on both sides.  Mango juice talk 16:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliability is subject to notability, it seems. When a source is used that isn't notable, its reliability is necessarily called into question. There is a level of synergy that exists here. --ScienceApologist 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the importance here is that requiring "reliable sources" is insufficient (tell me why you think IEEE is not a RS) -- we are trying to define when an idea is notable enough. Sdedeo (tips) 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * IEEE journals cover the fields of computer science and electronics. It is an RS within its domains of relevance.  However, the electric universe (concept) involves astrophysics and physical cosmology.  Those are areas far outside of the domain of relevance of the IEEE journals.  It is not unknown for crank ideas to gain a patron editor whose magazine is far from the relevant field for the topic.  In such cases, the issue is one of whether the idea ever gains broader acceptance as a result of that coverage.  Usually, it does not. --EMS | Talk 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The IEEE publishes 128 transactions, journals and magazines, that cover a wide range of subjects. For example, the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science has nothing to do with either computer science, nor electronics. --Iantresman 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, but "plasma science" would still be in relation to materials and applications. IEEE is not known for being devoted to pure theoretical physics.  --EMS | Talk 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What you say makes sense -- but I cannot find things such as "domain of relevance" for evaluating scholarly sources in the WP:RS page. Sdedeo (tips) 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a legitimate point, and it is a area that requires some examination and possibly some remediation. Another example of this sort of thing is another independent researcher who go his variation on Le Sage gravitation published in Popular Electronics and claimed that as a RS.  There are sitautions where I would accept that magazine as a  RS, but new insignts in theoretical physics is not one of them.  (He was pushing his POV on the gravity page, and eventually gave up after earning a few blocks.)


 * This could also turn out to be a moot point if the requirement of being well cited is enough to eliminate subjects the electric universe independent of whether the RS was operating in its domain of relevance. In fact, if a topic should become well cited I would be loathe to disqualify it because it got its start in the "wrong" way.  (However, if all of the citations are in that one journal, there is an issue.) --EMS | Talk 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am happier with well-cited as opposed to "domain of relevance." If a bunch of engineers want to develop a cosmological theory and devote their journal pages to it -- maybe that is OK? I am not sure, though, and could be convinced otherwise. Sdedeo (tips) 06:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Charter
This is just a bloated monster and needs to be cut down to 10% of its current size. Who needs a Wikihistory lesson? ~ trialsanderrors 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can cut it down a ways without diminishing its impact, then do go for it. However, it seems to me that it is very useful for this guideline to state as clearly as possible what it is trying to do, why it is trying to do it, and how it relates to other policies and guidelines in Wikipedia.
 * One thought that occurs to me is to put the "Charter" at the end of the guideline instead of at the start. That way people get to the "meat" of the issue first, and can deal with the supporting reasoning afterwards. --EMS | Talk 13:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
The article writes:
 * "An article in a reputable peer reviewed journal and a refuting article in the same or a similar journal are all that are needed. Yet if those two articles are the extent of the coverage of this topic, then it is not having an impact either on the research field to which it relates or in the public at large. A Wikipedia article written on such a topic is therefore acting to introduce it to the world, something this is in violation of the spirit of the WP:NOR policy, but not its letter."

This section in the article misunderstands "notability".
 * 1. Wikipedia does not introduce to the world, an article that has ALREADY appeared been published. Consequently it does not contravene WP:NOR.
 * 2. The impact of an article on a research field is utterly irrelevant. As we can read in WP:NOTABLE, notability is NOT importance. Notability refers to the ability to verified. Any peer reviewed paper satisfied this requirement. --Iantresman 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Peer review is necessary but not sufficient for determining notability. --ScienceApologist 02:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, you're confusing notability with importance. As described in WP:NOTABLE, peer review is sufficient notability to allow an article to be verified.
 * Notability refers to the ability to verify reliably, not to do with importance. And that is verfiable. --Iantresman 03:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that multiple independent sources on the topic is usually the threshold, with multiple and independent being key criteria. If all the sources on a topic are too close to the topic, we can't follow WP:NPOV.  --EngineerScotty 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An article that has been published but creates no response whatsoever fulfills WP:NOR but cannot fulfill WP:NPOV because it presents only one point of view. That doesn't mean it can't be used in an article, just that an article on the paper itself will never comply with WP:NPOV. ~ trialsanderrors 02:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, multiple independent sources may improve the reliability of a poor, non-peer reviewed sources. But a peer reviewed source has already gone through referees (whose expertize is better than anonymous editors).
 * Again, this is not to suggest the importance of an idea, nor the correctness of an idea, nor does it condone an idea. It merely allows us to describe the idea. --Iantresman 13:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand NPOV which is about how we describe Points of View neutrally. NPOV tells us that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly."; it does not REQUIRE there to be critical points of view in order to "balance" a point of view.
 * When Stephen Hawkins publishes his latest theory on Black Holes, we can still describe it neutrally without waiting for a critical response. --Iantresman 03:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Peer review doesn't add a second POV, it just lends the first POV more credence, as does editorial review to newspaper articles (as compared to, say, blog posts). And it doesn't move it out of the "extreme minority" realm. The decision on what level of credence it lends to the claim can perfectly be branched out and encapsulated into a guideline, as long as the guideline adheres to policy and reflects common application in XfD discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with Ian's desire to include everything that passes the exceedingly low bar of "published in peer reviewed journal", I think he does point out quite well why the current notability guidelines are insufficient. Sdedeo (tips) 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will stand behind what I wrote above, as I don't see two articles on a topic as establishing importance either. Now mind you if Nature, Science, and Scientific American go off discussing the articles, then it is being treated as "important".  However this importance is evidence by its achieved mention in multiple independent sources.  OTOH, with just the two articles in the example and no further coverage or mention, which in my experience is fairly common, I see no grounds for establishing that the topic is either notable or important.


 * For the case of Stephen Hawking publishing a new theory, my advice is to wait a day and let the newspapers cover the story first, or at least to give the on-line news sites of the major science magazines a chance to say something on it. In other words, Stephen Hawking is important enough of a person that the mentioned notability guidelines will promptly be met without difficulty in this case.


 * Beyond that, I did not mean to stir up a hornet's nest, but it is good that my words are being questioned now (instead of later). The goal of those additions is to strengthen this guideline, but it something about them does not work, that can and should be dealt with.  Hopefully we can achieve consensus about what belongs there and move ahead soon. --EMS | Talk 04:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with that, is that newspapers are considered poor sources when it comes to reporting science.
 * Yet there are many occasions when science articles are updated with "latest news", for which there are not critical articles.
 * As I mentioned above, the use of the word "notability" is misunderstood in the paragraph above, in additional to the misunderstanding regarding "original research" --Iantresman 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WP Seal of Scientific Notability - or lack thereof
Two contributors have indicated that they haven't the time to read my contributions in full. It is unreasonable to expect me or anyone else to discuss something like this in sound-bites. In the absence of much support for what I am suggesting and in the hope that some folks will read the whole thing, I will keep the following as short as possible. If this leaves you asking questions, that's natural - it is too short.

The question of formalising which topics, which articles, and which sections of articles any "scientific" notability criteria applies to is a minefield. We could all write heaps about it, and we probably should before approving any hard-edge set of criteria, guidelines etc. which provide only two outcomes (as far as I can see): allowance in an approved form or deletion.

It would be exceedingly difficult to formalise a policy which can be reliably applied with such stark outcome choices. If it was possible, the policy would be exceedingly long and detailed and would create immense problems for editors, administrators and the arbitration committee.

Here is a suggestion, to replace or in some way supplement my "Criticism of ..." proposal, since it is my impression that some key people in this discussion are totally opposed to allowing anything to exist in WP which violates the criteria they want to define.

Any such criteria which has the power to delete an article, or all mention of something in an article, is a very powerful tool. Since there are different points of view on what the criteria should be, or on how the criteria should be applied, the outcome of any such "criteria -> deletion" process is an instance of one or more group of people forcing their own POV on others who wish to read and edit WP. That's fine in principle, as long as the criteria, process and discussions are publicly available, as they are in WP, and especially when aggrieved persons can set up their own wikis or use another system.

My argument is about what is best for WP's readers and editors, in terms of allowing the most useful set of contributions on WP, keeping the "energy" of attention and effort from dissipating to other systems, whilst preventing misuse of WP to host material which is trivial, factually incorrect or which may give a false impression about the notability and mainstream acceptance of certain references and topics.

I propose that whatever "scientific" notability standards are used, and whatever other standards apply to "scientific" articles, that the problems of defining and applying these criteria and standards, including especially deciding what articles and materials they are are applied to, would be much better if there were one or more approaches which constitute a half-way house between acceptance and deletion.

I propose two things. The first is optional, but would help readers and editors understand WP's science standards - and therefore help them understand when they are reading a page which does not meet them fully or at all.

Firstly, all articles deemed (by whatever criteria) to concern "scientific" matters and which are judged to meet the relevant notability etc. criteria, should have a small heading, box etc. at the start (or perhaps the end) saying that the article meets (or did meet at a certain date) the defined criteria for scientific articles. (There may need to be some way of adapting this to articles where only a part is of a scientific nature, such as a subsection of a generally non-scientific article, or a scientific article such as Aurora where parts of it are cultural.)

Secondly, and most importantly, have some standardised headers, templates etc. with appropriate procedures which can be applied to articles which are judged (by editors who are concerned with scientific standards) to fall short of the criteria, in whole or in part. The resulting box should be at the very start of the article. Some examples are:


 * 1) This article has been identified concerning a topic which does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for scientific notability.
 * 2) This article has been identified as concerning a topic which is scientifically notable, but which contains either no scientifically notable references, or includes some references which do not meet Wikipedia's scientific notability criteria.
 * 3) Part or all of this article is written in a way which portrays the topic(s) as having greater acceptance within the mainstream scientific community than is actually the case.  (Possible link to Pseudo-science definition.)

All should link to a page on the relevant standards, guidelines, criteria etc. Some or all of these might also direct the reader to the Talk page for further information.

This way, the criteria can be applied in educational, persuasive, non-destructive ways to a whole range of borderline situations where, as I understand it, the current and proposed criteria only allow for retention or deletion of the entire article, or particular parts of articles.

I guess that some folks think it would be a better world if WP had a very hard-line policy and simply deleted material which stepped outside the "scientific" criteria. To the extent that such folks get their way, they are applying directly - and through self-censorship of other editors fearing deletion of their work - their own POV to the entire contents of WP and to the ability of some editors who dispute these arrangements to use WP in good faith to document scientific topics.

My "seal of scientific approval/disapproval" proposal is a way to co-exist with certain editors and readers in WP who have a different view of scientific notability, with far fewer arguments, and without them being able to pass their articles off as having the same status as articles which do meet the criteria.

Where one or more editors have material excluded from an "approved" article (I am assuming we don't want a generally "approved" article cluttered with one or more "unapproved" subsections), the article with the "approved" content is the one which gets the direct name, such as "Redshift". Other articles can be called "Plasma Redshift" etc. and will be found via search. The idea of a separate (unapproved) "Criticism of conventional theories of ..." article, as I suggested earlier, may be a convenient point to document, or at least link to, the critiques which are excluded from the main article, due to the strict scientific notability problems.

I suggest it would be gracious, and would enhance many reader's perception of the credibility of an "approved" article, if the "approved" article had a link at the end article one or a few "unapproved" articles which contain contrary viewpoints, preferably the one "Criticism of ..." article. The link could contain a warning about stepping off the path WP-approved notability, but the reader would find such a warning at the top of the linked-to article.

A proposal such as this means that it will be practical to develop a more narrow and less fussily detailed set of criteria. This is more likely to be acceptable under WP:CREEP. The shorter criteria would be more likely to be used - and to be respected, because it is wielding informative, non-destructive tools in addition to (for some really extreme cases, perhaps) the blunt and uninformative tool of deletion.

This also means that WP can include articles about topics which most editors consider to be pseudo-science, without worrying that readers will find the article's inclusion in WP to be evidence that the topic is scientifically valid or widely respected by mainstream scientists. This is an important part of helping readers find out about a topic, and how well it is respected by the mainstream.

Right now, readers using Go or Search for "Electric Universe" find absolutely nothing about the project of this name which we consider to be pseudo-science. If they go to the old page address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Universe_%28concept%29 (Google finds 7 links) they find a blank page - which they might be tempted to edit. I think it would be much better to have an article saying the topic is not notable enough for having anything written about it, or to have the proponents strut their stuff under a heading that the topic and/or the references do not meet WP scientific criteria. Robin Whittle 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you are suggesting a "two tiered" system: some articles are marked "notable", others are marked "not-notable". This is such a major change in WP practice I wonder if it would take a fork to create. As for including pseudo-science, the guidelines explicitly do not exclude it -- they only define a threshold below which psuedo-science (and ordinary science) is too marginal to be included. Sdedeo (tips) 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To begin with, I sympathize with the idea of softening the binary decision between article and no-article, if for no other reason than to deflect edit wars. On the other hand, the dichotomy is not quite as severe as it appears. If an article on a topic is rejected, the most notable information that would have appeared there is likely to find a home in some other article. Conversely, creating an article on a topic does not automatically increase its visibility as many of the references that were scattered through other articles before, may be moved to the new article.
 * Concerning your examples, Robin: How can a topic be scientifically notable if there are no scientifically notable references? Why in the world would we ever want to write an article "in a way which portrays the topic(s) as having greater acceptance within the mainstream scientific community than is actually the case"?
 * And it looks like I have to ask my number one question again: Would you include anything in Wikipedia, as long as there is a disclaimer?
 * Finally, I see some merit in the idea of a stub for rejected topics. This would provide the useful information that wiki editors have thought about it and judged the topic to be not notable, and it would reduce the chance that uninformed editors try to (re)start the page over and over. In that case, we could also consider providing a (disclaimed) link to a less restrictive source of information like wikinfo.
 * --Art Carlson 13:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea of notability is subjective, as is evident from the contributions from various editors. Looking through Wikipedia, I see dozens of articles that I personally consider not notable. But as long as the information is accurate (ie. verifiable), and as long as someone finds an article notable, then that's good enough for me.
 * Too many editors consider "mainstream science" to be the arbiters of notability. But notability is actually dependent on one person only: the reader.
 * As for the notability of a minority view from a majority view, that is a completely different thing, and subject to verifiability... along with everything else. --Iantresman 14:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Robin's proposal as being very complex and not terribly practical. It seems to be saying "let's just accept any old thing but tag is as being 'non-mainstream' or some such if we don't like it".  I agree that the benchmark in determining what should or should not be in Wikipedia cannot be acceptablility to mainstream science.  However, if you look at the criteria being set forth in the guideline, there are numerous ways for non-mainstream theories to attain notability.


 * There also seems to be a misunderstanding about the use of the standard. It does not give criteria for deletion.  Instead it give criteria for notability and is very explicit that topics can be found notable for other reasons.  If these criteria permit it be determined that an article whose only reason for being in Wikipedia is being relevant to science in fact lacks such notability, then it would be deleted, but that is due to its failure to have any good reason for being here.


 * As for the now-deleted eletric universe article: That was a very biased article on a theory for which the only available sources are Apsden's own web sites and publications.  I for one doubt that many people will ever come to Wikipedia looking for an article on it.  Also, I am not impressed by the idea of an article on a topic needing refutation but where the placement of such refuting statements in the article could amount to original research due to the lack of attention that Apsden and ideas have received over the years.


 * As for Iantresman's claom that "notability is actually dependent on one person only: the reader", I must disagree. Wikipedia is a community, and articles should be of interest to a reasonably sized subset of this encyclopedia's users.  One person is not such a subset. --EMS | Talk 05:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any idea derived from a single source, may be described and conform to NPOV. This is true for example, of any article about a particular book, where the author's POV is described. This does not make the article biased. To suggest that a topic is "needing refutation" is to assume a pro-skeptic viewpoint, and this is a bias. The job of an encyclopedia is to describe, not to debunk.
 * If you look at how encyclopedias such as Britannica treat contentious subjects, you will not find subjects such as Homoeopathy, or astrology, or steady-state theory necessarily "refuted"; instead they are all described with a "fairness of tone" that is required by Wikipedia, and sadly lacking in many editors.
 * "Notability" should not be confused with "interest", nor with "importance". "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." --Iantresman 10:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Legitimate points, but they are do not address my concern: Is there any good reason to cover a theory or hypothesis which has not (or not yet) been noticed either within its research area or by the public at large?  "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information."  In terms of people with new theories, I am somewhat unusual in that I don't see a need to have my own original research hyped here.  It will be covered when it gets noticed, and thereby becomes notable.  I agree that Wikipedia is not paper, but "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", nor is it an ad agency.  What I want to see for a theory being documented in Wikipedia is some sense that it is known by others.


 * BTW - I also think that it is unfair to the readers for an alternate theory not have its status in the eyes of the scientific mainstream discussed. This discussion need not be long and detailed, but people should be aware that it is not accepted and be given some sense of why that is the case. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many obscure theories are not noticed within their own research area, and certainly not by the public at large. The objective of an encyclopedia is to do so, for those that want to know. You personally don't have to give such an article as second glance, let alone participate in its construction.
 * Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia, which means only that it has not been published before. "Hyping" an article is also not allowed as it implies moving aware from NPOV. But original research that has been published (ie. it can be checked), and is described, rather than hyped, is fine.
 * I agree, articles on alternative theories MUST included assessment by the mainstream, as long as it is verifiable and attributable where appropriate.
 * I also think that articles on mainstream theories should include legitimate criticism from those scientists who publish in peer review. eg. Arp's criticism on various subject. This discussion need not be long and detailed, etc., but it is representative of the minority viewpoint --Iantresman 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are asking for all the data to be in Wikipedia, but data is the same as information, and AIUI (as I understand it) Wikipedia aims to be informative. You are above claiming that Wikipedia ought to "notice" obscure theories, but AIUI part of the reason for WP:NPOV and WP:V being as they are is to keep most obscure theories out of Wikipedia.  This is fine since otherwise the infomation can be lost in a sea of data.
 * As for requiring articles on mainstream topics to discuss counter views and alternate thoeries: The really is a function of the standing of the thoery IMO.  In some cases, there are no alternatives that are siginificant with respect to the standard theory, and the only legitimate coverage of alternatives would be in a "History" section.  In other cases, there are alternatives that are notable and deserve mention.  The really is a matter of judgement on the part of the editors.  Once again, remember that data is not information.  We should not permit the impression of a controversy to appear where in fact there is no controversy. --EMS | Talk 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Art asked me two questions: Q1: "How can a topic be scientifically notable if there are no scientifically notable references?" My point is that there are different points of view about whether good science can be found outside the current or likely future definition of notability - so I am suggesting a way that subjects or references outside those limits can be written about in WP, with a suitable disclaimer, to indicate they don't meet the criteria.
 * What criteria do you propose to establish "scientific notability" for a topic that has no scientifically notable references? --Art Carlson 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Q2: "Why in the world would we ever want to write an article 'in a way which portrays the topic(s) as having greater acceptance within the mainstream scientific community than is actually the case'?". This is not what you or I want, but some folks will want to portray their favourite theory or research in this way. My suggestions are intended to prevent such claims being made in WP, or perhaps to have a box at the start of the article indicating that the topic is not regarded as valid by mainstream scientists. Robin Whittle 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If some folks want to do this, then you and I should stop them from doing so in Wikpedia. --Art Carlson 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

mixed feelings
Harold Aspden was deleted. I have mixed feelings about this. I stand completely by my assesment of my delete vote, but at the same time I also respect the fact that people put a lot of effort -- misguided effort -- into the article and now the work is gone. I really have mixed feelings about this. I think what is essential is that people are made more aware of the WP criteria -- both those extant (which I think sufficed for deletion arguments) and the ones we are developing here.

Like I say, it is really sad. I am a scientist, and I really dislike cranks -- on a sort of visceral level -- but at the same time I have to respect the fact that it sucks to be deleted. I really think wikipedia needs to settle down on these matters and propagate this information through the community.

I guess what I'm saying (with a glass of wine under my belt) is that despite being called a "modern day inquisition" and so forth, I feel not quite OK about the whole procedure. I wish we had some place where these articles would be welcomed and people with (let's be polite) "unorthodox" views could find an outlet for their energies. I think both groups are animated by a fascination with the universe and the workings of nature and I can respect that, totally.

I don't know what the solution is. I think what animates my work here on this notability project is the great distaste I feel for cranks who like to "piggyback" on real science. Real science is hard, real science involves working with a community, real science involves sitting down sometimes and admitting you're wrong. I remember when I was a graduate student and I had this great idea about dark energy involving Lorentz violation. I worked on it for a solid year, in isolation. I became paranoid that people were going to steal my idea -- I mean, no joke, seriously. I nearly got into a fight with my advisor and demanded that I be sole author so that the glory I expected would reflect solely on me. I mean, seriously, I nearly lost it.

It was eventually published in Physical Review. By the time the referees were done with it (they were very kind and polite) I had come back to my senses. I saw that my idea was just one among many, and further I saw a few problems with it that I didn't want to admit to myself but were there (the solution was unfortunately unstable to a certain kind of perturbation. The first time this was pointed out to me I got angry, fortunately it was pointed out by a really nice guy who had had a period like me as well.) It really was only the patience and good humor of my advisor that kept me from going off the rails.

I guess what I'm saying is that I understand. Sdedeo (tips) 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't wikinfo the sort of happy hunting grounds that deleted articles can migrate to? --Art Carlson 07:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Under current policy, only admins can access deleted articles (I'm assuming things haven't changed in the past several months; I've been scarce on Wikipedia recently due to excessive business in the Real World), and making the contents of them available is considered a big no-no. Personally, I think that there ought to be a "scratch" namespace, where deleted articles (and possibly articles created by anonymous IPs) can go.  Deletion, in most cases, would change to a page move; and given the nature of the process, would require far less overhead.  (AfD might be far less necessary).  For cases where an article's contents need be kept hidden, either oversighting can be used, or the current ability of admins to make versions admin-only can be encouraged instead.  I suppose we should keep deletion for absolute junk (so that the "scratch" namespace ain't cluttered); but for encyclopedic articles where notability or such is heavily disputed, the scratch namespace might be a better solution.
 * In many cases, there is no need to hide the contents of the article; only to keep it from being considered part of the encyclopedia. The scratch namespace would technically be similar to the Wikipedia namespace--but it would be made clear that it isn't a part of the encycloepdic content, and search engine indexing would be disabled.
 * --EngineerScotty 08:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps when we nominate for AfD, we can move the text to wikinfo? Sdedeo (tips) 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sdedeo wrote: "I think what animates my work here on this notability project is the great distaste I feel for cranks who like to "piggyback" on real science"


 * So what. I still want to read what they have to say. Nearly every scientific journal "piggybacks" on the hard work of scientists, often making them pay to publish their own work, and then steals their copyright. But I still want to read about the journals. And every dictator and common criminal on the planet "piggybacks" on the lives of good working individuals, but I still want to read about them too.
 * Didn't Oliver Heaviside write Maxwell's equations in the form we know today? Who was piggybacking on whom? Personally I don't care, I just want to find out what each had to say, and I want to find out what sources to read.
 * And to be a little more contentious, I think there are a bunch of "crackpots" who actually work quite hard on their, but just happen to be wrong. --Iantresman 10:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

misunderstandings
One common misunderstanding that has come up is regarding crank author articles (e.g., Articles for deletion/Ralph Juergens), the problem being that people are unaware of how much the average college professor publishes in peer reviewed journals. A list of twenty publications seems impressive to the naive, but twenty articles over the course of a lifetime (or even half a lifetime) is negligible at best. Can we get some info on this? (I remember searching Sunyaev's paper list -- the total was over seven hundred, as I remember.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On what do you base your assessment that Juergens is a crank author?
 * Are you suggesting that crank authors are less notable? --Iantresman 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: crankishness -- I think the second sentence of his biography establishes that pretty clearly. Re: notability: crank authors are usually no more notable than the average unnotable college professor. This obtains here. Sdedeo (tips) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. I don't think the number of article is particularly relevant. Nor whether Juergens is considered a crank or not. Nor whether his ideas are respectable nor important. But he's notable because he has published, in several places, and that's verifiable. --Iantresman 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has long had the consensus that verifiability is not sufficient to establish notability. Do you disagree with the WP:PROF test? Sdedeo (tips) 16:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I think there's no such consensus. If Wikipedia were an academic/scientific encyclopedia or publication, then I would agree with you 100%. It isn't. Wikipedia's job is to described the world's corpus of knowledge. I recognise that there are people and subjects who in no way meet the calibre/notability of the academic/scientific world. Wikipedia has a wider remit than that.
 * It seems that WP:SCI and WP:PROF are actually TRYING to generate consensus that overrides the existing Wikipedia policy. NPOV Undue weight already tells us what is suitable to include, as does Jimbo himself.
 * That editors are trying to make Wikipedia exclusive, rather than inclusive, I thought went out with book burning.
 * As I have said elsewhere, there are dozens, if not hundreds of articles that I consider not notable; but I'm delighted that other think otherwise, and wouldn't waste my time trying to argue otherwise. --Iantresman 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ian - I'm not sure of what your agenda is here. You seem to be trying to make a case that anything should be included in Wikipedia unless it is highly obvious that it should not be in Wikipedia, and that anything that can be used to make a case against a topic is inherently detrimental to this encyclopedia.  Once again: "Wikiedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information".


 * Item: If this was 1905, Einstein's special relativity would not be permitted in Wikipedia. Is that inappropriate?  I actually think so.  Noone responded to Einstein's work for nearly a year.  Then the refutations and counter-refutations started to appear, along with some indications that it just might be true.  I can't say just when the notability of Einstein's theory was established, but by 1908 relativity had become a significant field of study.  So why do I think that it is OK that relatvity would not have been in Wikipedia from its start?  The reason is that most theories at their start look much the same, and it is not obvious which ones will amount to something.  However, the ones that are going to amount to something segregate themselves from the pack eventually, and often do so in their first few years.  So even though we may miss the next "big thing" in physics at first, we will still bring it in as soon as it has gained siginificant notice.  As best I can tell, that is exactly how this medium is intended to function, and I do not see how the current standards interfere with its functioning in that way. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1905 I would expect Wikipedia to explain Einstein's special relativity to me in layman's language. NPOV will demand that it is not written as if it were true, false, proven, disproven, or whatever. And if the only additioanl published paper from Dr Spock tells us he thinks Einstein's special relativity is brilliant, or pseudoscience, then we report that to, with the reasons why.
 * Likewise if Dr Kelloggs comes us with his new idea as it why eating cereal won't give you impure thoughts, then I can see no reason why Wikipedia can't say that to, with the appropriate sources. (Obviously a different fringe theory and article)
 * I would rather know, than not know, and would rather read it in Wikipedia, than a newspaper or the Enquirer. But it seems that editors think they're incapable of doing a better job. --Iantresman 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ian -- can you propose any criteria for inclusion? What is sufficient for you? Presumably you agree with WP:NOR, so there must be some kind of reference to a theory outside of wikipedia. How much? Is a geocities homepage sufficient? Sdedeo (tips) 18:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales says it best "'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule.". The example he gives is about a "crackpot" theory, for which a book is the source. So WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS (if it passes WP:RS, then WP:NOR is satisfied).
 * Would this be adequate for a science article? No. But why would we assess a crackpot theory with the standards of science, it's comparing chalk with cheese.
 * I still want to find out about the theory in Wikipedia, rather than the National Enquirer, or even the source of the theory.
 * As long as we attribute the theory to an individual, noting a single popular book as the source, also noting that there have been no critical reviews anywhere, then we cover WP:NPOV too. --Iantresman 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Iantresman wrote above:
 * I still want to find out about the theory in Wikipedia, rather than the National Enquirer, or even the source of the theory.
 * And how are we to deliver that information if the only sources on the theory in question are the creator's works and the National Enquirer? Personally, given a theory of that little interest my view is that the Enquirer can have it.  Wikipedia is not a research jounal.  Wikipedia is not a news service.  Wikipedia is not publisher of original thought.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  There are simply researchers and theories out there such that their mention in Wikipedia will automatically give them undue weight.  Such topics need not be bothered with.


 * If you want my standard for inclusion, it is defined by Halton Arp's support of steady state theory, including his claims that quasars are not the cores of distant active galaxies. Arp is a well known and well respected astronomer who back in the 1980s published a book describing his issues with Big Bang theory and what is interpreted as being its supporting evidence.  Arp was well enough known that the book sold quite well, and it elicited some debate both inside and outside of the scientific community for a while.  Even so, Arp's ideas did not gain favor in the end.  So Arp is definitely a "crank" in so far as theoretical physics is concerned, but he is a notable crank:  His name and work are known, and known to more than an "extemely limited minority".  Even though I 100% disagree with Arp's theorizing, I would vote a "strong keep" on his article if it even came up for deletion, as Arp obviously is notable.  All that I ask from other alternative theories and their creators is to themselves have had some similar notice, even if it is not a strong as Arp's has been. --EMS | Talk 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We deliver the information, even if the only sources on the theory in question are the creator's works and the National Enquirer, by reading it, and writing about it. It's basic comprehension. "Dr Spock says that Klingons exist". Attributed, verifiable, and neutral. How hard is that?
 * And I don't see why you should force your standards of exclusion on me. I'm not telling you which of "your" articles I think are notable, and consequently should be deleted. --Iantresman 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ian, I've asked you this and you didn't really give me an answer. Can you propose any criteria for inclusion/exclusion? What is sufficient for you? A geocities homepage? A hand-photocopied book left in a pile at the local Barnes and Noble? A vanity press book? Sdedeo (tips) 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I gave some suggestions above in the reply beginning "Jimbo Wales says it best... ".
 * WP:RS helps us assess Web sites and vanity press, which are poor sources by themselves, but may be adequate in some some circumstances. But I stand by the generality that notability is to do with the able to verify, not whether an article is importance, as is clear from WP:NOTABLE. --Iantresman 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be explicit and answer my question directly? It is not helpful to simply say you follow RS, which can be interpreted in a number of ways many of which are probably too strict for you. As far as I can tell, you are saying that a geocities homepage by itself may be sufficient to form the basis of an article "in some circumstances." Which ones? Sdedeo (tips) 16:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't say it any better that the introduction to WP:NOTABLE. A single Geocities home page would probably fail. But then I note that Ned Wright's self-published Web site has been used on several occasions as a source... would it fail if he published on Geocities?
 * WP:NOTABLE requires several sources in order to verify information, and to rule out a self-published individual. A self-published source will probably fail by itself, unless it generates additional press. --Iantresman 21:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose where we differ is in our judgement of where the threshold lies. It is probably best for us to wait for the next AfD (or whatever) to better focus the discussion. Sdedeo (tips) 02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Ian's agenda is getting the electric universe article back, and he is willing to use any excuse that he can find to regain it. Below he compares this concept to creationism, but that theory has strong religous and social support and is almost universally known.  OTOH the electric universe concept has what the NPOV standard calls "an extermely limited minority" which supports it, and is almost unknown outside of the realm of its followers.


 * I really do hope that this guideline does not keep worthy content out of Wikipedia, but I don't see the loss of the electric universe and evidence that this guideline has that flaw. --EMS | Talk 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Any excuse" doesn't sound very generous expression. My reasons for including the Electric Universe all conform to policy. I wish I could say the same of other editors, who have claimed for example, "crackpot" as a non-Wiki-Policy "reason" for excluding the Electric Universe, and a list of reasons given by ScienceApologist that are demonstrably incorrect, and subsequent reasons above that are also demonstrably incorrect.
 * The Electric Universe falls into "Significant" minority. I can name several adherents off the top of my head which I can verify too. And Undue weight tells us that "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."
 * The number of publications listed above demonstrates that the Electric Universe has notability. It may be not notable in "science", but it is notable nevertheless. --Iantresman 12:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I share the frustration of Sdedeo at this point. You keep making all kinds of grand claims, but when you look under the hood they never pan out.  Item:  You claim that the EU view is held by a "significant" minority based on your being able to name supporters, but WP:NPOV says that "it should be easy to name prominent adherents".  However, I would not call anyone who has been named as a supporter of this theory "prominent".  Indeed, I suspect that most astrophysicists would have extreme difficulty naming any adherent of this theory if they have even so much as heard of it!


 * I agree that Wikipedia should not have any explicit criteria for exclusion. However, the EU consistently fails to meet any of the criteria for inclusion.  I admit that you have shown that the EU concept is more that a single person's belief, but each of your arguments that it meets a criteria for inclusion requires some stretch of the relevant criteria to make the case.  I'm sorry but your liking it is not a valid basis for inclusion. --EMS | Talk 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Electric Universe was rightly deleted because it does not fulfill the standards outlined here. Those standards were developed by many editors of this page and are clearly outlined in this guideline. To wit, Electric Universe isn't textbook science, isn't widely cited in its reserach field, has not received institutional support, was never a conference topic, does not have prominent advocacy, has not received extensive press coverage, does not represent a significant popular belief, and is not of historical interest. There are eight possibilities listed here for the idea to attain notability, and EU doesn't do it. Of course, deletion review is always possible, but I don't see any evidence presented by Ian or anyone else that EU fulfills any of the standards on this page. The reason we are developing this page in the first place is because there was something of a fiat issued by certain members of the arbcomm to do this, in particular Fred Bauder, the founder of wikinfo. Interestingly enough, the electric universe could easily be included over there. --ScienceApologist 13:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Electric Universe was wrongly deleted because (a) This is a page of PROPOSED guidelines (b) The reasons you gave for deletion were demonstrable incorrect (c) A guide to scientific notability does not override notability in other areas.
 * And the Electric Universe has been the subject of conferences and talks, including SIS Silver Jubilee Conference, Public talk, Intersect 2001 and ICOPS 2006 --Iantresman 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "conferences" you list aren't really representative of anything other than family-reunion gatherings of Velikovskians (save the last one, which is about astrophysical plasmas and doesn't deal with EU at all), and "electric universe" isn't so much the topic as Velikovsky pseudoscience in all its forms. To make a case for the notability of EU under these guidelines, you would have to argue that as a part of "Velikovskian" culture, it was somehow a significant popular belief. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You really don't like the Electric Universe do you?
 * I'm not making a case for notability within these guidelines, and have no intention of doing so. You're making up your guidelines as you go along.
 * So if I can demonstrate that the ICOPS 2006 conference included a talk on the Electric Universe, then that would fine then? --Iantresman 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Demonstrating that Thornhill gave a talk at ICOPS 2006 does not make EU the subject of that conference. --ScienceApologist 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one said that the Electric Universe was the featured topic of conversation at the conference. --Iantresman 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so there goes that argument. --ScienceApologist 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that the EU has zero "presence" in the scientific community but for the occasional unremarked-on paper in a journal. So from my point-of-view, it would need to demonstrate some non-zero presence in a culture at large. As for ICOPS 2006, well -- in my previous conversations with Ian, I found he had a very fuzzy view of what counted as "a paper on X", and was unsurprised to find nothing in the ICOPS 2006 conference that had any mention of the "electric universe". Sdedeo (tips) 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must admit, that I don't recall such conversations. But as say again, if I can demonstrate that the ICOPS 2006 conference included a talk on the Electric Universe, then that would fine then? --Iantresman 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

for the last time we did this -- sorry that was Ionized, not you. As for ICOPS 2006, there is not only no occurence of the phrase "electric universe" in any of the abstracts, but there is no occurence of the phrase anywhere in the IEEE (not sure if that is only conferences or if it includes journals as well.) Sdedeo (tips) 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

evaluation & reporting
We seem to be summarizing our positions. Mine is that WP has an obligation to cover what is notable, not just what is scientifically notable. I voted for keeping the Electric Universe article, and would do so again. If an absurd hypothesis or impossible observations is covered in non-scientific news sources, we are obliged to deal with in in WP. If there are sufficiently detailed published refutations, there is no difficulty in writing a NPOV article. But if  nobody has published a refutation from a scientific point of view there is a problem in ensuring NPOV, for we cannot write a refutation ourselves in WP. As mentioned in the OR guidelines, the only solution open to us for for someone here with suitable credentials to write one and get in published in outside media. While that is lacking, all we can do is to hope that an objective presentation witll seem sufficiently absurd to a outside reader. We can, of course, comment that no mainstream science publication has discussed the matter, which would help most  readers. A related problem is when the prestige of the author or the negligence of the referees has been sufficient to permit a paper or several papers to be published in standard scientific journals. All we can do here is to report-honestly-whether it has been cited favorably. We can not compensate ourselves for the lack of standards elsewhere.

But it has been suggested that WP does have such an obligation, that since we are rightly or wrongly being used as a criterion of respectability, we have the duty to include only what is a least respectable. The intent of the criterion of OR was to protect us against this by ensuring that we would just be doing objective reporting, rather than by producing evaluative research that could be cited. But many in the outside world do not have our standards for reliable sources, and will cite whatever they see, and there is no way we can change this except perhaps by example.

There's a more basic consideration. There is no bright line between objective reporting and evaluative summarizing, and if the OR policy thinks there is, it is being naive and unrealistic. The NPOV requirement for proportional coverage itself implies evaluation. The decision as to what we call a mainstream source is evaluation- the Nature and Science news sections, while reliable, are not peer-reviewed, while there are good number of journals proclaiming peer review which will print anything that looks like science. The decision of how long an article to write is evaluation, and will be affected by the presence here of someone who is prepared to write lengthy content and defend it. The decision of whether to include long quotes is evaluation. The decise to include self-contradictory quotes is evaluation.

We are taking ourselves too seriously. We are writing an encyclopedia, not THE encyclopedia. We are trying to position  ourselves as a quaity filter on the Web, but we can only do this in a very weak way. It will be interesting to see what Citizendium does with some of the topics discussed here. One of their first approved articles is "Chiropractic", but I think it has not been released yet. DGG 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing in the guidelines that demands the topic be "respectable." Sorry to be blunt, but your objections are really missing the point of these guidelines. Sdedeo (tips) 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the point is missed, but I do agree with spirit of these remarks: Scientific acceptability cannot be the only criteria for acceptability into Wikipedia as a science related article.  However, I believe that this guideline provides adequately for that.  I also fail to see how a topic that gains popular notice will lack a response for the scientific establishement. but I do agree that if such a response is lacking then all that we can report is that lack if the topic has become notable.


 * As for the example of the "electric universe": I really feel that the burden of proof must be on the topic to demonstrate notability. I don't see this as being a high bar, and can be easily reached by a set of established editors who say "wait a minute.  I have heard of this before".  As best I can tell, in the past the proponents of the electric universe were able to create the impression of a following.  Once that was shown to be untrue, that article did not have much of a leg to stand on.  However, if it should be shown in the future that the electric universe concept has a following that is more than miniscule in size, then I will reconsider my position on it. --EMS | Talk 04:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Electric Universe idea has been around for at least a decade. I am aware of articles and information published in the following:
 * Journals/Magazines: Aeon Journal, SIS Internet Digest, SIS C&C Review
 * Featured on Web sites such Electric Universe (Holoscience), Thunderbolts, Plasma Cosmology.net, Kronia, maverick science.com
 * Books including: The Electric Sky, Thunderbolts of the Gods, and the forthcoming Electric Universe.
 * CD-Roms "Electric Universe", and Thunderbolts
 * Ralph Juergens' Electric Sun (cornerstone of the Electric Universe) has been mentioned in articles and books published in Pensée magazine, Alfred de Grazia's books Solaria Binaria, The Lately Tortured Earth, The Burning of Troy, Chaos and Creation. Hugh Crosthwaite's A Fire not Blown
 * Conferences and public talks: SIS Silver Jubilee Conference, Public talk, Intersect 2001
 * I don't know how high your bar is, but I think this exceeds it. --Iantresman 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is alot more of a case than I ever saw on the AfD page. I'm not too sure what to make of it yet since all of the references are "crankish" in one way or another.  Simply put, they do not show any scientific notability for the theory at all.  They also do not impress me as publications that would but the topic of the electric universe on the "map" culturally either.  Obviosuly the electric universe remains excluded under the current proposed guidelines even with these references.
 * OTOH, these references do establish that a following exists for this theory, but of what size and dedication I cannot say. My feeling on this is to let this be a data point with regards to the issue of where to draw the line.  Let's just say that if the electric universe is endorsed by creationism, then it is rendered encyclopedic by that fact.  Otherwise I see a lot of smoke, but no notability. --EMS | Talk 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The important point is whether it shows notability, not just scientific notability.
 * Creationists have little to do with the Electric Universe, though I'm sure they are aware of it.
 * I wonder why you never saw this on the AfD page, I certainly mentioned some of this. --Iantresman 11:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any of those resources make the idea notable since they're all self-published or in non-notable sources. What we would have needed to keep EU as an article was evidence of a wider cultural impact, evidence that just doesn't seem to exist. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "facts" in your reasons for the AfD were wrong, you were wrong to remove my comments from the AfD page, and you are wrong again now. It takes very little to check your facts.
 * Self-published sources are described at WP:RS "Self-published sources". Aeon journal, SIS C&C Review, Pensée, all have editors and an editorial staff. You can check this inside each journal concerned. The only self-published Web site is Wal Thornhill's own Electric Universe (Holoscience), but I note that you have no problem in using self-published Creationist and Geocentrist Web sites as a source, when it suits you,, and WP:RS does not automatically exclude such material
 * I can't find anything on Wikipedia that describes "non-notable sources", but it sounds like a oxymoron to me; All of these sources published material on the Electric Universe and Electric Sun because they were considered notable.
 * However, I still accept that you personally don't believe any of this to be notable, it's a shame that sources demonstrate otherwise. --Iantresman 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, scientific acceptability is not the only criteria for inclusion, and nobody has suggested that it become so. Sdedeo (tips) 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I said was that "since we are rightly or wrongly being used as a criterion of respectability, we have the duty to include only what is a least respectable." I intended that as an informal way of thinking, certainly not a standard, and the level of what I would call respectable is actually rather low: I voted to keep Electric universe  and would probably do so again. I've been voting to delete the follow up articles on its few advocates mainly for consistency with the decision in EU. DGG 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. There is nothing in the guidelines that precludes the "unrespectable", and I don't understand why someone misunderstanding this should lead us to change! But maybe you are a bit like Humpty Dumpty and use words differently. I find the connotations of the word are sufficiently problematic that we avoid them in the actual guidelines. Sdedeo (tips) 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm coming to the conclusion that what we are up against is a fear on the part of Ian ad DGG that something which is deserving of inclusion in Wikiepdia could somehow be excluded by it. My sense is becoming more and more that if and when we get hit in the face with it, we can adjust this document accordingly.  I think that it may be time to consider what we need to do to finalize this document and submit it for approval.  --EMS | Talk 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would start with moving the "Charter" to the top of this talk page, in a nice brownish box, for editors who want to contribute to the guideline. For editors who only look for touchpoints for a science-related debate it's useless and TLDR. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then for goodness sake please go ahead and do something about it. It says what I want it to say, and I have done the best I can with it on my own.  That is not to say that is may not be better off reworded, moved, or even removed.  Just be warned that something along this lines is needed for the guideline's own self-defense.  So I would advise that some reflection of the spirit of the Charter be left in the project page itself. --EMS | Talk 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that slimming things down a little is a good way to go. "Submitting for approval" -- does such a thing exist? Per previous discussions, I had figured that it was more a matter of waiting and invoking. Sdedeo (tips) 20:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 4

 * Note 4: It is entirely inappropriate to say that any argument can deprive a topic of notability unless it explicitly refutes a claim that one of the general criteria are met. The irrelevant arguments offer no such refutation. Instead they simply fail to make an otherwise non-notable topic notable.

Can anyone translate this into normal English? ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold. Sdedeo (tips) 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What that means is, while the arguments do not confer notability; they should not be used to demonstrate non-notability. Notability in Wikipedia is a closed world property, if I may abuse a concept from logic.  Topics are presumed to not be notable, unless demonstrated otherwise.  The various notability criteria, both general and specific, provide numerous means for notability to be established.  Topics which meet any of the criteria are considered notable.  However, there are no explicit criteria which state "if X, then topic T is not notable".  In the case of the listed arguments, they are declared to have no effect on a topic's notability--in other words, the arguments are deemed irrelevant.  If a topic meets notability criteria by other means, then the topic is notable, regardless of the presence of the listed arguments.
 * Did that clear things up or make it worse? :)--EngineerScotty 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say neither, just longer. This is also not something that is unique to WP:SCI, but should and probably is covered under WP:N. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)