Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)/Archive 3

message: Since it seems like discussion is picking up again I moved my earlier proposal into WP space and merged the talk pages. The archives are linked above now, and I split the shortcuts, WP:SCI links to Wikipedia:Notability (scientific contributions) and WP:SCIENCE links to Wikipedia:Notability (science). Both WT:SCI and WT:SCIENCE link here. I haven't checked WP:FRINGE yet. ~ trialsanderrors 09:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus seems to be emerging on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories that the Fringe theory proposed guideline should cover more than just science articles — history, pop-culture conspiracy theories and so forth.  Based on this consensus, I would advise merging WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE into WP:FRINGE.  Anville 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE don't just cover fringe theories but also possible mainstream theories that haven't received enough attention from the community. (An analogue would be an experimental composer vs. an unsuccessful pop songwriter, both lack the recognition but the thrust of what they attempt to do is very different.) Since the proposals are diverting in scope and they're all getting pretty long anyway I'd say we scrap the merge proposal. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and merged WP:SCI and WP:SCIENCE since they seemed disjoint and complementary enough. --ScienceApologist 14:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposals

message: The Jimbo quotation adorning the lead of WP:SCI is not actually a quotation from Jimbo, but rather a paraphrase.  Anville 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that was copied and pasted from WP:NPOV. Looks like it's been changed there, so I took it out. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about including the actual quote from Jimbo, from his post from September 2003 on the mailing list? --Iantresman 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a proposed guideline, so for now it can be edited (and reverted) by everybody. ~ trialsanderrors 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation 

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

message: I propose that the following points be removed from the items section: 
*2. "It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator." Other points would already cover this. For example, if indeed part of the scientific community accepts this explanation, then it would be included in a number of peer reviewed journals. TSO1D 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with both. The only yardstick for prominence we have right now is notability, and even if the proftest is more restrictive than other bio guidelines, it gives rise to a halo effect: the barest of theories espoused by a barely notable scientist would hva e to be included. ~ trialsanderrors 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two points 

message: In general, an item in the field of science is probably sufficiently notable to merit an article on Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
#There is a non-trivial mention of the item in general or specialized textbooks.
#It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded.
#It is or was supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
#It has been previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
#It is or was advocated by prominent persons, or by notable individuals in the political or religious spheres, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
#It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
#It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
#It is or was notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
#It has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants from the same field.
This is a merger of different sets of criteria in the proposal that I think covers most topics and isn't too broad. I combined elements from the "items" and "theories" list and reworded some of the points. I preserved some entirely or just in part and merged with others, but some points I removed entirely as I considered them to be redundant or too broad. I like the hypothesis section, however I don't believe that the full text of that section is necessary. The notability of hypotheses could be judged using the aforementioned criteria, whereas the explanations on POV and Undue Weight are already part of other established policies that apply to all articles on Wikipedia. TSO1D 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think keeping the text of the hypotheses section is important because it summarizes ideas from a disparate set of policies, guidelines, and precedents in a very succinct way. In editting science pages, I have seen the "its only a hypothesis" excuse used to justify the inclusion of material that is technically not encyclopedic. --ScienceApologist 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, wouldn't other parts of this guideline already fulfill that role? I mean, such an argument could easily be countered by explaining that it doesn't fulfill the criteria set out in the main points of the policy. Again, I believe the section is well-written and relevant, but in my view it doesn't offer a fast tool with which to assess other articles. And I don't believe that the section is that concise, by Wikipedia standards. Perhaps it could at least be summarized to a paragraph. TSO1D 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not happy with how the merger was done and will revert in a second. In particular (ignoring a possible discussion about the "inclusionist" or "exclusionist" bent of some of the criteria), the current set of criteria suffers from a lack of tangible markers. "by a significant part of the general population", "strong criticism", "previously thought of as correct or plausible" means absolutely nothing. We might as well reduce the whole guideline to "there's been some debate about this" if we can't make the individual criteria more tangible. ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK instead of reverting I'm posting a side-by-side comparison below. ~ trialsanderrors 22:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merger of criteria 

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

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Comment as you will. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another test case of interest for people working on the proposal is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden, which focuses on notability criteria for scientists working on fringe theories. Sdedeo (tips) 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do also add test cases to Wikipedia:Notability (science)/Test cases. ~ trialsanderrors 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Test case

message: In the 7 point Criteria list, I changed the "is" to "is or was" or to "was" to include historical scientific material.
I think there needs to be a distinction between the criteria for "Sources" and for other items of relevance, which might receive a link and/or a brief mention in the body of the article, in a special section of the article and/or in the footnotes.
Stricter criteria should be applied to items which are cited as "scientific sources" than to items which are cultural references or critiques which are regarded as "unscientific".  For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29 has extensive sections on the Aurora in folklore and popular culture.  There are also "uncategorized" and "commercial" sub-sections in the Links section.
If it is OK to link to a tourist village http://www.porjus.eu then why should it be a problem to link to one or more critiques of the mainstream theory, with an explicit note (or within a heading, which indicates) that WP is not presenting them as "scientific"?
If a topic is currently covered by an acceptable "scientific" article then I understand it is unacceptable to create a new article on the same subject, with conflicting or repetitious material, unless it is acceptable under the "Criticism of ..." guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POVFORK .  Since ScienceApologist rejects this approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Redshift#List_or_separate_article_for_unconventional_theories) 
I think these proposed guidelines need to provide explicit guidance on use of "Criticism of ..." articles where the article being criticised is regarded as being about a "scientific" subject.  I think that the focus of some folks on having no mention of or links from a scientific article to non-mainstream perspectives is overdone and censorious.
I know the Wikipedia started with the idea of being just like prior encyclopedias in some ways, but the current situation is far different from that faced by people who were about to commit to print runs of huge books which were to be sold for the next two or so years.  WP is a website with hyperlinks and search engine access.  There is no financial cost, and little other cost, in adding a heading to say that certain links or discussions regarding a scientific subject do not meet WP's criteria of scientific notability.
I am not saying that a large amount of page space needs to be devoted to non-conventional theories, just that the main article indicates that such things exist and points interested readers in one or more directions if that is what they want to pursue.  This seems like a small price to pay for helping people gain a broader perspective, and in many cases come to recognise how loony a lot of the non-mainstream theories are.
Maybe we expect an old print Britannica to not even mention UFOs, but this is 2007, this is the Wikipedia, running entirely on recycled electrons and people's precious attention and efforts.  I think it is stifling to insist that every article, including those with excellent scientific content, not have even a mention of alternative perspectives.  I am not suggesting that these alternatives be given equal prominence - just that they be mentioned, or that there be a pointer to another article or site where they are mentioned.
I wrote some more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_universe_%28concept%29 about the value of keeping articles on non-mainstream theories, but labelling them as such and enabling the proponents to have a brief summary and a link to their site. Robin Whittle 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Robin -- can you be explicit about what you would like to change in the criteria right now? There is absolutely nothing in them that excludes "alternative perspectives" -- as long as they have some respectable representation within the scientific community (on the one hand) or in the political/cultural/media community at large (on the other.) Can you give some examples? Sdedeo (tips) 04:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect a hidden agenda here.  Electric universe is very non-notable, but the creators of that article have managed in the past to create an illusion on notability.  That illusion has been shattered, and that article is finally on its way to deletion.  I do agree that we should not remove content because it is not scientifically accepted, but in general such material fails the tests of WP:V, WP:NOR, and often also WP:NPOV.  I for one think that this proposal is now doing a good job of identifying the characteristics that make a theory or viewpoint acceptable in this venue. For those articles that cannot meet these requirement, my advice is to remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. EMS | Talk 05:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I made a few edits to the criteria.  For one, I removed the line:
:It is or was notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community or skeptics.
Any crackpot theory that gets put forward in a public venue will automatically get said "strong criticism".  The creator of the now deleted sorce theory article considered the USENET postings that he had garnered said evidence (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorce theory).  IMO, to qualify the criticism should be in the context of or in response to one the other criteria. (An example is criticism in peer-reviewed journal articles, in which case the peer-review requirement is met.)
I also contracted the history requirment to "It is otherwise of historical interest".  The deleted text
:previously thought of as correct
is highly ambiguous.  Once again, the author of the sorce theory article thought that his own opinion on the article was sufficient to qualify it under this criteria.  As the other standards include "is or was", it seems to me that the historical side is mostly covered already.
Also, I think that note needs to be attached to item 7 making it clear that the "same field" is one which includes the topic in question as a subset.  The theory in question cannot qualify as being its own field.
I can understand that people do not want the bar to be set too high here, but if we get too inclusive there is a lot of pure and useless speculation that will end up in Wikipedia.  The "No original research" policy was established to keep such things out of Wikipedia, and our criteria ought to respect that.  I don't mind Wikipedia erring on the side of inclusion when there is doubt that a topic is really non-notable.  However, in most cases there is no cause for such doubts. --EMS | Talk 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to the criteria 

message: #"Textbook science"
#:Items list: It is part of the corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge.
#:Theories list: It has been included in general or specialized textbooks.
#:Current: There is a non-trivial mention of the item in general or specialized textbooks.
#"Possible explanation"
#:Items list: It is considered a possible explanation by a part of the scientific community independent of its creator.
#"Prominent advocates"
#:Items list: It is advocated by at least one researcher who is prominent in the relevant field.
#"Peer review"
#:Items list: It is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher
#:Theories list: It has been widely cited in its research area relative to other publications in the same area. Self-citations and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded. Inclusion in a peer-reviewed publication, especially in a respected journal with a reputation for rigorous inclusion standards and high impact, is an additional factor to be considered but not by itself a necessary or sufficient criterion.
#:Current: It is represented by a number of well-cited peer-reviewed papers, and is discussed by several researchers or groups of researchers. Self-citations, and citations in non-peer-reviewed journals should be excluded.
#"Funding, seminars, awards"
#:Items list: It is supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
#:Theories list: The creators have received a major scientific award, such as the Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, for it. "Best paper" or "best conference presentation award" are rarely ever considered major.
#:Theories list: The theory has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants.
#:Current: It is or was supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
#:Current: It has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants from the same field.
#"Historical interest"
#:Items list: It is previously thought of as correct or plausible, or is otherwise of historical interest.
#:Theories list: The theory or model historically met any of the above criteria but has since been superseded by an alternative theory, or it has been used as an example in a notable account on the history of science. In this case the article should make note of this status.
#:Current: It is otherwise of historical interest.
#"Non-scientific advocacy"
#:Items list: It is advocated by a prominent persons or for political or religious reasons, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
#:Current: It is or was advocated by prominent persons, or by notable individuals in the political or religious spheres, or is a tenet of a notable religion or political philosophy, or is part of a notable cultural tradition or folklore.
#"Fiction"
#:Items list: It is well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction.
#:Current: It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction. In this case the article should make note of this status. A single article on the theory, even if from a respected media source such as New Scientist or Scientific American, is not a sufficient criterion.
#"Popular interest"
#:Items list: It is believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
#:Current: It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities.
#"Outsider theories"
#:Items list: It is notable because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.
#:Theories list: The scientific merit of the theory is disputed in, or rejected by, the scientific community, but it has received significant attention in political circles and ongoing coverage in the popular media. In this case the article should make note of this status.
It took some juggling, so I hope I got this right. ~ trialsanderrors 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to point out though, that some of these elements had already been removed by the time I tried to merge the two sets. For example, the Nobel one was removed after some discussion. Also, could you please indicate what specifically you disagree with. Do you think that the entire merger was flawed or that only some elements were done badly? TSO1D 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, clearly they have been in flux, I just went back a couple of days and pulled them out. My problem is mostly with the non-transparent way this was done, so I think a side-by-side comparison and a discussion of the itemized list will be beneficial. ~ trialsanderrors 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully agree. TSO1D 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria: Side-by-side comparison

message: My opinions:
# I take this is the catch-all for everything that is "generally accepted", so Nobel Prize might go here.
#:Didn't you say that you agreed to the removal of the Nobel point. I mean, it just seems that if a theory is worthy of a Nobel Prize, then it would have been discussed in peer reviewed journals already. TSO1D 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree. TSO1D 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

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

message: This continues from the  "Relax and allow brief mention of non-conventional theories" section above.  Sorry this is long - I am trying to be helpful.  
Sdedeo wrote:
:In general, I would say that "criticism of..." articles are rather problematic because they can lead to undue weight within the encyclopedia. Can you come up with a criterion for the creation of such an article?
WP:POVFORK includes:
:In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.
Edit wars plague some articles when two or more editors have such divergent views on the subject matter, or on WP rules and guidelines, that they are unable to create a single article which they all agree is satisfactory, or even tolerable.  This is especially the case if one or more editors is able to repeatedly delete the contribution of others - which must mean their deletions are sufficiently within WP rules and guidelines to survive arbitration.
Outside encyclopedias and the like, the usual approach to coping with divergent and incompatible viewpoints is to let everyone create their own books, websites etc.  This works fine.
A primary aim of WP is to concentrate material relevant to a topic onto one page, with multiple viewpoints presented in ways which are not prejudicial to each other, with reasonable balance (and here it get complicated . . .) in terms of space and the tone of writing etc.
WP aims to present currently accepted scientific theories and notable alternatives.  One source of trouble is that a topic might be of interest and genuine value in society in contexts other than "scientific" as defined by WP.  That can be handled, such as with Rainbow, by having the start and most of the rest of the article "scientific" and then having separate cultural sections where questions of scientific notability are not important.  
Here is a scenario, which I think exists at present.  One or more keen editors (and presumably a larger number of readers) are of the view that some significant contributions to scientific debate are occurring beyond the bounds of WP's current "scientific notability" criteria.  (Or at least readers want to find an article about something they know, or later decide, is scientifically invalid, despite its pretence to be valid.)
Prevailing editors (that is those whose edits tend to persist, due to their hard work and the fact that their actions are allowed by arbitration) do not allow discussion of, mention of or links to anything concerned with theories and research on "scientific" matters which does not meet WP's notability criteria.  Furthermore, these same, or similarly minded, editors prevent or frustrate the creation of articles which attempt to cover the same topic from a different perspective, including with reference to material outside WP's scientific notability criteria.
The result is that some editors feel that WP is too restrictive, and so may be tempted devote their energies in other ways, such as wikinfo.org, which specifically encourages the parallel creation of articles on the same topic with different points of view.
I am interested in WP being as flexible as possible to accommodate such non-conventional material, whilst at the same time not compromising WP's ability to centralise all mainstream interpretations of scientific material in their own, uncluttered, articles.  However I am frustrated by the view of some prevailing editors that such articles should not contain a section at the end, before the references and footnotes, pointing to articles or external material which has critical perspectives on this topic, or on the way the article portrays a topic.
My understanding of the "Criticism of ..." 2nd article idea is that it is contemplated by the POV Fork guidelines and that it is regarded as potentially not being a case of the (discouraged or banned) Point of View Fork guideline.  I understand that the requirements that the main and 2nd article link to each other with basic summaries of each other is intended to ensure readers know about and can easily read both articles.
I think this approach could enable WP to satisfy more editors and readers than with the current arrangement, where some editors feel that significant aspects of scientific work are completely excluded from WP.
If I thought the peer-review system was perfect and that every single person with anything potentially worthwhile to contribute to science would have no trouble using it, then I wouldn't be so troubled by the current exclusionary arrangements.
The WWW makes it increasingly easy for everyone to communicate directly, via email and especially via their own websites - including qualified scientists and those who do have some contribution to make, but who have no formal qualifications.  In the past, peer reviewed journals were the only timely way of making a lasting, easily accessed, contribution to science.  Now, they are neither the easiest, or the fastest - and some journals charge page fees.  They are also subject to length restrictions, (typically) lack of colour printing, and probably difficulties with handling work which challenges current paradigms.  It is also my guess that it would be much harder to get a paper accepted if the author lacks academic qualifications and has no institutional attachment.
Now consider one or more editors who believe strongly that the peer-review etc. notability criteria do not exclude anything of scientific value - or at least that WP should never mention or link to any material which does not meet these criteria.  If these editors have no misgivings about the current paradigms of science and are very concerned about the way pseudo-science, extremely loose "New Age" and "post-modernist" (it defies its own identification) thinking and faith-driven religious ideas are being blurred with genuine science in the minds of non-scientists, then they are going to be highly motivated to keep out all discussion or links to a bunch of stuff, some of which a person like me thinks is of actual scientific value.
I think it is better for WP to allow the creation and inter-linkage of two (perhaps more, but hopefully not) articles - the one main article where the current, conventionally accepted, conventionally notable material is presented, and a "Criticism of conventional theories of . . . " article where editors with other perspectives can hopefully get along well enough to create an article which helps readers understand the alternative perspectives.  
Many readers will want to read a WP article on a topic, or a theory, which is non-conventional and concerns scientific questions - whether or not they think the topic or theory is scientifically valid.  As long as the article links to the mainstream articles of the topics it discusses, and as long as the article references external material whilst providing a summary of it, rather than a complete copy, or the only publicly available copy, then I can't see any problem.  (This is an attempt to avoid WP articles puffing up the importance of an obscure thing.)
I don't think it is disastrous if a million articles are created about a million things which do have a genuine existence outside WP, even if they are relatively obscure - provided each such article links to conventional articles about the relevant topics and provided the WP article doesn't give the impression that the topic is any more notable or widely accepted than it really is.
In the past, every word and every article in a paper encyclopedia cost a lot.  Now the cost is extremely small - but there are potential problems with clutter of the WP namespace and searches leading to low-key articles when most people want the mainstream article.  I know there are problems with excessive articles like this, but I think it must be happening already outside the topics which might be regarded as "scientific".  I agree there needs to be constraints and pressure to keep articles and their names well organised, not excessively long etc.  But I do not support those who insist that WP allow only one article concerning a particular topic.  That can lead to excessive disputes and to the exclusion of potentially valuable material - with the temptation of editors and readers to go to a wiki system which is more supportive of diversity.
If something is conventionally regarded as pseudo-science, then the WP article about it should say so, probably at the start.  
The trouble is that to people who have no doubts about the current paradigms, theories which really challenge the prevailing paradigms may be pretty much indistinguishable from seriously misguided science or pseudo-science.  I believe the photon and Big Bang paradigms are wrong, and I think some important challenges to these paradigms come from outside the peer-review system.  So I think it is worth having plenty of material about WP concerning non-conventional approaches to science, even though I think the vast majority of these approaches are rubbish.
As long as the proponents of non-mainstream theories do not use their WP articles to claim greater notability or credibility than they currently have with mainstream researchers, then I think it is helpful to the public when trying to sort out science from pseudo-science, and for those searching for occasional gold beyond current scientific conventions.
I suggest that the new guidelines we are working on specifically mention a "Criticism conventional ... theories" WP:POVFORK approach to handling a situation where one or more keen editors finds their contributions persistently excluded from the main article.  My understanding is that WP:POVFORK does not disallow such a 2nd article.  
I suggest the new guidelines suggest the creation of a 2nd article only when all other attempts fail to reach consensus on the contents of the main article.  I also suggest:
# The main article should contain, in its final heading, a brief mention of (not a synopsis) the "Criticism of . . . " article and a link to that article.  This should be before the references and footnotes.
# The 2nd article should begin with a link to the one or potentially multiple main articles which directly concern the theories or concepts it presents critical viewpoints of.  
# In the body of the 2nd article, there should be mention of and links to articles and external resources which purport to be rebuttals of the alternative theories, the critiques of the original theories etc. which the 2nd article is concerned with.
# The proposed guidelines for scientific articles not restrict the 2nd article.  This will prevent editors who do not support its viewpoint using science-specific restrictions, such as scientific notability, to delete or alter material in the 2nd article.  The 2nd article isn't necessarily going to be from a scientific viewpoint.  For instance, there may be a purely philosophical position that it is silly to think we can understand the creation of the Universe.
I hope that other people can suggest how this 2nd article approach can be formalised and supported as a last resort safety valve.  I hope that this would keep the energies of editors and readers within WP, while allowing the main article to clearly reflect the current conventional scientific consensus, or debate.  The only concession I think needs to be made is that a heading and a few lines at the end of the main article must be devoted to mentioning and linking to the 2nd article, and that editors of the main article will need to accept other editors on WP discussing their article, and the theories the article covers, in ways which they would not allow in the main article.
I think these suggestions are very short and simple, but would provide a  great benefit in making WP richer and more valuable.  I believe that if we try to achieve greater and greater inclusion of seriously incompatible perspectives in the one article, by way of increasingly complex and finely tuned components of these new guidelines, then the result will be over complex WP:CREEP and still condemn editors to endless compromises and/or disputes.  Robin Whittle 07:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than TLDR, I'm not sure how this is relevant to this guideline. POV forks are covered under WP:POVFORK, and I don't see any argument why there should be an exception in science articles. This guideline is primary about whether science topics meet the notability thresholds to be included in WP. Once we get POV forks to a disputed article, notability is usually already established. ~ trialsanderrors 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I would like this to be a bit more specific, possibly starting out with a small list of which items are covered (theories - check, hypotheses - check, discoveries - check?, scientific creations (substances/organisms) - ???). Also, it seems now that most of the hypotheses section is redundant clutter and the key point "hypotheses are almost-theories and they are subject to the same criteria" can be releagted to a footnote. ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that is missing is experiments and observations. These would include things like WMAP and DZero. We also might think about technology and inventions as being possibly relevant here. Having a notability criterion for perpetual motion machines would be extremely helpful. --ScienceApologist 14:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with your assessment of the hypotheses section. Though the text makes some good points, most of it can be found in other established guidelines, so there is no need to repeat everything here. A brief footnote should be enough. TSO1D 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As for what the criteria should be applied to, my view is as much as possible. The points we have selected are intentionally broad so that they can be adapted to a vast range of items. So in addition to theories, hypotheses, and discoveries, I believe it should also apply to discoveries and scientific creations. The last two items mentioned should be subject to the same approval process as all others. e.g. if it's an important discovery, discussed in peer reviewed papers it will pass. Scientific creations should also be analyzed within this set of parameters. For instance, if indeed it is important, then it will pass at least one of the points, ex. the peer review point, press coverage, book mention, etc. This way an overly specific concept that can be of interest only to the smallest number of people will not have its own article. TSO1D 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it from "item" to "contribution", which seems to be the term used in the rest of the guideline. Maybe a shortlist in a footnote is in order. ~ trialsanderrors 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "an item in the field of science"

message: What exactly is the purpose of the this section? Would not the concepts represented by these terms already be subjected to the general criteria mentioned above in order to assess their notability. The three points presented there look more like the guidelines for etymology section in a dictionary entry. TSO1D 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terms don't have the same kind of "trackability" that ideas do in terms of citations, etc. One wants to make sure that cranky terms for ordinary things are excluded. Like, I don't know, calling General Relativity the Preposterous anti-Aether Conception (but now I'm perhaps violating WP:BEANS.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was an upshot of the Economic totalitarianism trainwreck AfD where editors argued that the term is valid because there were 90 finds in Google books (about as many as economic fish), but noone could make an argument that the term was actually used in a coherent manner. You can find multiple references on pretty much any two-word combination, but that alone doesn't establish common usage. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a similar discussion going on at Talk:Chicken (game) about whether a book reference for Peace war game makes that a separate game. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that terms/naming conventions/jargon are important to discuss. I note that there have been hundreds of kilobytes wasted on whether or not "plasma cosmologist" was a meaningful term. If this guideline had been in place, it would be obvious that "plasma cosmologist" wasn't a term to be used in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I see that it's necessary to have this section. What about the second point though? Would it not be enough to have a commonly used term that is supported by multiple citations. Why does it matter if it's origins can be identified or if any attempts have to do so have been published. TSO1D 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that point 2 is problematic. Provenance is perhaps better replaced with attribution. I think what makes a scientific term notable isn't its origins but rather that it is verifiably used by the relevant commentators. --ScienceApologist 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the Economic totalitarianism article was, in its entirety, a Milton Friedman quote. Now nobody argues that if Friedman defines a term it will be picked up by the economic community. But in this case it was a throwaway comment without clear definition and subsequent uses were pretty much unrelated to the Friedman quote. So scattered uses of the same term with different meanings doesn't make it a scientific term. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that applies more to point 1, there has to be "A commonly agreed-upon formal or informal definition". That's different from trying to trace the earliest uses of the word. TSO1D 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: True, they might be overlapping. I guess it's more a call upon editors to put more effort into their research than to say "I've heard it somewhere". ~ trialsanderrors 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Terms 

message: We seem to be really honing in on what seem to me to be a great set of criteria here. What is the next step? Sdedeo (tips) 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next step is to go live and change it from proposed. --ScienceApologist 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next step would be to see if it gets picked up by editors in AfD debates, then go live and change from "proposed". ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one reads WP:VP. My masterplan to create wider awareness is to monitor for test cases and add the "this is a test case for WP:SCI" to the debates. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next step

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

text: That's a non-argument. We have 500 criteria littered throughout the notability guidelines that contain in themselves gradations of notability. Even our own current criteria are littered with them: "conference with notable participants", "supported or examined by major scientific institutions," etc. Notability discussions will always be fueled by the problem of translating an ill-defined  multidimensional space into a binary decision {inclusion/exclusion). As long as a major award clearly bestows notability and it is different in kind from the other criteria it should be listed, even if it mostly overlaps with other criteria and "middling" awards might spur discussion during AfD debates. ~ trialsanderrors 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a negative criterion is dangerous. We will get people saying,it meets negative criterion X and is therefore non-notable. Obviously this isn't the intent--the intent is merely to say that this one doesnt count--but judging by some AfD discussions it will surely be misused. DGG 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just generated an "Irrelevant criteria" section, but have kept this in mind in writing it up.  IMO, it is important to have this section to keep future discussions focussed on the real notability concerns.  As for tge possibility of abuse: I really don't see how that can be wholely avoided.  What I did in my writing was to emphasize that these are not negative conditions enough so that anyone trying to use them as such will be immediately recognized as engaging in wikilawyering.  In other words, my goal is to make in difficult (if not impossible) for any such abuse to succeed. --EMS | Talk 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Award-winning

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

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

message: I'm not sure why this is really necessary.  WP:NOR was added to weed out the fringe science cases, and for theories that haven't been written about by people other than their original authors, you're going to fail on secondary sources for WP:V.  I'm afraid this is going to lead to people deleting writing about science that, while important within its field, lacks coverage outside specialized sources that, since they haven't seen them and google doesn't index them, must not exist. Notability is not supposed to be a high bar, it's just there to make sure fundamental policy can be met.  We're not paper, we don't have to restrict ourselves to popular things.  I think there should be at least a line in there that explicitly states that discoveries which are not as widely cited or included in textbooks may still merit a mention as part of a larger, relevant article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd think NOR would be enough wouldn't you? However, the problem being addressed here is not obscurity but notability. There are some extremely obscure ideas which are ]notable (e.g. B-Bbar oscillation) that easily fulfill our notability guidelines. We can include some wording indicating that obscurity does not equate with non-notability, but I think that not only is this guideline necessary, it will help tremendously in the editting of science articles. --ScienceApologist 14:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS , just FWIW -- B-Bar oscillation is covered in CP Violation (Bigi and Sanda), a Cambridge Univ Press text on my shelf here, and would yes easily pass notability. Sdedeo (tips) 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly restrictive, potentially dangerous? 

message: :Note 4: It is entirely inappropriate to say that any argument can deprive a topic of notability unless it explicitly refutes a claim that one of the general criteria are met. The irrelevant arguments offer no such refutation. Instead they simply fail to make an otherwise non-notable topic notable.
Can anyone translate this into normal English? ~ trialsanderrors 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote 4