Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (science)

1233:

between mainstream and fringe proposals, the proposals themselves are only considered "theories" when they pass the tests of the scientific method. What makes a proposal fringe is, ostensibly, its inability to pass these tests. This doesn't mean that scientists don't make mistakes in pejoratively labeling the fringe out of the mainstream, only to say that the level of acceptance is something of a binary operator: either it's in or it's out. When an idea does not generate enough interest in the scientific community to create commentary from members of the community, it must either be uncontroversial (as is the case with textbook knowledge) or it must be outside the scientific community. This is quite easy to verify. No amount of posturing and insisting on the part of a fringe idea's proponents that the idea is actually "scientific" is good enough when demarcating for our purposes. We might still have articles on the idea if there is "extra-scientific" interest in it, but we do not need to shy away from being honest about its "extra-scientific" nature. One of the problems that many pro-fringe editors have is that they believe that because

2535:

gives a bad impression of wikipedia), but it seems to be mainly based on the idea that this one insect scientist guy wrote some goofy comments for an insect sting pain index one day. Ok, I agree that insect scientists are allowed to have senses of humour (WITHIN LIMITS, for the sake of us all), but I am concerned that 1) this scale is not really widespread and may be just one scale promoted by one guy without much acceptance in the insect expert community. 2) the pdf article linked which this wikipedia entry seems to be based on does not seem to say that Schmidt actually wrote those goofy comments. Its a bit ambiguous, but its seems to say that "the media" (without specifying what media) came up with the goofy comments to append to Schmidt's original dry scale(I think this may be another case where people exaggerate or misinterpret what an article is saying). I dont have any access to science journal databases, and am certainly no science or insect expert. But these concerns and quick scans of google books and google scholar led me to bring this issue to wiser heads. Thanks very much for checking this out.

2052:

Knowledge (XXG) for verifiability reasons, but it still raises NPOV concerns when certain editors try to force obscure research into the forefront of an article. You are mistaking a standard of verifiability (which is the standard for how to write an article) with editorial judgement: they need not be one-in-the-same. In other words, one need not "verify" that there is NPOV issues because, as editors, our editorial opinions do not need to be (nor can they be) verified. The only thing that needs to be verifiable is the text of the article. We are allowed to have judgements that are external to this. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to say that there are NPOV problems with someone citing a single, isolated, though published research paper. In terms of your dark matter red herring, you have totally misconstrued the situation, and I'm fairly confident that nearly any third party not firmly ensconced in pathological skepticism toward mainstream astrophysics would find your evaluation predictably myopic. Clowe's triumphalist attitude is only justified from the standpoint of

2960:"Although publication creates verifiability and reputable journals are reliable sources, publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability. Unpublished research fails no original research and often lacks verifiability, so it is unacceptable by policy. Research published in a reputable publication passes these thresholds but reflects the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, focusing on such research in a Knowledge (XXG) article does not adequately conform to Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on neutrality, in particular the section on undue weight. This guideline clarifies how the Knowledge (XXG) community has applied NPOV to articles on scientific topics. It does however not apply to the inclusion of scientific research as authorative sources within articles. The criterion for such sources is not that they are notable, but that they are reliable." 714:

concerns regarding the history we have surrounding issues such as this. I disagree that the discussions are centering around how things "should" be. Rather I see discussions centering around generalizing from the experience that editors have. You also seem to be under the opinion that just because people reference older and more established policies and guidelines they aren't also considering this guideline. This I find to be particularly problematic because it ignores the words of people that aren't appended with a WP-acronym. Just because somebody doesn't cite this directly doesn't mean that you can't see the criteria being applied (as per our earlier discussion on EU deletion). I would hope that you would look more closely at the deletion discussions surrounding this and see if you can't spot the criteria in action. I am not going to advertise the debate anywhere, but you are free to do so. --

594:"? That's a bit of WikiLawyering I haven't come across before. The fact is that #5 has direct parallels to our criteria here. You can thrust your head in the sand over this all you want, but that's the plain truth of the matter. And now you reposition your attack to claim that there isn't "broad community support", but let me remind you that arbcomm members entreatied the community to develop these standards in the first place and that by virtue of this being a Wiki it will end up as balanced and sensible as possible. I'm beginning to think you are being a stick-in-the-mud for reasons you aren't coming clean about. Help me out, explain to me why you always seem to be fighting against scientific accuracy at Knowledge (XXG) so I can 4163:

similar), or covers the subject in sufficient depth. These are all straight WP:N issues, deriving directly from a combination of WP:NOR and WP:V. There is plenty of evidence of spirited debate in places about the science of the content involved, and this sometimes is uncivil, but such spirited debate seems to me to be irrelevant to the debates, and always a symptom of editors who are too far into OR editing and are not looking at the subject objectively. This is why Notability (science) may do more harm than good. It suggests that there is something special about science. The criteria for inclusion in wikipedia do not depend upon the science. Its about the existence of sources, and what those sources say. --

649:

guideline edit a lot of science-related articles and so should be the ones to tell whether or not this guideline applies. I don't see that you are actively doing this as such. I do see you stepping into disputes regarding science-related articles often, and there are many times I see these actions as being in something of a contravention of the guidelines outlined here. I am being very up-front about my distrust of your motivations, but in so doing I'm also trying to assume good-faith as much as I can. Part of assuming good-faith is being transparent about one's perceptions and I'm offering you the opportunity to explain yourself as transparently as possible so we can move on. I don't like being lectured about

2769:

around the edge of these criteria (no one ever talked about whether the EU concept was "textbook science" or had institutional support)... and as for extended discussions with Iantresman... I don't think the criteria will make one bit of difference, and that's not a very good reason anyway. Long-winded debate... I don't think we should seek to avoid it as a general principle, debate is a good thing. Criteria would simplify the job but scientific topics aren't exactly overwhelming the AfD lists. Anyway, as I said before, criteria would do better at simplifying the job if they were negative criteria instead of positive ones.

374:

working on this guideline and used its insights in writing the nom. Beyond that, there is the basic issue of moving beyond "peer review" as a standard for inclusion, a test passed by numerous non-notable articles that I have seen. Also, I at least have gone to some pains to couch this as a setting standard for inclusions instead of exclusion. That way, an argument that "X calls for inclusion" renders this guideline moot as a refutation, and so avoids the types of conflicts that in our laws make being a lawyer such a profitable profession. --

2279:

critical of physics that he physicists who review for PRL? Then, if discussed by independent sources, as most scientific papers are, it is considered worth citing and commenting one. Reputable journals expect items listed as references to be relevant to the new work also. I'm a librarian. i think many articles in most library journals are basically trivial if not junk altogether.. But they are considered valuable by my colleagues in general, and its their trms that matter. I will judge by reporting theirs', not imposing my own.

3927:(a) Notability, (b) reliability of a source, and (b) reliable of the facts in that source, are all quite different, and tell us how to describe information, not whether to include it. If Arp publishes some information in an obscure overseas publications, and Stephen Hawkins in in Nature, Arp's supporters will find his article more notable, and no less reliable. And if Hawkins is described in a textbook, then it tells us that his ideas have a wider readership, and neither are as popular as today's astrology column. 3455:"A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." 1001:", I have seem enough -uh- "stuff" offered by others such that I see a need to draw a firm and reasonable as to what is and is not acceptable here. Until it has some reasonable amount of recognition in the scientific community, I see an article on my ideas as being an abuse of Knowledge (XXG). Yet I am unusual in that most other editors of Knowledge (XXG) with alternate ideas are here to promote those ideas, and they hate guidelines like this one with a purple passion because they help to keep their OR out. 3884:

article is acceptable under this criteria and everyone agrees, then these criteria have done a service in helping people to make that decision. Similarly, if people listen to the creator's case and conclude that it does not hold water, then the criteria will also have helped by focussing the debate on the relevant issues and helping to bring about the deletion. So as I see it these criteria overall are helpful. Besides, it really is in the absense of clear guidelines that you get the nastiest debates. --

493:, so it's not unreasonable to expect evidence to be actually gathered by someone trying to make a case. But more, I went to a few of those "what links here" and apparently the only reason they were linked was that trialsanderrors mentioned that the debate was a test case: not people actually referring to the guideline and trying to use it. Look at the Electric Universe AfD, for instance, which is the best example I've seen of a borderline-notable scientific theory (where this guideline might help). 388:

the whole process. I support the concept of "encyclopedic suitability", which we call notablility at WP, for lack of a better name. I also consider myself a moderate inclusionist. I am a frequent participant in Afd. You are correct in one respect, that I origninally became involved in AfD and notability, because I saw too many abuses by uninformed editors who were deleting meanigful articles, though not specifically in the field of science. My interest is in history and sailing. --

1419:). 2. The list of criteria, a core part of this proposal, were not used as the basis of successful arguments in any of the key examples I listed. Rather, the test seems to be the general one of being covered in multiple independent sources, inside or outside of the scientific community. Note that the criteria give an opportunity to supporters of OR articles (real OR, not neutral attempts at describing published research) to argue for inclusion inappropriately: see 2056:. It's not like he was publishing his "proof" of dark matter in a vacuum -- it was a particular point that was addressed to a particular (MOND-type) objection. However, when your hypothetical John Doe bucks the established research by publishing proof against dark matter, he is publishing in a vacuum. Prof. John Doe's work is marginal and therefore marginalized by Knowledge (XXG). Clowe's work is mainstream and therefore reported by Knowledge (XXG). -- 172: 459:

referred to, and evaluation of the articles in question isn't done with these guidelines in mind, rather, articles are mainly evaluated from a point of view of adequate sourcing and original research issues, in other words, policies we already have. (I do think the editors here have reached a reasonably stable consensus, though. But that doesn't, to me, make a "consensus guideline," which implies support from the community overall.)

965:

rules create confusion rather than clarity. Complex rule-sets require incredible cross coordination among the permutations, which is not happening here at WP, as guidelines are multiplying like rabbits without consideration of the big picture. If you propose an RfC, please do so in the best interest of WP, not "against" me; this is not personal and reviewing the discussions will reveal that my actions are well supported. --

33: 89: 64: 4410:(myself) exists, yet any attempt to create an article on myself will be promptly removed due to lack of notability, and without any disapproval from Jimbo. At the least, it seems to me that Jimbo's attitude of 2003 on this issue (when he may have been looking to grow Knowledge (XXG)) is not necessarily applicable to 2007 with Knowledge (XXG) now having almost 2,000,000 articles in English! 978:. However, might I suggest that you are going about it the wrong way. We are here writing this guideline because we need to summarize what has been done in regards to this issue. Your own personal distaste for the way in which editors have gone about doing this is probably best argued elsewhere: it certainly has nothing to do with whether consensus exists for this particular guideline. -- 135: 75: 2174:

That's the essence of the NPOV guideline: all the points-of-view are placed on the table and the marginalization happens per the outside community and references to the outside world. No one is saying that a singular POV cannot be described, but people are saying that singular POVs present unique difficulties when writing an encyclopedia that is supposed to be NPOV. --

1008:, there is a level of subjectiveness in determining notability. The need for these subsidary guidelines is to limit that subjectiveness, and thereby make this concept more usable. Instead you are trying to pull the rug out from under Notability, something that will make the removal of questionable material much more difficult than it should be. -- 622:

hard difference to understand if you had been assuming good faith of me in the first place. For the record, I support some of what the proposal says but not all of it, but that wasn't the basis for my objections: calling the proposal a "consensus guideline" is wrong, because this is still a very new proposal, barely even stable enough to judge.

4043:"Why else do we have a 1000 articles on 1000 pieces of space rock?" ← Space rocks have no ego, so they rarely write articles about themselves. Knowledge (XXG) is an attention-driven encyclopedia, and that might be its biggest advantage over its rivals. But as soon as it becomes an attention-seeker-driven encyclopedia, we have a problem. ~ 2564:

appear to be taken seriously by scientists. A scientifically-based pain index would be interesting (though I decline any offers to participate in such research); both this and the related Starr index appear to be little more than the opinions of the bug guys in question. The article certainly dances on the edge of notability. --

3848:. Said contributions come from almost unknown overseas journals and in another case a blatantly anti-relativity publisher.) I would still keep the remaining criteria as a way of saying that those things are the primary hallmarks of scientific notability, while noting that other options for notability are not prohibited. -- 2809:

sense to add text following the template for fine tuning, or help us to make the template more applicable if it is not reflecting the consensus for notability. I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, but I'm very happy to see the compromises that make this a fairly representive of the attitude of the project. --

2066:

in editorial discussions. Inherently, experts on Knowledge (XXG) are not set above ordinary editors, but they may be more familiar with the subject in question. But experts have to prove themselves, just like anyone else. Fundamentally, Knowledge (XXG) is a community of equal editors. So, this is a good argument

4093:

or is borderline, a further test should be simply whether others have written about it. WP:N provides this test. A lot of work has been invested in this project page, but that is not sufficient reason to adopt it. It is rule creep, and it does damage by obfuscating more important policies and guidelines.

1424:

articles that should be deleted, not meeting the criteria doesn't make a strong argument. For articles that should be kept, they're okay, but arguments to delete things that meet these criteria are weak delete arguments in the first place, usually along the lines of "this article is in bad shape", see

4483:

We're getting off topic. First off, Jimbo's comment isn't really on point, because he was discussing general inclusion criteria, not specifically those for scientific topics. Second, in any case, the criteria here are pretty much what Jimbo was proposing anyway: ability to write verifiable and NPOV

4180:

I agree with T&E that NOR/V/N do not bring clarity to these debates. But it is probably too much to hope for that future debates on issues like these, which are complex and which involve passionate people, are ever going to be truly clear with the right set of rules. The best we can hope for is

3862:

I believe that's better, but I still think we should remove the criteria. The problem is, people always seem to conflate a notability guideline and its criteria, while all other text is ignored. By not having criteria, we would force people to read the discussion about the reliability of scientific

3498:

I have reverted the article to the form of lat March, with some twaking of the lead and the first section. The revised first section now has a simple first paragraph that states the need to this policy as succinctly as I can. The next two paragraphs have had their order exchanged so that the farily

2884:

I may be beating a dead horse here, but all the references to NPOV, proponents and advocacy make it seem like this is about pseudoscience/fringe science, and the discussion above seems to confirm it. As it tries to apply to specialised but uncontroversial science, not much of it bears any resemblance

1036:

The real dispute , I think, is over the notability of fringe science and whether that can be considered science in any sense at all. This is a matter in which I think there is in fact no real consensus, but at best a temporary majority, and i expect this question to continue to be the theme of AfDs.

896:

Yes, this appears to be a consensus guideline. The opposition to this guideline proposal may be part of a campaign in which User:Kevin Murray in the past month has placed "rejected" , "disputed" , or "historical" , or "essay" labels on about a dozen notability proposals or guidelines or has nominated

387:

My agenda is not as you assert, but your question is a fair one, which I will answer. My agenda is clarity in the grand scheme of notability guidelines, without a specific prejudice to this proposal. Please visit the discussion page for WP:N to see that there are many people expressing concerns over

373:

Right now I am wondering what your agenda is here, as this type of opposition usually comes from someone who has lost an AfD in part due to this and the guidelines and is seeking to water down the standards. One of the factors that helped with the electric universe AfD was the the nominator was also

3883:

The criteria don't exist for the benefit of those that would abuse them but instead for the benefit of those that are looking for good guidance on what is acceptable. The creator of an article will invariably try to defend it against an AfD. IMO, if the article's creator can make a case that their

3802:

As for the other criteria: you agree on 3 and 4. 6 is totally pointless, because none of the criteria would expire once met. 7 obviously must require sourcing to back it up or it's totally vacuous and anyone could claim it about anything. And anything discussed in a legitimate textbook is already

3663:

like "textbook science" or "popular belief" that are redundant and provide loopholes for argumentative POV pushers. Can you hypothesize an example where a topic is "textbook science" or has a "prominent advocate" or has "institutional support" where the topic would be acceptable for Knowledge (XXG)

3109:

Finally, may I invite you to consider that most notability guidelines are much less complex and much more tolerant of letting individual cases be decided as individual cases? And I hope that the question about "Have we reached consensus?" is asking if you as the editors have reached consensus about

3082:

Thus, you allow extreme subjectivity creep, unless you are going to make further instruction creep in what constitutes scientific quality. (My Jung is better than your Freud. My Hawking beats your Einstein. My t test is better than your bean counting.) Common sense might be able to dictate that,

3046:

This may be taken from WProj numbers, I don't know. But are you stipulating that 2 and 3 are reliable sources? (The Sources section has exactly this same problem. You're controlling what is considered a Reliable Source without allowing the Knowledge (XXG) community at large to define that. I have

2563:

I've often wondered whether or not this belongs here (not enough to send to AfD though). The index exists, and the silly language is taken directly from the source; it isn't some Knowledge (XXG) editor having a good time. The index also has been mentioned in popular science pubs; though it doesn't

2278:

The POV of a single researcher in a single first-rate peer-reviewed publication, has normally been assessed by 2 or usually 3 independent scientists with a tendency to be ciritical. The assumption made by colleagues it that such results are correct unless proven otherwise. Are we supposed to be more

2265:

You'll note that the point being made is that simply quoting published work is not good enough. Why isn't it good enough? Because unless the work in question has generated discussion it has not been vetted outside of Knowledge (XXG) to make it possible to write an article on the subject that adheres

2065:

SA is quite right about verifiability vs. editorial judgement. However, I have to say I worry when editorial judgement of this type comes into dispute. Knowledge (XXG) needs sources for two reasons: one is to have attributions in the articles, but another reason is that it levels the playing field

1402:

Kevin is not the only dissenter, I also am. Let me enumerate some general criticisms, this time relating to the substance of the proposal. 1. There is not a big need for this. Most science articles up for deletion are up for other concerns than notability, primarily, concerns that the article is

1359:

Looking at it from a different (and somewhat more formal) angle, in the opinion of the ArbCom, an admin can close and evaluate a discussion such as this, and draw and implement the conclusion. If we use that approach, then I have done so. However, I must point out that (to the best of my knowledge)

1355:

We don't do "formal" and "official" with respect to guidelines. What matters is if this is (1) a good idea and (2) used as such in practice. AFD is a consensus-building process, so if this page matches what happens on AFD then it matches consensus. Judged by this talk page and AFD, the answer to all

1232:

The "level of acceptance" argument makes no sense to me. "Theory" in science has a very precise meaning which applies to models and descriptions which are as completely accepted as possible in an endeavor based primarily on the dubious activity of inductive reasoning. While there is a big difference

1048:

This guideline cannot and should not judge whether something is "real science". In fact, all that a determination that something is "not science" can do here is to remove a topic from being judged by this criteria with no resolution on its notability or lack thereof. IMO, we have a set of criteria

1028:

is whether the guidelines here will be accepted in practice. Both the above positions are to some degree correct: the guideline should reflect what its eds. believe to be the common feeling of the community, but it shouldalso point in the direction of where the consensus appears to be moving, and to

964:

No EMS, this editor, has a "grudge" against needless and redundant rule making for the sake of rule making. I strongly support the concept of encyclopedic suitability which we call "notability" at WP. This is not "ridiculous" but based on observations from life experience, that too many conficting

626:

remained a proposal for a very long time, and finally became a guideline when it became apparent that the guideline had influenced the way decisions were being made, and that the community, de facto, embraced the guideline. Creation of policies and guidelines is slow and for good reason, especially

458:

No, it's not. I think the burden of some evidence that this guideline is widely supported and necessary needs to be shown from the supporters. Right now it's an initiative, a proposal with stable wording. However, even in the "test cases" that I looked at, it seems that this guideline isn't being

363:

On review of the Electric universe (concept) AfD, it appears to be resoundingly rejected with the tools we already have, most convincingly original research and few reliable sources. This outcome is consistent with other scientific and academic issues which I have seen defeated at AfD. An excellent

4092:

Are there any controversial articles that are better treated by Notability (science) than by WP:NOR, WPV, and WP:N? I think not. I think there are too many guidelines, especially where they overlap. True science should only need to satisfy WP:NOR and WP:V. Where the subject is not true science,

3695:

I am not sure whether I agree with you or not. I certainly think that there are science articles that are best referenced by standard textbooks, particularly for articles that are at the level of high school or early university science. For example, we probably do not want to source a peer reviewed

3662:

You might note that my reduction to two criteria stood for over two months without comment. You may also note that coverage by press and by scientific sources were the criteria I left in place, since those are the only part of the criteria that are useful. What I object to are the other criteria,

3635:

as a place where this guideline did not work. For that I solidly disagree. That article's creator had to play all kinds of games with these criteria to make a case for keeping the article. In the end, his attempts to make the article look acceptable only helped to do it in. In context this is a

3522:

tag just commented out but still present. I for one would be happy to see this version go back to "proposed" status, but I want to see if others are on-board for doing that. Let's just say that after having taken a rest, I am ready and willing to work towards acceptance of a functional version of

3435:

of this guideline/proposed guideline/essay, very much in keeping with the rather low number of science-related AfD discussions. Absence of discussion on the talk page certainly doesn't establish rejection. I agree with EMS that the two-item version is watered down beyond recognition of the original

2991:

Aside from that, I know I read somewhere that Knowledge (XXG) is not just a general encyclopedia, but can cover articles appropriate to special subject encyclopedias as well. Thus 2. might well fail, as most specialist encyclopedias I am aware of have many articles which would only be known inside

2899:

Note that I came here from a couple of AfDs which were trying to present this as policy criteria for an article's deleltion. As I read down the line, I encountered several problems with the proposed guideline. I apologize if any and all of the below have been covered in the Talk Archives, which I

2695:

I think that 1 & 2 are just redundant restatment of what is already clear at WP:N; anything which would pass those tests would pass under the general criterion -- why confuse the issuse? 4,5,6, & 7 discuss either the history of science or present fasle science. Legitimate history (science

2534:

Can some of you knowledgable and discerning scientist Wikipedians take a look at this please? This article has currently been getting some coverage in popular "gee whiz funny link of the day... how goofy!" type blogs ( I hate it when this happens and the article in question is dubious... I think it

2476:

I do not agree with the demand that not only must something be said in a respected peer reviewed journal, but that we must wait for other independent researchers to chime in, in OTHER respected peer reviewed journals, and agree with the first researcher that the claim is valid. The first post would

2321:

If your point is that someone can attribute a single point of view in a fashion that is NPOV, that is absolutely correct. However, not every attributable point can be written about in a neutral fashion. An example of a quote that may be non-neutral though properly attributed and sourced is given at

2051:

What you fail to realize is that there is an informal community discussion as well as a formal publication discussion. Those who are in a particular community are aware of the informal discussion and are able to tell when a topic is ignored/scoffed or when it is accepted. This cannot be reported at

1300:

I notice that Kevin Murray has downgraded this guideline back to the "proposed" status. I would revert that myself, except that I am not at all clear by what action/authority it became considered a functioning guideline. Certainly the above poll has produced only five people who support this as a

857:

The problem lies less with any individual sub-guideline, but more with a plethora of permutations leading to confusion. As sub categories go this may be among the better candidates, but there shoould be efforts at coordination among the various efforts. Collectively, many well intentioned efforts

643:

I appreciate your candor regarding your opinions of the content of this guideline because that is precisely what concerns me. However, I do feel that you are being a bit oblique in your commentary. "Policy creation is slow," is often the cry of those who want to slow things down, and people tend to

621:

and actually take it to heart. In our current discussion, you seem to have trouble differentiating between (1) my personal support or opposition of the proposal and (2) my arguing that the proposal isn't a "consensus guideline", that is, that it doesn't have broad support. This wouldn't be a very

353:

EMS, could your purpose be acheived with an essay? Among the problems with permutations from guidelines and policies is the evolution into redundant and conficting guidance to the point that writers and evaluators become confused and the branches work at cross purposes. My frequent analogy is the

339:

You are correct that in the end articles that are removed will be so removed (or not) due to policy concerns. The need for this guideline comes from its ability to focus the debate on the issues that are important in the relevant cases. In other words, it helps to achieve the "proper application"

323:

I don't see where the proposed criteria add meaningful advice to writters or evaluators, and the preamble/text is way too long to be practical. Please cite some examples of AfD where this proposal would have ensured an outcome other than what would have been achieved under the current guidelines.

4207:

Agree. If we really want to help outside editors get up to speed, we should take a pretty hands-off approach, where we present the difficulties concisely and clearly, and let people make their own judgements - for complex situations, we really can't do better than that anyway... and with a short,

3113:

It may seem like I'm pissing all over your proposal. I hope it doesn't, because I'd like to see a Notability(Science) guideline. But I want it to be one that's usable and used - I wouldn't do either with this, and I'd argue as need be when someone tries to use this as a vote justification (which

2204:

If there is only one notable POV, then sure, we write about it. In which case the statement in the third paragraph is correct. A view from a single research written about on Knowledge (XXG) does have editorial issues related to NPOV for the reasons delineated because the alternatives may exist but

1591:

I'm not sure what your point is. If an article is scientifically notable, fine, it's keepable. If an article is not notable scientifically, but notable in some other way (for example, in popular culture), fine, it's keepable. But if the article is not notable in any way at all, why should it be

1533:

This is a true red herring IMO. A failure of scientific notability does not mean that an article may have notability in another manner and therefore be worthy of inclusion. I did have wording here to that effect at one time, but it seems to have been lost. I will see to restoring that, as I see

1199:

One point that isn't being made (in the intro) and probably should be is the point that scientific theories cannot be properly presented without understanding their level of acceptance. There's a big difference between a mainstream theory and a fringe theory, and even in an article about a fringe

4197:

Science related deletion debates are often driven by strong proponents and opponents, both camps usally with prior knowledge of the topic. What we need for a fair decision is the judgement of previously uninvolved editors, who have to make sense of the contrarian arguments by the warring parties.

4114:

There's a simple drawback to your proposal, and that's if we abandon this complication the complications arise, over and over again, at deletion discussions. And if you think NOR/V/N do the job of bringing clarity to science-related deletion discussions you can't possibly have partaken in many of

2808:

Since the general notability guideline is central to most sub-pages, someone came up with the idea of creating a centralized template which will be consistent among the permutations from WP:N. Please see whether we can make this work here. The text is meant to be fairly generic, but it may make

2768:

Good: a direct response. Two brief points: (1) Arbcom never asked for criteria, but they did encourage developing a guideline, which is different. (2) The EU deletion debate looks very different to me - there, the argument was done from first principles and it worked very nicely, and it skirted

2168:

NPOV is inherently based in editorial judgement. The only way that someone determines whether there is a problem with NPOV is by making an editorial judgement. That's why the {{POV}} tag comes with the wording it does. Disputes arise between editors over NPOV: if there was a singular editor there

1658:

So what? I see this as something that can and should happen. If no other grounds are being offerred to justify notability, then the article should go. I would point out that the deleted items cited as being "non-mainstream" are also considered "non-notable", while other items have been kept as

1241:

that reasonable editors can't make editorial judgments with regards to the status of a particular idea. This is simply not the case at all: we are editing an encyclopedia not compiling a list of sources. After all, that's why we have editors in the first place: we are charged with summarizing the

874:

discussion and I get the feeling that you are doing your best to create uncertainty and confusion there. And now you are trying to do the same here. I for one have no need for it, and support this guideline as a reflection of the legitimate sense of the science editors here as to what is valid.

4457:

And in a discussion titled "Notability/Historical/Fame and importance", Jimbo wrote: "- 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit

2919:

Pretty sweeping blanket statement, to me. No other Notability criteria I'm aware of suggests that "if it passes this, it's in." Indeed, it seems to violate the principle of a Guideline to me, which always limits itself to allow potential exceptions. Further, each section usually defines which

2481:

and would be usable in a Knowledge (XXG) article. Similarly a book from a respected publisher would constitute a reliable source, without waiting for some other authority to write another book that says "I agree with the first book." The demand places the bar way too high. It may be years before

2173:

for example), the community doesn't deny the existence of experts either. No one is saying that the encyclopedia should be "run" on expert judgement or the whispers of whatever anonymous and unaccountable ethnic group, but people are saying that editors may come to the table with these concerns.

1003:

BTW - I do see where you have had some success with you anti-Notability campaign. Personally I think that you are doing Knowledge (XXG) a real disservice with it, and what you are stifling is not a bunch useless rule-making but instead needed elaborations on the meaning of Notability in various

523:

The criteria part played a huge role. The only criteria that EU could have come close to satisfying was recognition in popular culture/outside media and we showed that it was not notable along those lines. The guidelines at the time were being formulated and weren't as clear as they are now, but

4405:

I cannot access either of these statements, which automatically makes to suspiscious of these claims. However, this is the first time in my 2+ years here at Knowledge (XXG) that I have heard anyone claim that Jimbo does not approve of notability as a criteria for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG).

3537:

Personally, I don't see a lot of point reviving this. The criteria have always been an attempt to change practice rather than an attempt to document practice, and to most people, the criteria and the proposal are one and the same. The criteria really haven't caught on, and from my experience,

1208:. This is different from, say, an article about a band, where it may be that no source reports on their popularity or number of fans accurately, but sources do report on other things: the information we can't cover can just be left out. In articles on science, we really can't leave that out. 4162:

OK. I looked at them. It seems to me that there aren’t very many, and none of them are really science issues. Science is merely involved. It’s always about sourcing, specifically whether the sources are sufficiently independent, sufficiently secondary, sufficiently reputable (not a blog or

3602:

Please excuse my comment here, but the article content of Nature is peer reviewed. Like some other journals, it has on rare occasions published things based on consensus of the key editors, without formal peer review. The news content is not, of course, just editorially prepared -- by the most

3570:

Having looked more closely at the edit history, I find that your attempt to streamline this two two items has met fairly stiff resistance. Then again, that is little wonder since your proposed consolidation ends up being little more than a restatement of pre-existing policy. The goal of this

3071:

Also, verifying and sourcing is verfying and sourcing. I believe what's being aimed at here is scientific notability may have a smaller and different base (with different types of sourcing) for inclusion than other forms of notability. So why not say that? Except that above you're demanding

3002:

Boy, I'm going to love the AfDs which try to define whether a topic is "science" or not trying to use this. Not to mention the arguments you'll get whether or not cosmology (for example) has a scientific basis or not. Not to mention you're setting up a criteria which is so subjective it will

2965:

Wha? Could this be any more complex? I actually had to diagram this paragraph out to understand it. My hypothesis is most editors will not. Can't you simply say it is normally necessary to follow the general notability guidelines with respect to neutral, multiple, independent, verifiabile,

2251:

Research published in a reputable publication passes these thresholds but reflects the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, focusing on such research in a Knowledge (XXG)

1423:

as an example of this. The criteria have changed since then, but the same kind of argument could be made today. I wouldn't want to jeopardize any of those debates by having a guideline here with such minimal applicability. 3. The list of criteria is instruction creep and isn't useful. For

867:

I don't see any bedlam here. I see this as being a well crafted guideline that is dealing with issues which are out-of-scope for the more general guideline due to its broad nature. This guideline deals with the issues of science and science-related topics, and how to implement the notability

713:

Whether they are false or not, they are simply my questions regarding your, frankly, obstinate resistance to this particular document. I am trying to be as forthright as possible here, and your increasingly haughty responses only confuse me further since you still haven't addressed directly my

648:

in place and isn't a proposal because we as editors abide by it. As you know, Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines are not written to affect change in the encyclopedia, but rather are meant to describe what actively goes on in editing. A good number of those who say that this is a consensus

1029:

be making recommendations from those most involved in edited these articles to guide thos less familiar. I think it will prove to be accepted because it is relatively straightforward, not complex -- at least by comparison -- and, in my view it does reflect the general voice. But we shall see.

727:. In terms of the status: you see one thing, I see another thing. I'm not going to change my opinion by simply being told "please look more closely," although you could convince me if you actually showed me some evidence. I do see a lot of attempts at guiding the community: take a look at 506:

and so on. Some of the argument is covered here in the introduction, but the "criteria" part played no role and seems to be central to this as a notability guideline. So, this is what I mean when I say that no evidence has been presented. What do YOU mean when you say this is a consensus

2186:

Indeed, all the POVs are placed on the table. And if there is just one POV (because there is one WP:V/WP:RS/WP:A), then we can still write that POV so that it conforms to NPOV, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else agrees with the POV, and regardless of whether it is mainstream of

4371:

How old must a statement be, before it becomes "irrlevent" and then "exceeding irrelevent"? is there a different sliding scale for statement from people other than Jimbo Wales? Are all four-year-old statements "exceeding irrelevent"... such as Jimbo's declaring that NPOV is "absolute and

4088:

Whether a peer review journal, a textbook, a popular book, a university hosted website or a notable persons personal site is sufficiently reliable, reputable, or secondary is probably best treated on a case by case basis, and in any case this is not a problem specific to science.

3311:

It looks like a number of the contributors here are no longer active at WP: Lantreman ws banned, BDJ and Science Appologist have quit, Minder Binder, Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri, and Laughing Vulcan have not contributed substantially since June and at all since mid-July.

3411:

and work from there. IMO, what happenned to this effort is that a number of people whose pet articles were running afoul of this proposed policy chose to get involved with the blatant intent to sabotage it and remove its impact on their work, and unfortunately succeeded in doing

1049:

here such that anything that is meant to be judged as part of science can be ruled on here, be it mainstream or fringe. What I think that you will find is that the least palatable topics are those which also have had the least impact and are also therefore the least notable. --

1200:

theory, it's important to describe it as one. However, for some fringe theories, insufficient sources exist to back up the claim that they are fringe theories. Thus we are left with only one real choice: disallow the article, as we cannot properly cover it while adhering to

3474:

It seems to me that a lot of work has gone into turning this into something that everyone can reject. I have now reverted the article back to a more robust form, and hope that the process of making it a serious part of Wikpedia's policies and guidelines can now recomemnce.

2939:

I know this has been mentioned above, but I want to echo this concern: Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the consensus of the Knowledge (XXG) editors. Anything else beyond that is helpful clarification, or it becomes fodder for people to

4096:

There seems to be tendency here for some to want a guideline to provide a science-quality test. This is not an encyclopaedia’s role. The ascribing of “Finge science”, “pseudo science” or “lunacy” to any theory is a job for third party sources, not for wikipedia rules.

653:

when I was the one who brought it up, it looks to me like you are asking me to turn a blind eye towards our long history here at the encyclopedia and I am honestly telling you I'm having a hard time doing it because of the nature of this particular dispute we're having.

3296:

The rejected tag is appropriate and should stand until there is adequate discussion here to demonstrate active interest in the proposal. As suggested by the policy, a proposal which has failed to gain support is better off rewritten and reintroduced as a new proposal.

1870:

No, I am criticizing the make-up of the consensus, which is predominantly science-oriented editors who decided that Ralph Juergens was not notable because he was not a mainstream scientists; That is what the summary says. The AfD was not targeted outside of Notability

1752:. However, this standard is for determining notability with respect to science, and I find it to be quite silly and disingenuous to accuse this guideline of not doing something that it is not meant to so (namely seeking non-science-related reasons for inclusion). -- 1242:

available data in the most conformist way possible. When all the data is outside the scientific community and the idea purports to have scientific importance, it is perfectly fine to delineate the contradiction. However, this discussion is probably better suited for

2190:

In which case, the statement in the third paragraph that I described above, is incorrect. A view from a single researcher may fail a criteria, but there is no reason for it to fail NPOV; and if it does, any decent editor can re-write it so that it conforms to NPOV.

1324:

are all places where this guideline can be advertised and input and approval sought. I see little danger in this and much promise, but mostly I would like to be able to show Kevin a formal approval so that is downgrading of this guideline cannot occur again.

3905:

I dunno. It sounds to me like you want to simply rewrite this proposal without making it really different from what it was before. I would rather see us either change direction significantly or just give up. But who knows, maybe it'll catch on this time.

692:

the content of this proposal, I cannot agree that this is documenting current Knowledge (XXG) practice, but if you want to try to change my mind, please show me specific examples so we can discuss them. In any case, you should advertise this debate on

3640:

kept because it was noted within the field of astronomy and also gained some measure of attention from the public at large. That press coverage (both scientific and popular) could establish notability as described here was helpful in that discussion.

1392:

I agree with the concept of seeking broader support. If I see broader support for the need and a more stable proposal I would remove my objection. I think that the steps proposed above make good sense. There should be no need to rush the process.

4321:

Don't tell other editors what to do, it's rude. Discussion is encouraged. The editor did not say we did not need notability, but that WP:V with WP:RS is an adequate indicator of notability; and WP:NOTABLE means we don't need WP:SCI. 1000 articles on

2003:

The only requirement to provide a balanced view, is if one exists. If it doesn't, then to pretend that a view "needs balancing", is presumably based on the view of an unattributable, anonymous, expert-less editor. This fails numerous Knowledge (XXG)

1747:

If you are saying that a deleted article had another non-scince reason for being notable, then please name it and indicate why that reason was not considered at the time. Also do note that in such cases a request for reconsideration can be made to

4198:

That's what the guideline is for, to create some ground rules for "normal" editors get up to speed on the various dimensions of scientific notability and the various ways to gauge them, so that they don't created ad hoc during the discussion. ~

3590:, which is highly respected but does not use peer review to help select its articles? What do you make of a theory published in a respected scientific journals but on which noone has cared to comment except the author? What do you do with the 3594:

controversy created by Pons and Fleishman back in 1987 which obviously is notable within science but which was never respected by it? There will not be many of these to contend with, but when they do appear this guideline will be invaluable.

1072:

of the page, rather than arguments of process. Bureaucratic reasonings that process wasn't followed in officially validating this page are vacuous, since such a process doesn't exist, and guidelines aren't officially validated to begin with.

337:, where this standard helped to refine the arguments that finally got the topic removed. The aupporters trying to use this guideline to buoy their cause ended up only showing all the more that the article did not belong in Knowledge (XXG). 2696:

or otherwise) has never been in dispute at WP and is not pertinent to this guideline. False science either in fiction or in periodicals is either pertinent to the fiction guidline or should not be recognized in a legitimate encylopedia. --

497:

was not used as an argument in the debate, even by you, and the arguments that led to it being deleted were not even much along the lines of what is presented here in the guideline, but were according to core Knowledge (XXG) policies like

557:

Number 5 in the nomination. While it doesn't explicitly reference this page, it does so implicitly (and if I recall correctly at the time the standards were still being developed as to which criteria were going to be grouped with which).

3840:(unindent) I think that you have just made an excellent suggestions in calling for an explanation of how to assess the reliability and relevance of sources. Given some of the issues I have had recently with the anti-relativists over at 897:

them for deletion on the grounds that there was no consensus or that they constituted "instruction creep" or were redundant. A proposal is not necessarily impossible to reach consensus upon just because a few editors oppose it. See the

409:

should exist or not, but that's not for us to decide here. It is absolutely not true that this guideline is redudant: there is no other place where it is indicated what makes a scientific idea notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

1801:

off base here, because what you don't like is that a consensus of Knowledge (XXG) editors has disagreed with your stance on certain topics. That doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not that consensus exists. You talk like

2216:

The statement is incorrect because a single POV does not fail NPOV unless it is written badly, in which case any competent editor can correct it. Sure, the statement may be allowed because it is notable. But it won't fail because of

3010:. I don't need to know if Burpa-Cola has been covered in the Cola News and CNN, or if Billy Bob Arthbutnott has both parlimentary opinions as well as the Sun documenting his career to know that Corp or People:Politicians applies. 4100:

EMS suggests that some nasty debates exist because of the weakness of this guideline. Some elaboration would be nice. Discussion above suggests to me that the relativity article needs work, not that wikipedia needs more rules.

671:

be, with very little discussion or analysis of how things are actually decided now. (Some, but not much.) From perusing the test cases, it seems to me that people are nearly exclusively deciding on these cases on the basis of

3499:

dry "relevance" paragraph comes last. The previous last paragraph has been removed as an unreadable mess. (I believe I drafted that paragraph originally, but it really never worked as intended, and only got worse over time.)

751:

I do think that you are seriously misinterpreting the conversations we've had here. When editors here discussed what makes a good rule, they've clearly done so in light of their editing experience. We aren't just shadowboxing.

2123:

Let's not mix up NPOV and editorial judgment. As I said earlier, the statement in the introduction is incorrect concerning NPOV. I also said it may concern notability, so I'm not dismissing the point. But let's be accurate as

524:

thanks to discussions such as that AfD we have a clearer demarcation. I think you need to read through the AfD we reference again and look carefully at how the criteria line-up with the criteria outlined in this guideline. --

479:

tool you can access from the toolbox. I think that you may have a hidden agenda here: you tend to be a bit too quick to agree to a supression bias against non-experts in the fields of science. Is this a misplaced concern?

4268:

of a subject's scientific notability. We don't need WP:NOTABLE, let alone WP:SCI. If there is an argument for WP:SCI, then we need WP:ASTEROID (asteroid notability), WP:GALAXY (galaxy notability), WP:CHEMICAL, etc etc.

2007:

When Douglas Clowe of the University of Arizona claimed in a single paper that he had "proof" of Dark Matter, this went straight into the Dark Matter article, which at the time, had no peer reviewed comment from other

2073:: in order to avoid having to rely on editorial judgement too heavily, we look for a higher standard of quality in sources for scientific topics, and where that doesn't exist, we should avoid covering the subject. 426:

doesn't help because there are scientific ideas which are not notable (the general consensus of the community is that they do not belong in the encyclopedia) which nevertheless are attributable to reliable sources.

819:

That's taking a rather biased and authoritarian position on subcommunities of Knowledge (XXG). I, for one, don't care if WP:N is trashed: what's relevant to science articles is this set of guidelines. Just because

2723:

Ok, once again, in case anyone can actually respond on my point: the list of criteria here seems to be a misguided attempt to define reasons for notability that no one brings up in debates. If the issue was the

3063:"Scientific discovery is often disconnected from public discourse, so standard methods of sourcing and verifying are not always applicable. A scientific topic which yields low hit counts in the Google test..." 3039:

2. Is the sequence listed in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences? (In the case of sequences of rational numbers, does the OEIS have the sequences of numerators and denominators of the relevant

1534:

this guideline as being usable only as a means of inclusion. For the purposes of exclusion, the failure of a topic to merit inclusion under any guideline (including this one) is the relevant matter. --

3047:

a problem with that - if I were arguing Notability(Religion), I would not want it to say that the Bible is an authorized source and any other 'holy' texts by default would have to prove themselves.)

2748: 1404: 334: 3803:

covered in a reliable source, and I highly doubt that we'd ever find a case where one textbook mentions a topic but absolutely no other sources do. Yeah, I agree, if we pare it any further, the

1884:

I think it is wholly inappropriate for WP:SCI to advertise articles for deletion. WP:NOTABLE should advertise AfD, giving a editors a chance to refer to WP:SCI and OTHER notability guidelines. --

1163:

and present it to us as a possible replacement. We are certainly amenable to productive changes. However, IMO the current project page works and should be considered a functioning guideline. --

148: 2728:

of science articles, having these criteria would make sense. But it seems to me that the main thrust of this proposal is in the opposite direction. These are just fodder for disagreement (see

3844:, this makes a lot of sense. (In those discussions, at least one person would take anything that he could find from a "peer reviewed journal" as evidence of a conflict over relativity and the 2341:

Judging/assessing a single POV is another matter altogether. But just because there may be no attributable assessments, does not make the description of a single POV automatically fail NPOV. --

3255:

I prefer some mention of "fringe" or "pseudo". As I say above, I don't believe this has much to do with current practice with respect to obscure or specialised but uncontroversial science. --

3761:

I see no need to leave such things as "texstbook science" implicit. I think that you have a point on items three and four, but to go any further is to leave this as saying little more that

2169:

would never be NPOV issues from the standpoint of writing an article. While I agree with Mangojuice that editors are judged external to their status as "experts" (see ongoing conflicts over

1575:

I did not suggest that failing scientific notability means that an article MUST be notable elsewhere. I wrote that it MAY be notable elsewhere. Yet the current policy does not consider this.

1301:

guideline. Even without the two nay-sayers I fail to see how the five of us constitute a group that can speak for the Knowledge (XXG) community as a whole, or at least the science editors.

262:

I consider it one, and I'm not sure what objection people have - if there's a problem that needs fixing, let's fix it. I already refer to it, guideline or not, since it's very useful. --

1547:(Edit conflict) Agree with EMS; The page clearly embraces the idea that popular notability for science topics is appropriate. Since popular notability definitely is acceptable (see the 3407:

What I see now is something that is so watered down and nebulous that it cannot act as a genuine policy. If people want to revive this effort, then we need to return to a version like

1510:

Lengthy discussion hidden in this box. Summary: proposal should support notability other than scientific notability; attempts will be made to make sure this is clear in the wording.

2454:

I now see that you've made changes to the sentence in question. It is unfortunately that while I had the courtesy to discuss the matter with yourself and other editors, you didn't. --

4104:

This project page should be abandoned. Science is well covered by WP:OR and WP:V, and where notability is needed, the general WP:N seems to be sufficient and its use is accepted. --

1425: 1412: 4619: 3418:

should be applied. It may be that this is an issue that is best handled by the admins with the advice and consent of the community so that we can avoid the pitfalls of the past. --

2650:

Quite possibly. That's why I'm asking if it has been resolved :) I take it from your comment that you believe it hasn't been yet? Anything in particular you think is still needed?

2338:

Since describing a single POV can be achieved in an NPOV fashion, then the description in the third paragraph is incorrect which says that a single POV without response fails NPOV.

1109:

The introduction is too long. Limit it to "what" and "why". Get the commentary (i.e. "impetus") and discussion of process into its own section. Specifically address what makes

3811:

does.. so maybe we should lose the criteria altogether, or just spend more time explaining the issues that arise in assessing the quality of sources, especially academic ones.

2297:"the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, fails NPOV" 1927:"the point of view of one researcher or research term and, unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, fails NPOV" 1703:(a) based on a Scientific notability "test case" (b) on the grounds that he was a "non-notable non-mainstream scientist", which is accurate, but no cause for deletion by itself. 541:

kind of precludes that the EU debate can be thought of as evidence that this is a consensus guideline. Can you show me ANY AfD debate that explicitly references the criteria?

3006:

Also, you will get editors asking whether the guideline itself applies or not - something I don't think I've ever seen with any of the other specialty N's about the guideline

1403:

original research, POV, or inadequately sourced. Although there are many debates on the test pages subpage, in very few was the critical issue the notability of the subject:

2756: 667:. You say this is an attempt to document how Knowledge (XXG) works? I respectfully disagree -- this talk page and its archives are full of debates about what the criteria 402: 1992:

If the "POV" is controversial but hasn't been commented on, then it will be an unique source and it will be impossible to provide a sourced, balanced view of the POV. --

4137: 3571:

proposal is to set up guidelines that go beyond the current policies and which are adapted to the issues which are unique to science. Wikiepdia has very much outgrown

1700: 2679:

No one has even responded to my points about the misguided nature of the specific criteria. Without that, I really don't think we can assume things are "resolved."

205: 198: 193: 188: 3632: 2729: 1874:

The main reason given for deletion of "Ralph Juergens" was that he "is only published by vanity presses"; not only is this false, but it fails civility guidelines,

1420: 571:. Again, show me any debates that explicitly reference the criteria. There's a difference between this proposal being wise or balanced or sensible and it having 4629: 1408: 841:

is being criticized partly because of its extreme generality. No reason to think the entire idea of notability for all topics must pause just because of that.

4150: 4458:

Field Theory' What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion."

4454:

WP:V by itself is insufficient, and requires suitable reliable sources per WP:RS. Jimbo wrote that "'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule."

533:

Could you show me precisely where? I don't mean to be dense, but I really don't see it. I see your point #5 in the nomination, but that sounds like the core

401:

rather than a specific distaste for this particular guideline. In particular, the motivation behind this guideline was in part due to a charge made during the

4332:

Want me to count the number of fallacies you've made in that short statement? Or to point out that Jimbo's four-year-old statement is exceedingly irrelevant?

2966:

reliable sources? And if you do that, what is the point of this whole section - I'm seriously not understanding how this adds anything to present guidelines.

2988:

So we want articles only commented upon widely by multiple academic sources, which also are commented on outside academic sources? Seems pretty wide, to me.

2955:

Start throwing 'musts' around in anything but policy (perhaps only unbreakable/unmodifiable policy) and you'll get a lot of irate editors, scientific or not.

2949:"Deicions about including or excluding material on a scientific basis ought to be supported by the opinions and stated facts of outside authorities, as per 96: 69: 1551:

precedent, for instance), any wording that implies otherwise should be examined. But you aren't correctly representing the main thrust of the proposal.

4604:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

354:

US Tax Code, which has bread several large industries for interpretation and application. Writing complex rule sets requires great skill and caution. --

2575:

I would say its notability is questionable and, if the article is to be included in Knowledge (XXG), would have to derive from exposure in the media. --

3414:

IMO, there is a genuine need for a policy like this to clarify what "notability" and "verifiability" mean in the context of a science article, and how

1356:

three is 'yes', so this page is a de facto guideline and Kevin is the lone dissenter here. Of course, putting a notice on the village pump never hurts.

1122:

topics which are going to require some judgments to be made by editors if they are new articles or added to existing articles. (i.e. the maybe notable)

2130:

I know THREE different communities, all of whom have informal discussions, and promise peer reviewed papers that I could mention too. Also worthless.

3256: 2886: 1282:

is so important. I can attribute both the Big Bang Theory, and the Big Bang Model, but I can find no source which agues it must be one or the other.

4488:

notability, but notability has in many cases come to mean the same thing as verifiability from reliable sources, and Jimbo surely was not opposing

1496:

The arrogance is in assuming that scientific notability is the only criteria worth considering in determining whether an article stays or goes. --

4595: 4235: 947:

I see your point. This editor really, really has a grudge against the concept of notability, and I would love to know why. If you want to do a

2934:"Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Knowledge (XXG) editors." 2127:

The idea that a community has informal discussions which a particular editor may be aware, is worthless. It is not verifiable, nor attributable.

1444:

I will say that if the criteria are largely scrapped, my opinion would probably change. But that's a pretty different proposal from this one.

1136:"Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Knowledge (XXG) editors." 3863:

sources. (Actually, come to think about it, "Notability (science)" may not be the best name. What about "Reliable sources (scientific)"?)

3286:

Good, scientific notability determines only whether a subject is well-known scientifically, not whether it is notable for an encyclopedia. --

4624: 3636:

farly powerful tool. In addition, it is not going to do in fringe science articles. For example, I helped by have an aritcle on a book by

4276: 4067: 4012: 3987: 3934: 405:

that such a guideline should exist to fend off charges related to whether an idea was notable in a scientific sense. One can argue whether

4552:

Soapboxing, propaganda based on a misinterpretation of Jimbo's words, and again irrelevant. Can we get back to the topic at hand, please?

3700:

and we do not. Are textbooks reliable sources? If so we do not need to mention "textbook science", but if they are not, we probable do. --

3450: 3134: 2751:

seems to establish the need for a reliable set of criteria so that long-winded nominations and discussions (such as those engaged in with

2594:. I don't have any problems with it. Again, our job isn't to evaluate the scientific merit, but the total response to scientific ideas. ~ 2137: 2018:

Yet both POVs are EQUALLY valid, as long as they are not misrepresented, and can easily be described in a manner that conforms to NPOV. --

105: 4541: 4382: 3369: 3068:

That's nice. The Google test is widely regarded as discredited anyway. Yes, I know it's still used, but it's questionability is known.

2053: 1578:

Deleting articles based on scientific notability alone, is an incredible conceit, and should play no part of the proposed guidelines. --

1363:

However the first point does hold. Consensus is not unanimity, and a consensus opposed by a vocal minority is nevertheless a consensus.

439:. That's why this guideline is needed and why it is used. Look at all the pages that link here and tell me that it isn't referred to. -- 3022:

Again, how does this get beyond neologisms in a way that Avoid Neologisms doesn't, aside from adding the words "scientific literature"?

2302:

A single POV may fail, or being accepted by some other criteria. But a single POV does not fail NPOV (unless an editor writes poorly).

1976:

Describing the POV of one person does not automatically fail NPOV, and any decent editor can describe any POV in way that fulfils NPOV.

1973:

If another attributable view is available, we describe it. If it isn't, we don't pretend there might be one. There is no double whammy.

810:

I would expand on that thought to say that while WP:N is being revamped, it makes little sense to approve further subordinate pages. --

3372:'s another one. It's becoming increasingly common that people want to obfuscate the fact that the community doesn't like their ideas. 1317: 1305: 4288:

This is really not the place for the perennial fallacy that "we don't need notability". Please take that complaint some place else.

3093:

Again, you're preaching what is and isn't acceptable as a source, without allowing the community consensus to decide this over time.

1339:

I already posted a note on the Village pump proposal forum. But yes, that this might become official needs to be widely announced.

2827: 2820: 1696:

No other grounds for notability are offered because the articles are considered only as to whether they are scientifically notable.

490: 234: 4496: 4212: 4185: 3910: 3867: 3815: 3729: 3671: 3554: 2773: 2736: 2732:

for instance) and distract from the main point about the POV and OR issues involved in using only sources from a single author.

2683: 2514: 2077: 1822: 1555: 1514: 1448: 1432: 1343: 1212: 845: 739: 701: 631: 578: 545: 511: 463: 2839:

I've added a brief section which is the meat from the numbers guideline. This seems appropriately and neatly combined here. --

1321: 1313: 1309: 1271:

And I don't think the word "theory" has such a precise meaning as scientists would like. For example, Knowledge (XXG) calls the

2985:

2. Outside notability. The topic is notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources outside of academic publications."

1806:

got Ralph Juergens deleted: no. A consensus of editors and a discussion got it deleted, and frankly, it wasn't even based on

44: 4140:, but there does not seem to be as many editors watching AfD and adding to this page as with other deletion sorting pages. -- 422:

to be useful when people just make random articles about ostensibly scientific subjects they read about online, for example.

2611:

It's been a few weeks. I don't see much of a recent dispute here, so I was wondering if the disagreement has been resolved?

2496:

Are there criteria for such topics ? Would be particularly useful since any objection to these topics is considered as POV.

1285:

I can also find no attribution labelling many minority subjects as "fringe", nor claiming a certain level of acceptance. --

324:

For each of the criteria now listed I belive that proper application of WP:N and WP:ATT would acheive the same results. --

3603:

careful people around. It was they who caught the similarity of the stem cell photos after the peer reviewers missed it.

74: 4181:

to provide certain perspectives and information that will be important in many of these debates, in a well-written way.

1428:

for example. The criteria seem aimed at solving a non-existant problem of the over-deletion of notable science topics.

2980:"1. Widely cited. Papers covering the topic have been widely1 commented on in academic writing within the topic's field. 2482:

someone completely independent of the first researcher publishes the demanded blessing of the first researcher's claim.

1979:

Quashing a POV on the grounds that there MIGHT be a hypothetical counter-POV, fails NPOV, fails WP:A, and fails WP:V. --

1304:

I for one do call for the issue of approving this as a functioning guideline be presented to the community as a whole.

1275:

a "theory", whereas the Encyclopedia Britannic calls it a "Model". And I am sure there are more sources supporting both.

3181: 3150: 1749: 1005: 688:), without much need for arguments specific to issue that the topics under discussion are scientific ones. Since that 302:

We're ready to go into the stage where changes should be discussed here before being implemented in the policy page. ~

109: 3077:"Web (and library) searches should therefore be evaluated based on the quality rather than the quantity of the finds." 4244:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

3083:

but science is full of periods of flying in the face of qualitative common sense and succeeding - because it's right.

2641:

I don't think that lack of discussion demonstrates lack of dissention, just waning energy levels and good weather. --

3214: 1940:

and is not misrepresented, then it conforms to NPOV. The argument is whether a statement by a single researchers is

4323: 4002: 3110:

what you want to present to the community as a whole, as opposed to "Are we ready to make this policy ourselves?"

2015:

Dark Matter, a dozen reasons will be given why this is not acceptable for Knowledge (XXG), including failing NPOV.

1621:

A number of articles have already been deleted, based on whether they were scientifically notable only, or worse,

144: 3316:, but I don't think that there are enough editors who see this as a need. It seems that WP:N should suffice. -- 217: 2528: 1659:

being "notable" but "fringe". It seems to me that this shows that this is a reasonable and workable scheme. --

1138:

is bizarre because the opinion of Knowledge (XXG) editors is what, by definition, compose the Knowledge (XXG).

4414: 4280: 4071: 4016: 3938: 2714: 50: 4386: 274:

Not only is it a consensus guideline, it is absolutely vital for Knowledge (XXG) to have such a guideline. --

4545: 4418: 2133:

An encyclopedia does not run on material gleaned from Chinese whispers via anonymous, unaccountable editors.

4537: 4378: 4272: 4063: 4008: 3930: 1953:

It's also POV because there is no counter that can be offered since the topic is obscure. Double-whammy. --

2755:) can be avoided. This was part of the reason the arbcomm asked for these criteria in the first place at 2710: 644:

drag their feet for a reason. To me and many of the other editors who commented above, this guideline is

3287: 2760: 2576: 2389: 2357: 2327: 2267: 2206: 2175: 2057: 1993: 1954: 1360:

nobody except for the ArbCom agrees that this is a valid approach, so that may not be the best of ideas.

1247: 979: 829: 753: 715: 655: 599: 559: 525: 481: 440: 275: 4422: 2545:

I would think you need to get an insect experts to comment; even specialists disagree among each other.

2305:

To suggest that a statement based on a single POV, changes it's NPOV standing, depending on some other

3582:. What do you do with a source that is "peer reviewed" but where the peers are fellow followers of a 2536: 4407: 4199: 4154: 4116: 4044: 3437: 2595: 2388:

It isn't. This has been explained to you. You have ignored the explanation. Now I will ignore you. --

1187: 303: 4426: 4257: 3991: 3967: 3885: 3849: 3766: 3642: 3524: 3476: 3419: 2070: 1878:. Nevertheless, this was picked up by several other editors as their reasons for supporting the AfD. 1807: 1803: 1753: 1660: 1535: 1469: 1326: 1164: 1050: 1009: 952: 876: 538: 494: 375: 341: 287: 4430: 3971: 3889: 3853: 3841: 3770: 3646: 3528: 3480: 3423: 3115: 2565: 1757: 1710:

judge any article for deletion, as it makes no attempt to attract expert editors in other fields --

1664: 1539: 1330: 1168: 1054: 1013: 956: 880: 379: 345: 315: 291: 286:

I certainly support this guideline, what it is trying to do, and how it is trying to achieve it. --

2507: 2419:

And you wonder why other editors don't get on with you. Your lack of civility is disappointing. --

2323: 2170: 1626: 1243: 314:

We've numerous AfDs and arbcom cases which have documented that this is the community's intent. --

101: 4553: 4333: 4289: 3986:

tells us that minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them because

3579: 3373: 3327: 3227: 3185: 2850: 2651: 2612: 1364: 1074: 782: 537:

argument, and not related to the criteria here. And anyway, saying the the EU debate influenced

223: 3983: 3947: 3415: 221: 1182:

wording is odd (although not any odder than "notability is not subjective" which expresses the

3516: 3506: 3458: 3360: 3317: 3298: 3277: 3166: 2840: 2831: 2810: 2697: 2642: 2220:

A single POV that has been published elsewhere does not not fail "Original research", because

1593: 1394: 966: 859: 811: 389: 365: 355: 325: 263: 4455: 4425:

notability pages: I suspect that those are coming in time, if they are not already needed. --

4329:

WP:NOTABLE tells us how notable something is, a quality of a subject we may want to mention.

4327: 3999: 2257: 2253: 1933: 1815: 1205: 681: 623: 432: 428: 397:

Might I recommend that your "no" comment seems to be motivated more by a general dislike for

4576: 4503: 4433: 4373: 4356: 4312: 4219: 4202: 4192: 4167: 4157: 4144: 4132: 4119: 4108: 4047: 4038: 3974: 3917: 3892: 3874: 3856: 3822: 3773: 3736: 3704: 3678: 3649: 3614: 3587: 3561: 3531: 3483: 3461: 3440: 3426: 3396: 3363: 3350: 3320: 3301: 3290: 3280: 3259: 3250: 3221: 3208: 3169: 3157: 3123: 2914:"A topic that is acceptable under this guideline is an appropriate part of Knowledge (XXG)." 2889: 2873: 2843: 2834: 2813: 2780: 2763: 2743: 2718: 2700: 2690: 2674: 2645: 2635: 2598: 2579: 2568: 2556: 2539: 2521: 2506:

I'd say, you're looking at it. (When you look at the project page, that is.) There's also

2500: 2486: 2458: 2423: 2392: 2379: 2360: 2345: 2330: 2313: 2285: 2270: 2232: 2209: 2195: 2178: 2144: 2084: 2060: 2022: 1996: 1983: 1957: 1948: 1888: 1829: 1760: 1714: 1667: 1633: 1600: 1582: 1562: 1542: 1521: 1500: 1492: 1455: 1439: 1397: 1387: 1350: 1333: 1289: 1250: 1219: 1190: 1171: 1150: 1097: 1057: 1043: 1016: 982: 969: 959: 942: 883: 862: 852: 832: 814: 805: 756: 746: 718: 708: 658: 638: 602: 585: 562: 552: 528: 518: 484: 470: 443: 392: 382: 368: 358: 348: 328: 318: 306: 294: 278: 266: 253: 219: 171: 4459: 3959: 3572: 3003:

rarely-if-ever be able to objectively define where this guideline would be relevant or not.

2941: 2478: 2221: 1875: 1811: 1238: 1201: 1183: 998: 975: 948: 825: 724: 694: 677: 664: 650: 618: 595: 499: 436: 419: 411: 4493: 4209: 4182: 4027:

Actually, it times we quoted that more exactly--it's 1100, and working on the other 99%.

3966:, a lack of notability is a proper reason for removing an article from Knowledge (XXG). -- 3955: 3907: 3864: 3812: 3726: 3668: 3551: 2770: 2752: 2733: 2680: 2553: 2511: 2455: 2420: 2376: 2342: 2310: 2229: 2192: 2141: 2074: 2019: 1980: 1945: 1885: 1819: 1711: 1630: 1579: 1552: 1511: 1497: 1445: 1429: 1340: 1286: 1209: 842: 736: 698: 628: 575: 542: 508: 460: 104:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 4253: 4208:

clear presentation, people are more likely to actually read the text and understand it.

3539: 3142: 2950: 673: 503: 4326:

seems to demonstrate that. Jimbo says that the criterion for inclusion is verifiability,

2588:

stuff that usually gets some traction in the press. Quick search gives a mention in the

17: 4164: 4129: 4105: 3998:

criterion, not exclusion. Jimbo says that the criterion for inclusion is verifiability.

3583: 3218: 3154: 2549: 1234: 250: 4249: 3963: 3808: 3762: 3547: 3543: 3146: 3138: 2246:

You are missing the point. Perhaps I should post here the statement that you dispute:

1937: 1881:

But this is not the place to discuss a single article, but I offer this as an example.

1279: 994: 871: 838: 821: 778: 685: 591: 568: 534: 423: 415: 406: 398: 4613: 4034: 3725:

I see no reason why a textbook would not be normally regarded as a reliable source.

3610: 3326:

I'm not advocating anything, I'm merely pointing out that this page is not an essay.

3114:

will happen, whether you want it to or not.) Sorry for the length of the diatribe.

1625:

scientifically notable. (See some of the reasons given for deleting articles in the

781:, it is not a very strong argument to claim that we should use WP:N instead of this. 735:: people are discussing how to make a good rule, not what the rule is, organically. 2590: 2011:

I have no doubt that if a Prof. John Doe claims in a single paper that he has proof

3845: 2497: 1970:

POV is neither the opposite of, nor a failing of NPOV. Indeed, POV is not a whammy.

4406:

Certainly verifiability comes first, but (for example) you can easily verify that

4264:

of the subject's notability. And WP:SCI is even more superfluous, determining the

2709:. If it's "redundant", good - this is what governs science articles, not WP:N. -- 2356:

Did you even read the sourcing and attribution section of the fringe guideline? --

3591: 3576: 3359:

I agree. It seems that essay is becoming a euphemism for rejected proposal. --

2483: 939: 4530:

Agreed. WP:V + WP:RS = Notability. And I believe that consequently, notability

3958:

and much of his research are well respected both scientifically and popularly.

3667:

significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, academic or otherwise?

4141: 3951: 3701: 3637: 1147: 134: 88: 63: 3088:"The following is a list of sources with qualifications of their usefulness." 1487:

encyclopedia, there would be a case to answer. It isn't. Knowledge (XXG) has

1268:

to give an indication of the acceptance of a theory, in order to describe it.

1548: 1416: 414:

doesn't help because "originality" is a vague concept related to heavily to

4375:, or do you consider some of Jimbo's statements more notable than others? 4128:

Is there an easy way to watch for science-related deletion discussions? --

3314:

Trials and Errors and Radiant are advocating reinstating this as a proposal

3217:? Or does "Fringe theories" apply to other types of "theories" as well? — 2375:

I am concentrating on this one sentence regarding NPOV. It is incorrect. --

697:; the general Knowledge (XXG) community should have a chance to comment. 4029: 4005:, few of which are notable, let alone any more notable than each other? 3605: 2585: 2281: 1936:. If we attribute a statement to a single researcher, and it conforms to 1272: 1116:

Criteria should define at least these categories as guidance to editors:

1039: 3697: 1125:

topics which, at least according to the authors of the guideline, are

627:

when actionable changes are being proposed (like the criteria here).

951:

against him, I am will be happy to second it. This is ridiculous. --

3034:"1. Have professional mathematicians published papers on this topic? 2140:". They agree. A singular POV can be described in an NPOV manner. -- 663:

You are making false implications about me, and I want it to stop.

1476:

notable. It does not consider whether an article may be notable in

993:

need to coordinate this guideline with any other guidelines beside

1159:

If you wish to draft an alternate version, the feel free to do so

2749:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept)

2136:

I had previously brought this up at the Neutrality Project, see "

1405:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept)

435:

is unable to distinguish between majority and minority except by

335:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept)

2309:

discussion whose view is yet to be determined, is illogical. --

1119:

topics which on their face should be include (i.e. the notable)

728: 100:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 4060:

No articles have egos, and neither do they "seek" attention.

224: 165: 26: 3954:'s supporters today are an extremely limited minority, while 3043:

3. Do MathWorld and PlanetMath have articles on this topic?"

2205:

cannot be included without falling into original research. --

1113:

different from other areas covered by the general guidelines.

249:, explain your position and defend it. This is not a vote. 133: 1472:, is that it tries to determine only whether an article is 3538:

people rely on other policies for scientific topics, like

2849:

It's a bad idea, as explained on the talk page of WP:NUM.

1426:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous computing

1413:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Growing Earth Theory

3276:

It seems that this has died and is properly rejected. --

340:

that you are claiming makes this guideline irrelevant. --

4256:

determine whether an article goes into Knowledge (XXG).

1068:

What this discussion needs is actual arguments over the

3432: 3408: 2997:"Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific... " 936: 933: 930: 927: 924: 921: 918: 915: 912: 909: 906: 903: 900: 3103:

Uh, again, how is this any different from Google test?

2757:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

824:

is being discussed doesn't mean that we can't come to

3962:

an indicriminate collector of information, and under

4138:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science

2947:

I'd feel much more comfortable with something like,

2492:

Notability for non-science, fringe and pseudoscience

1922:

The third paragraph includes an incorrect statement:

489:

First of all there are over 150 things that link to

2903:Problems that I have at present with the proposal: 2294:The statement which I quoted above, is as follows: 1186:). The rest doesn't strike me as an improvement. ~ 3633:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sorce theory 2730:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sorce theory 1421:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sorce theory 1261:I think it is a little more complicated than that. 118:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 3550:seems to be sufficient and its use is accepted. 3436:version, and I don't see any consensus for it. ~ 1409:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Socionomics 3512:tag has been kept as a matter of form, with the 1104:Some suggestions on organizing this project page 777:I should note that, given present disputes over 3523:this as a policy or guideline if others are. -- 3226:Not to my knowledge. I don't mind either name. 1142:is a rather strange term to be found in a mere 431:doesn't work because the exclusion criteria at 43:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 3546:, and where notability is needed, the general 1797:Ian, I hear you. However your objections are 1415:(and the old debates, not listed there, about 1037:I don't think this guideline lays it to rest 567:Again, #5 was really along the lines of basic 4620:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters 4151:Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) 2920:criteria are primary and which are secondary. 1706:It is improper for "Notability (science)" to 8: 4234:The following discussion is preserved as an 4084:Abandon this as an unnecessary complication 4001:. Why else do we have a 1000 articles on a 3990:(subject to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). The 3988:Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia 2992:the discipline the encyclopedia represents. 151:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 121:Template:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 2510:which isn't a notability criterion page. 1505: 58: 4630:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 4594:The above discussion is preserved as an 4413:As for the snide remarks about possible 4260:is superfluous, perhaps determining the 2927:Notability of topics related to science: 2552:which measures the hotness of chillis -- 2477:constitute a reliable source satisfying 124:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 3451:Knowledge (XXG):Policies and guidelines 3072:'popular' coverage as well as academic. 2252:article does not adequately conform to 1932:This is a complete misunderstanding of 60: 3307:Support or rejection for this proposal 2254:Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on neutrality 732: 2804:General notability guideline template 997:itself. Although I am doing my own " 7: 3431:I see, if not frequent, so at least 2828:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (numbers) 2821:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (numbers) 2584:That sounds like very much like the 2266:to the spirit and letter of NPOV. -- 1491:adopted a "scientific point of view" 974:There are plenty of Wikipedians who 491:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science) 235:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science) 32: 30: 4484:articles. I have long opposed the 3586:? What do you do about the use of 3257:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 2887:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 2054:standing on the shoulders of giants 1944:, which is completely different. -- 49:It is of interest to the following 2324:WP:FRINGE#Sourcing and attribution 364:nomination doesn't hurt either! -- 108:. For a listing of essays see the 97:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 25: 3176:This page is arguably the better 2830:into this guideline proposal? -- 2826:What are the thoughts on merging 1296:Making this an approved guideline 976:agree with you about hating rules 729:#"Conference topic" is a backdoor 94:This page is within the scope of 170: 87: 73: 62: 31: 4625:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays 3184:. I'd suggest merging the two. 3182:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories 3151:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories 2256:, in particular the section on 1750:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 1004:domains. As has been noted in 868:guidelines within that context. 403:Pseudoscience arbitrartion case 4548:) 17:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 4389:) 13:43, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 4283:) 09:55, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 4074:) 09:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 4019:) 19:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 3941:) 17:34, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 3215:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe science 1237:is in principle a defiance of 723:I've advertised the debate at 598:towards your contributions. -- 1: 2705:Forget WP:N, it has no basis 1917:One researcher POV fails NPOV 1876:WP:COI#Importance_of_civility 1306:the Village Pump policy forum 3133:What does this page do that 1699:For example, the article on 241:Please state your position, 4577:08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 4504:17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 4492:as an inclusion criteria. 4434:14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 4357:11:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 4313:08:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 4220:04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4203:04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4193:03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4168:08:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4158:05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4145:05:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4133:05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4120:03:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4109:02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4048:03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 4039:22:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3975:17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3918:00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 3893:19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3875:15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3857:15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3823:04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3774:03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3737:03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3705:03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3679:01:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3650:01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3615:22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) 3575:and the requirement to use 3562:23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3532:18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3494:Reverted to earlier version 3484:18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3462:16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3441:16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3427:15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3397:15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3364:14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3351:14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3321:14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3302:13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 3291:19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 2548:It reminds me a bit of the 1180:reflect outside authorities 1129:included. (i.e. nonnotable) 4646: 3281:10:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2900:am not going to read now. 2835:19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 2599:18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2580:13:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2569:05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 2557:18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2540:16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2522:19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2501:10:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2459:17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2424:17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2393:15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2380:09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2361:00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2346:00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2331:00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 2314:20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2271:20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2233:19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2210:19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2196:19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2179:17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2145:16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2085:15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2061:14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 2023:13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 1997:12:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 1984:00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 1958:21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 1949:19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 1889:10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 1830:03:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 1761:01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 1715:23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1701:Ralph Juergens was deleted 1668:22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1634:21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1601:20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1583:17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1563:15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1543:15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1522:13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 1501:15:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1456:14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1440:14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1398:13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1388:09:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1351:03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1334:02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1290:17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 1251:14:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 1220:13:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 1191:17:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1172:15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1151:13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1098:09:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1058:01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1044:23:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 1017:16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 983:14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 970:14:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 960:19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 943:18:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 884:18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 863:18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 853:17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 833:17:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 815:17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 806:10:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 757:21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 747:20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 719:16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 709:14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 659:13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 639:19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 603:17:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 586:14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 563:14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 553:14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 529:14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 519:13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 485:13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 471:18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 444:13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 393:19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 383:19:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 369:18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 359:18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 349:18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 329:17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 319:17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 307:17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 295:15:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 279:12:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 267:12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 254:10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 4003:1000 pieces of space rock 3260:15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 3251:09:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 3222:23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 3209:11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 3170:04:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 3158:04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 2951:Wikpedia:Reliable Sources 2814:01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 2781:04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2764:04:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2744:03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2719:00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2701:18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 2691:18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 2675:08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 2646:17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 2636:13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 2487:20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2286:09:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 1483:If Knowledge (XXG) was a 141: 82: 57: 4601:Please do not modify it. 4241:Please do not modify it. 3124:01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 2890:02:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC) 2874:08:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 2844:16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 2529:Schmidt Sting Pain Index 2228:facts". (my emphasis) -- 1468:The fundamental flaw of 573:broad community support. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:SCI 475:The evidence is in the 3960:Knowledge (XXG) is not 3807:say nothing more than 3573:"No original research" 2895:Proposal concerns (LV) 858:can create bedlam. -- 665:Comment on my comments 617:I suggest you go read 237:a consensus guideline? 145:automatically assessed 138: 115:Knowledge (XXG) essays 102:Knowledge (XXG) essays 70:Knowledge (XXG) essays 4540:comment was added by 4381:comment was added by 4324:a 1000 pieces of rock 4275:comment was added by 4066:comment was added by 4011:comment was added by 3933:comment was added by 2138:NPOV misunderstanding 1810:at all, more like on 1318:WikiProject Chemistry 870:I have looked at the 143:The above rating was 137: 3098:"Google, Yahoo.... " 1627:List of closed cases 1470:Notability (science) 1278:This is why the new 1235:proving the negative 684:, (and to a degree, 433:WP:NPOV#Undue weight 4534:, is superfluous. 3842:talk:Herbert Dingle 3129:Why is this needed? 3027:Numbers and Sources 1322:WikiProject Biology 1314:WikiProject Physics 1310:WikiProject Science 1006:the WP:N discussion 731:, for instance, or 3135:isn't already done 2973:Criteria / General 837:I'm with SA here: 733:#One final thought 139: 45:content assessment 4549: 4390: 4284: 4075: 4020: 3942: 3631:You like to cite 3213:Maybe a merge to 3153:, and so on? — 2717: 1914: 1913: 999:original research 596:assume good faith 230: 229: 211: 210: 164: 163: 160: 159: 156: 155: 152: 16:(Redirected from 4637: 4603: 4573: 4571: 4569: 4567: 4565: 4535: 4501: 4376: 4353: 4351: 4349: 4347: 4345: 4309: 4307: 4305: 4303: 4301: 4270: 4243: 4217: 4190: 4061: 4006: 3994:guideline is an 3928: 3915: 3872: 3820: 3734: 3676: 3559: 3521: 3515: 3511: 3505: 3393: 3391: 3389: 3387: 3385: 3347: 3345: 3343: 3341: 3339: 3247: 3245: 3243: 3241: 3239: 3205: 3203: 3201: 3199: 3197: 3121: 3118: 3017:Scientific terms 2870: 2868: 2866: 2864: 2862: 2778: 2761:ScienceApologist 2741: 2713: 2688: 2671: 2669: 2667: 2665: 2663: 2632: 2630: 2628: 2626: 2624: 2577:ScienceApologist 2519: 2390:ScienceApologist 2358:ScienceApologist 2328:ScienceApologist 2268:ScienceApologist 2207:ScienceApologist 2176:ScienceApologist 2082: 2058:ScienceApologist 1994:ScienceApologist 1955:ScienceApologist 1827: 1560: 1519: 1506: 1453: 1437: 1384: 1382: 1380: 1378: 1376: 1348: 1248:ScienceApologist 1217: 1094: 1092: 1090: 1088: 1086: 980:ScienceApologist 850: 830:ScienceApologist 802: 800: 798: 796: 794: 754:ScienceApologist 744: 716:ScienceApologist 706: 656:ScienceApologist 636: 600:ScienceApologist 583: 560:ScienceApologist 550: 526:ScienceApologist 516: 482:ScienceApologist 468: 441:ScienceApologist 276:ScienceApologist 225: 185: 184: 174: 166: 142: 126: 125: 122: 119: 116: 91: 84: 83: 78: 77: 76: 66: 59: 36: 35: 34: 27: 21: 4645: 4644: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4599: 4563: 4561: 4559: 4557: 4555: 4536:—The preceding 4497: 4408:Edward Schaefer 4377:—The preceding 4372:non-negotiable. 4343: 4341: 4339: 4337: 4335: 4299: 4297: 4295: 4293: 4291: 4271:—The preceding 4239: 4213: 4200:trialsanderrors 4186: 4155:trialsanderrors 4117:trialsanderrors 4086: 4062:—The preceding 4045:trialsanderrors 4007:—The preceding 3956:Stephen Hawking 3929:—The preceding 3911: 3868: 3816: 3730: 3672: 3588:Nature magazine 3555: 3519: 3513: 3509: 3503: 3496: 3438:trialsanderrors 3383: 3381: 3379: 3377: 3375: 3337: 3335: 3333: 3331: 3329: 3309: 3274: 3237: 3235: 3233: 3231: 3229: 3195: 3193: 3191: 3189: 3187: 3131: 3119: 3116: 2897: 2882: 2860: 2858: 2856: 2854: 2852: 2824: 2806: 2774: 2753:User:Iantresman 2737: 2684: 2661: 2659: 2657: 2655: 2653: 2622: 2620: 2618: 2616: 2614: 2609: 2596:trialsanderrors 2532: 2515: 2494: 2078: 1919: 1823: 1596:semper fictilis 1556: 1515: 1449: 1433: 1374: 1372: 1370: 1368: 1366: 1344: 1298: 1213: 1188:trialsanderrors 1106: 1084: 1082: 1080: 1078: 1076: 846: 792: 790: 788: 786: 784: 740: 702: 632: 579: 546: 512: 477:What links here 464: 304:trialsanderrors 239: 226: 220: 179: 123: 120: 117: 114: 113: 110:essay directory 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4643: 4641: 4633: 4632: 4627: 4622: 4612: 4611: 4607: 4606: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4411: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4316: 4315: 4277:66.229.247.229 4247: 4246: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4149:There is also 4147: 4085: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4068:66.229.247.229 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4013:77.181.151.201 3978: 3977: 3935:84.244.165.174 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3878: 3877: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3565: 3564: 3495: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3444: 3443: 3429: 3413: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3354: 3353: 3308: 3305: 3294: 3293: 3273: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3130: 3127: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3064: 3058: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3041: 3036: 3035: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3023: 3019: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3004: 2999: 2998: 2994: 2993: 2989: 2986: 2982: 2981: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2945: 2936: 2935: 2929: 2928: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2909: 2908: 2896: 2893: 2885:to reality. -- 2881: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2823: 2817: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2711:badlydrawnjeff 2608: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2572: 2571: 2566:EngineerScotty 2560: 2559: 2550:Scoville scale 2546: 2531: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2493: 2490: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2383: 2382: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2339: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2263: 2262: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2218: 2199: 2198: 2188: 2187:pseudoscience. 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2016: 2009: 2005: 1987: 1986: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1882: 1879: 1872: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1704: 1697: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1586: 1585: 1576: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1545: 1526: 1525: 1504: 1503: 1494: 1481: 1474:scientifically 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1390: 1361: 1357: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1283: 1276: 1269: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1194: 1193: 1184:same sentiment 1176: 1175: 1174: 1154: 1153: 1134:The statement 1132: 1131: 1130: 1123: 1120: 1114: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1031: 1030: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1002: 987: 986: 985: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 869: 855: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 361: 338: 321: 316:EngineerScotty 309: 297: 281: 269: 238: 231: 228: 227: 222: 218: 216: 213: 212: 209: 208: 202: 201: 196: 191: 181: 180: 175: 169: 162: 161: 158: 157: 154: 153: 140: 130: 129: 127: 92: 80: 79: 67: 55: 54: 48: 37: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4642: 4631: 4628: 4626: 4623: 4621: 4618: 4617: 4615: 4605: 4602: 4597: 4592: 4578: 4575: 4574: 4551: 4550: 4547: 4543: 4542:68.149.28.102 4539: 4533: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4505: 4502: 4500: 4495: 4491: 4487: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4460: 4456: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4435: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4409: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4388: 4384: 4383:62.75.164.176 4380: 4374: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4358: 4355: 4354: 4331: 4330: 4328: 4325: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4314: 4311: 4310: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4245: 4242: 4237: 4232: 4231: 4221: 4218: 4216: 4211: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4201: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4191: 4189: 4184: 4179: 4169: 4166: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4146: 4143: 4139: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4131: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4118: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4107: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4083: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4049: 4046: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4031: 4026: 4025: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4004: 4000: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3976: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3919: 3916: 3914: 3909: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3894: 3891: 3887: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3876: 3873: 3871: 3866: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3824: 3821: 3819: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3775: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3738: 3735: 3733: 3728: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3706: 3703: 3699: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3670: 3666: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3607: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3584:fringe theory 3581: 3578: 3577:peer reviewed 3574: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3563: 3560: 3558: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3530: 3526: 3518: 3508: 3500: 3493: 3485: 3482: 3478: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3439: 3434: 3433:recurrent use 3430: 3428: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3410: 3406: 3405: 3398: 3395: 3394: 3371: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3352: 3349: 3348: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3306: 3304: 3303: 3300: 3292: 3289: 3288:216.155.0.100 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3271: 3261: 3258: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3206: 3183: 3180:at least for 3179: 3175: 3171: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3128: 3126: 3125: 3122: 3111: 3102: 3101: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3081: 3080: 3076: 3075: 3070: 3067: 3066: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3055: 3054: 3045: 3044: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3016: 3015: 3009: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2990: 2987: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2972: 2971: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2954: 2952: 2946: 2943: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2926: 2925: 2918: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2907:Introduction: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2894: 2892: 2891: 2888: 2879: 2875: 2872: 2871: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2842: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2822: 2818: 2816: 2815: 2812: 2803: 2801: 2782: 2779: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2740: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2699: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2689: 2687: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2672: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2644: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2606: 2600: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2591:Straight Dope 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2499: 2491: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2425: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2394: 2391: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2347: 2344: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2329: 2325: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2301: 2296: 2295: 2293: 2292: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2261: 2259: 2255: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2208: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2194: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2177: 2172: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2132: 2129: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2086: 2083: 2081: 2076: 2072: 2069: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1956: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1890: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1831: 1828: 1826: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1581: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1564: 1561: 1559: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1520: 1518: 1513: 1508: 1507: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1457: 1454: 1452: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1436: 1431: 1427: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1396: 1391: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1267: 1263: 1260: 1259: 1252: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1221: 1218: 1216: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1146:at any rate. 1145: 1141: 1140:"Must always" 1137: 1133: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1095: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1027: 1026:the real test 1024: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1000: 996: 992: 989:I do not see 988: 984: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 968: 963: 962: 961: 958: 954: 950: 946: 945: 944: 941: 937: 934: 931: 928: 925: 922: 919: 916: 913: 910: 907: 904: 901: 898: 895: 885: 882: 878: 873: 866: 865: 864: 861: 856: 854: 851: 849: 844: 840: 836: 835: 834: 831: 828:elsewhere. -- 827: 823: 818: 817: 816: 813: 809: 808: 807: 804: 803: 780: 776: 775: 758: 755: 750: 749: 748: 745: 743: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 721: 720: 717: 712: 711: 710: 707: 705: 700: 696: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 670: 666: 662: 661: 660: 657: 652: 647: 642: 641: 640: 637: 635: 630: 625: 620: 616: 604: 601: 597: 593: 589: 588: 587: 584: 582: 577: 574: 570: 566: 565: 564: 561: 556: 555: 554: 551: 549: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 527: 522: 521: 520: 517: 515: 510: 505: 501: 496: 492: 488: 487: 486: 483: 478: 474: 473: 472: 469: 467: 462: 457: 445: 442: 438: 434: 430: 425: 421: 417: 413: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 394: 391: 386: 385: 384: 381: 377: 372: 371: 370: 367: 362: 360: 357: 352: 351: 350: 347: 343: 336: 332: 331: 330: 327: 322: 320: 317: 313: 310: 308: 305: 301: 298: 296: 293: 289: 285: 282: 280: 277: 273: 270: 268: 265: 261: 258: 257: 256: 255: 252: 248: 244: 236: 232: 215: 214: 207: 204: 203: 200: 197: 195: 192: 190: 187: 186: 183: 182: 178: 173: 168: 167: 150: 146: 136: 132: 131: 128: 111: 107: 103: 99: 98: 93: 90: 86: 85: 81: 71: 68: 65: 61: 56: 52: 46: 42: 38: 29: 28: 19: 4600: 4593: 4554: 4531: 4498: 4489: 4485: 4334: 4290: 4265: 4261: 4248: 4240: 4233: 4214: 4187: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4028: 3995: 3984:Undue weight 3926: 3912: 3869: 3846:twin paradox 3839: 3817: 3804: 3731: 3673: 3664: 3604: 3556: 3501: 3497: 3459:Kevin Murray 3454: 3374: 3361:Kevin Murray 3328: 3318:Kevin Murray 3313: 3310: 3299:Kevin Murray 3295: 3278:Kevin Murray 3275: 3228: 3186: 3177: 3167:Kevin Murray 3165:Not much. -- 3132: 3112: 3108: 3007: 2948: 2902: 2898: 2883: 2851: 2841:Kevin Murray 2838: 2832:Kevin Murray 2825: 2811:Kevin Murray 2807: 2799: 2775: 2738: 2725: 2706: 2698:Kevin Murray 2685: 2652: 2643:Kevin Murray 2613: 2610: 2589: 2533: 2516: 2495: 2475: 2320: 2306: 2280: 2264: 2258:undue weight 2250: 2245: 2225: 2167: 2079: 2067: 2012: 1941: 1824: 1798: 1707: 1622: 1595: 1594: 1557: 1516: 1509: 1488: 1484: 1477: 1473: 1450: 1434: 1395:Kevin Murray 1365: 1345: 1303: 1299: 1265: 1214: 1179: 1178:I agree the 1160: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1126: 1110: 1075: 1069: 1038: 1025: 990: 967:Kevin Murray 860:Kevin Murray 847: 812:Kevin Murray 783: 741: 703: 689: 668: 645: 633: 580: 572: 547: 513: 507:guideline? 476: 465: 390:Kevin Murray 366:Kevin Murray 356:Kevin Murray 326:Kevin Murray 311: 299: 283: 271: 264:Minderbinder 259: 246: 242: 240: 176: 95: 51:WikiProjects 41:project page 40: 4423:WP:CHEMICAL 4415:WP:ASTEROID 3696:journal on 3592:cold fusion 3040:fractions?) 2880:Scope creep 2537:88.109.1.60 2226:unpublished 2224:"refers to 2008:scientists. 1480:other area. 4614:Categories 4258:WP:NOTABLE 3992:WP:NOTABLE 3952:Halton Arp 3638:Halton Arp 2554:Iantresman 2456:Iantresman 2421:Iantresman 2377:Iantresman 2343:Iantresman 2311:Iantresman 2230:Iantresman 2193:Iantresman 2142:Iantresman 2071:WP:SCIENCE 2020:Iantresman 1981:Iantresman 1946:Iantresman 1886:Iantresman 1871:(Science). 1808:WP:SCIENCE 1804:WP:SCIENCE 1712:Iantresman 1631:Iantresman 1623:mainstream 1580:Iantresman 1498:Iantresman 1485:Scientific 1287:Iantresman 1264:It is not 1127:improbably 539:WP:SCIENCE 495:WP:SCIENCE 312:Absolutely 106:discussion 4419:WP:GALAXY 4165:SmokeyJoe 4130:SmokeyJoe 4106:SmokeyJoe 3996:inclusion 3765:does. -- 3219:Omegatron 3155:Omegatron 2508:WP:FRINGE 2307:potential 2171:WP:EXPERT 2004:policies. 1549:Time Cube 1417:Time Cube 1266:necessary 1244:WP:FRINGE 1161:elsewhere 1144:guideline 826:consensus 437:consensus 333:There is 251:SmokeyJoe 206:Archive 4 199:Archive 3 194:Archive 2 189:Archive 1 4538:unsigned 4379:unsigned 4273:unsigned 4115:them. ~ 4064:unsigned 4009:unsigned 3948:WP:UNDUE 3931:unsigned 3805:criteria 3580:journals 3517:proposed 3507:rejected 3416:WP:UNDUE 3409:this one 3272:Rejected 3117:Laughing 2819:Merging 2726:deletion 2586:Ig-Nobel 2124:editors. 1592:kept? 1273:Big Bang 646:de facto 177:Archives 4596:archive 4236:archive 3698:density 3665:without 3056:Sources 2498:Shyamal 2013:against 1942:notable 1816:WP:PROF 1206:WP:NPOV 1111:science 1070:content 682:WP:NPOV 624:WP:PROF 429:WP:NPOV 4532:per se 4266:extent 4262:extent 3120:Vulcan 3008:itself 2942:WP:IAR 2484:Edison 2479:WP:ATT 2222:WP:NOR 1812:WP:BIO 1708:solely 1411:, and 1239:WP:ATT 1202:WP:ATT 949:WP:RfC 940:Edison 935:, and 725:WP:VPR 695:WP:VPR 680:, and 678:WP:ATT 669:should 651:WP:AGF 619:WP:AGF 590:Basic 500:WP:ATT 420:WP:COI 412:WP:NOR 147:using 47:scale. 4556:: --> 4499:juice 4494:Mango 4336:: --> 4292:: --> 4254:WP:RS 4215:juice 4210:Mango 4188:juice 4183:Mango 4142:Bduke 3913:juice 3908:Mango 3870:juice 3865:Mango 3818:juice 3813:Mango 3732:juice 3727:Mango 3702:Bduke 3674:juice 3669:Mango 3557:juice 3552:Mango 3540:WP:OR 3376:: --> 3368:Yep. 3330:: --> 3230:: --> 3188:: --> 3178:title 3143:WP:RS 2853:: --> 2776:juice 2771:Mango 2739:juice 2734:Mango 2724:over- 2686:juice 2681:Mango 2654:: --> 2615:: --> 2607:So... 2517:juice 2512:Mango 2217:NPOV. 2080:juice 2075:Mango 1825:juice 1820:Mango 1558:juice 1553:Mango 1517:juice 1512:Mango 1451:juice 1446:Mango 1435:juice 1430:Mango 1367:: --> 1346:juice 1341:Mango 1215:juice 1210:Mango 1148:patsw 1077:: --> 848:juice 843:Mango 785:: --> 742:juice 737:Mango 704:juice 699:Mango 690:isn't 674:WP:OR 634:juice 629:Mango 581:juice 576:Mango 548:juice 543:Mango 514:juice 509:Mango 504:WP:OR 466:juice 461:Mango 39:This 4572:< 4546:talk 4490:that 4486:term 4431:Talk 4421:and 4387:talk 4352:< 4308:< 4281:talk 4252:and 4250:WP:V 4153:. ~ 4072:talk 4035:talk 4017:talk 3972:Talk 3964:WP:N 3946:See 3939:talk 3890:Talk 3854:Talk 3809:WP:N 3771:Talk 3763:WP:N 3647:Talk 3611:talk 3548:WP:N 3544:WP:V 3542:and 3529:Talk 3502:The 3481:Talk 3449:Per 3424:Talk 3392:< 3370:Here 3346:< 3246:< 3204:< 3147:WP:V 3139:WP:N 2869:< 2715:talk 2707:here 2670:< 2631:< 2326:. -- 1938:WP:A 1934:NPOV 1758:Talk 1665:Talk 1629:) -- 1540:Talk 1383:< 1331:Talk 1280:WP:A 1246:. -- 1204:and 1169:Talk 1093:< 1055:Talk 1014:Talk 995:WP:N 957:Talk 881:Talk 872:WP:N 839:WP:N 822:WP:N 801:< 779:WP:N 686:WP:N 592:WP:N 569:WP:N 535:WP:N 424:WP:A 418:and 416:WP:V 407:WP:N 399:WP:N 380:Talk 346:Talk 292:Talk 149:data 4598:. 4427:EMS 4030:DGG 3968:EMS 3950:. 3886:EMS 3850:EMS 3767:EMS 3643:EMS 3606:DGG 3525:EMS 3477:EMS 3420:EMS 3412:so. 3137:by 2282:DGG 2068:for 1814:or 1799:way 1754:EMS 1661:EMS 1536:EMS 1489:not 1478:any 1327:EMS 1165:EMS 1051:EMS 1040:DGG 1010:EMS 991:any 953:EMS 877:EMS 376:EMS 342:EMS 300:Yes 288:EMS 284:Yes 272:Yes 260:Yes 245:or 243:yes 233:Is 4616:: 4429:| 4417:, 4238:. 4037:) 3970:| 3888:| 3852:| 3769:| 3645:| 3641:-- 3613:) 3527:| 3520:}} 3514:{{ 3510:}} 3504:{{ 3479:| 3475:-- 3457:-- 3453:: 3422:| 3297:-- 3149:, 3145:, 3141:, 2953:." 2759:. 2191:-- 1818:. 1756:| 1663:| 1538:| 1407:, 1393:-- 1329:| 1325:-- 1320:, 1316:, 1312:, 1308:, 1167:| 1053:| 1012:| 955:| 938:. 932:, 929:, 926:, 923:, 920:, 917:, 914:, 911:, 908:, 905:, 902:, 899:, 879:| 875:-- 752:-- 676:, 654:-- 558:-- 502:, 480:-- 378:| 344:| 290:| 247:no 4570:t 4568:n 4566:a 4564:i 4562:d 4560:a 4558:R 4544:( 4385:( 4350:t 4348:n 4346:a 4344:i 4342:d 4340:a 4338:R 4306:t 4304:n 4302:a 4300:i 4298:d 4296:a 4294:R 4279:( 4070:( 4033:( 4015:( 3937:( 3609:( 3390:t 3388:n 3386:a 3384:i 3382:d 3380:a 3378:R 3344:t 3342:n 3340:a 3338:i 3336:d 3334:a 3332:R 3244:t 3242:n 3240:a 3238:i 3236:d 3234:a 3232:R 3202:t 3200:n 3198:a 3196:i 3194:d 3192:a 3190:R 2944:. 2867:t 2865:n 2863:a 2861:i 2859:d 2857:a 2855:R 2668:t 2666:n 2664:a 2662:i 2660:d 2658:a 2656:R 2629:t 2627:n 2625:a 2623:i 2621:d 2619:a 2617:R 2260:. 1381:t 1379:n 1377:a 1375:i 1373:d 1371:a 1369:R 1091:t 1089:n 1087:a 1085:i 1083:d 1081:a 1079:R 799:t 797:n 795:a 793:i 791:d 789:a 787:R 112:. 53:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.