Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)/Archive 4

message: but a quick poll:
===Who likes the guideline?===
... (more or less) as it currently (20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have done some serious slimming. Please feel free to revert me, or partially restore content. My goal has been to slim down the introductory material as much as possible to make sure that wider acceptance of the criteria is not hindered by debate over extraneous issues or overelaboration. Sdedeo (tips) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I put the "A key element..." paragraph back in. That was the upshot of a lengthy discussion on the original WP:SCI and contains a key disclaimer about the validation criteria we apply, which are significantly different from those of scientific publications. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "An article in a reputable peer reviewed journal and a refuting article in the same or a similar journal are all that are needed. Yet if those two articles are the extent of the coverage of this topic, then it is not having an impact either on the research field to which it relates or in the public at large. A Wikipedia article written on such a topic is therefore acting to introduce it to the world, something that is in violation of the spirit of the WP:NOR policy, but not its letter."
*A Wikipedia article does NOT introduce to the world, a topic that has already been introduced in a previous published article. WP:NOR makes this clear in the very first sentence. To suggest otherwise is factually incorrect. --Iantresman 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Ian here, actually. Can we find a different way to explain things? Sdedeo (tips) 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's quite different to Original Research. By definition, original research has not been published before, WP:NOR says so in the first sentence. Now, if people think they're unable to write about an article for which there is but one source, then say so, but don't imply it is original research. --Iantresman 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "An article in a reputable peer reviewed journal and a refuting article in the same or a similar journal are all that are needed. Yet if those two articles are the extent of the coverage of this topic, then it is not having an impact either on the research field to which it relates or in the public at large. A Wikipedia article written on such a topic is therefore acting to introducemay in effect be introducing it to the world or creating a new synthesis, something that is in violation of the spirit of the WP:NOR policy, but not its letter."   Semperf 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If there is published material, then Wikipedia is NOT introducing a subject to the world under any circumstances, in effect, or otherwise. --Iantresman 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Balderdash. Publishing is a booming industry churning out so much stuff that it's patently ridiculous to claim that Wikipedia isn't introducing a subject as long as it has been published. I think someone needs to prance through the fields of WP:NOT. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *The statement that I queried mentioned peer reviewed published material. Which part of WP:NOR hints that a Wiki article on the subject might be Original Research, even if this material is published in peer reviewed sources? --Iantresman 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Is Not A Vote&trade; 

message: ... (more or less) as it currently (20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who likes the guideline?

message: *I think it needs more slimming to make it look more like the other guidelines. Right now it still has a bit of a polemical air. Sdedeo (tips) 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have done some serious slimming. Please feel free to revert me, or partially restore content. My goal has been to slim down the introductory material as much as possible to make sure that wider acceptance of the criteria is not hindered by debate over extraneous issues or overelaboration. Sdedeo (tips) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I put the "A key element..." paragraph back in. That was the upshot of a lengthy discussion on the original WP:SCI and contains a key disclaimer about the validation criteria we apply, which are significantly different from those of scientific publications. ~ trialsanderrors 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "An article in a reputable peer reviewed journal and a refuting article in the same or a similar journal are all that are needed. Yet if those two articles are the extent of the coverage of this topic, then it is not having an impact either on the research field to which it relates or in the public at large. A Wikipedia article written on such a topic is therefore acting to introduce it to the world, something that is in violation of the spirit of the WP:NOR policy, but not its letter."
*A Wikipedia article does NOT introduce to the world, a topic that has already been introduced in a previous published article. WP:NOR makes this clear in the very first sentence. To suggest otherwise is factually incorrect. --Iantresman 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Ian here, actually. Can we find a different way to explain things? Sdedeo (tips) 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's quite different to Original Research. By definition, original research has not been published before, WP:NOR says so in the first sentence. Now, if people think they're unable to write about an article for which there is but one source, then say so, but don't imply it is original research. --Iantresman 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "An article in a reputable peer reviewed journal and a refuting article in the same or a similar journal are all that are needed. Yet if those two articles are the extent of the coverage of this topic, then it is not having an impact either on the research field to which it relates or in the public at large. A Wikipedia article written on such a topic is therefore acting to introducemay in effect be introducing it to the world or creating a new synthesis, something that is in violation of the spirit of the WP:NOR policy, but not its letter."   Semperf 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If there is published material, then Wikipedia is NOT introducing a subject to the world under any circumstances, in effect, or otherwise. --Iantresman 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Balderdash. Publishing is a booming industry churning out so much stuff that it's patently ridiculous to claim that Wikipedia isn't introducing a subject as long as it has been published. I think someone needs to prance through the fields of WP:NOT. --ScienceApologist 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *The statement that I queried mentioned peer reviewed published material. Which part of WP:NOR hints that a Wiki article on the subject might be Original Research, even if this material is published in peer reviewed sources? --Iantresman 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And who doesn't?

message: :Historical interest. It has historically met any of the above criteria within the scientific community or the culture at large but has since either been superseded, disregarded, or dismissed by the scientific community or the culture at large. The article should make note of the subject's status in this regard.
Two things: First, should we numerate the criteria in order, 1-7, or keep them separate by "scientific" and "popular" notability? And second, shouldn't Historical interest be among the scientific criteria? I doubt many of the superseded theories that made it into Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions have become popular, much less those that are historical touchpoints only in their respective fields. ~ trialsanderrors 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Immanuel Velikovsky is notable mostly for historical interest. I wouldn't call him "scientific" exactly. Historicity is broader than science. --ScienceApologist 07:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem to fall under that criterion. My reading is that the criterion matches the intro line at Superseded scientific theories: "A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but (for whatever reason) is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by mainstream science; or a falsifiable theory which has been shown to be false." ~ trialsanderrors 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm guilty of moving the bar. I think it qualifies now. --ScienceApologist 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical interest?

message: :A compelling reason to use the term rather than more common or popular synonyms (eschewing jargon and neologisms)
I think it there was a reason to add this mentioned somewhere above, but the way it sounds it reads like an issue for a page move discussion rather than a notability guideline. ~ trialsanderrors 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say one group of editors wants to use term X to refer to an idea and another group wants to use term Y. How do you determine which term to use? I think this item is the determinator. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we defer to reliable sources? Unless you can provide an example of where this may not help? --Iantresman 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with a notability criterion? That's an issue for the WP:MoS. ~ trialsanderrors 10:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functionality creep to the test cases. ~ trialsanderrors 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The guideline (actually a policy) is here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions. There is no reason for us to duplicate or contradict that policy. This is simply outside our scope.  ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. — Simply put, if there is one term with questionable currency, it falls into our domain. If there are multiple terms with varying degrees of currency, it falls into the domain of WP:NAME. ~ trialsanderrors 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I very much doubt we can say more than the #1 and #2 criteria do, with the caveat expressed about similar terms in different fields and multiple terms in young fields, and send the editors to WP:NAME in case there is a dispute over which term to use. Discussion about definitions, like we just had at Talk: Discoordination game#Some definitions, should mostly be left to the editors to decide on article talk pages. ~ trialsanderrors 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sci terms #3

message: Hi folks, have just read the latest version and think it is very good. I think focusing on issues of NPOV is excellent, and really hits at the heart of why a single or small number of WP:RSs is problematic when it comes to science. Sdedeo (tips) 00:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV2

message: :3. Institutional support. It is or was supported or examined by major scientific institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.
Coming back to our criteria, I think the current wording for institutional support offers another backdoor. In my first or second year as grad student I received funding from the Sasakawa Foundation, not because my research had anything to do with them, but because my field advisor has some hookup with them and had to find a way to pay my stipend. So I duly added "Supported by the Sasakawa Foundation" to my papers and still get their pamphlets in the mail every half year. Now from what I can tell the Sasakawa Foundation might qualify as major, but the funding they gave me was certainly minor, and it shouldn't make my second year term papers notable. Comments? ~ trialsanderrors 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about substantial funding to remove all the minorly supported such as yourself (no offense intended)? There are a few subjects I can think of that derive notability purely because they are supported insitutionally, in particular a number of areas of military science are neither widely cited nor "textbook science" but certainly notable enough to be encyclopedic, so I don't think eliminating this criteria is a good idea. --ScienceApologist 03:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too can support the addition of the word "substantial" before "funding", but beyond that would like to see this used as a backdoor before we seriously consider tossing it out.  The truth of the matter is that someone clever will come up with a way to twist our guideline that we have never thought of.  So we need to put together as solid a guideline as we can based on past experience, and see how it is used as time goes on.  Remember that even this quideline can be edited at need. --EMS | Talk 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that unlike awards and conferences substantial institutional funding can be a notability criterion even if only first-party evidence exists. So possibly a footnote could be added with clarification/examples what constitutes "substantial" and "major". What about the "examined by" part? ~ trialsanderrors 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I added Future Map as a test case. It seems like the major claim to notability is an (invited?) presentation at a NECSI conference. ~ trialsanderrors 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Institutional support?

message: I'm not following this discussion very closely, so I hope I'm not out of line. Ball Lightning is a natural phenomenon that is flashy but difficult to study, so, while if does attract a small amount of interest from serious scientists, it also attracts a lot of cranks. There is no significant controversy in the article right now, except that casual editors have several times in the last couple weeks tried to add references to an experiment that is already covered in the article, in the paragraph of Ball Lightning#Analysis that starts with "If ball lightning releases energy stored in chemical form, ...". The reason I think it might be interesting to discuss the case here is that it is a new result and the only references we have so far are to news stories, so there is neither a peer reviewed article nor critical response. I nevertheless feel that it should be mentioned because it builds on a theory that is several years old by an entirely different group, and the work was done at a university (in Brazil). I did remove mention of the result from the introduction because I thought that was too much weight. So, if your are interested, have a "ball". --Art Carlson 10:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this is at best a test case for WP:NPOV. The standard for mention in an ancillary article is much lower than in a stand-alone article, and is generally governed by WP:RS. Ball Lightning itself has a long history of notability, so there is nothing there for us to test. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball lightning as a test case? 

message: Should we think about adding a section in notability pointing out a difference between what is needed for a self-standing article vs. what is fine as part of a larger article?  What makes me wonder this is the recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionomics: socionomics has only one noteworthy advocate, Robert Prechter, who is notable enough for an article of his own.  Might we find a way to say that theories (like socionomics, imo) whciih are not worthy of a self-standing article can sometimes be merged into their sole/primary advocate?  Semperf 14:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability & mergism 

message: :Citation counts and peer review mechanisms differ vastly between sciences, fields, and subfields, and editors are urged to inform the relevant WikiProject about ongoing debates to get expert input. It should also be noted that quantity of citations is often only a poor approximation of quality.
Please review, discuss, or edit as you please. ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New [[Wikipedia:Notability_%28science%29#Notes|footnote 2]]

message: Created as essay, in order to unclutter the main page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Notability (science)/Irrelevant arguments]]

message: A pretty good discussion on "Original research by synthesis", which didn't factor into our discussions much so far:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China as an emerging superpower (fourth nomination)
~ trialsanderrors 02:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a fairly well written article, but I see little evidence that the effect is well known.  It would make for an interesting AfD. --EMS | Talk 05:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very tough call.  (Like many such visual effects, different people will see them differently. Some traditional demonstrations of optical illusions do work for me, some don't. This doesnt, but I assume it does for others. But that is really OR in the rare literal sense) 
But one real point is whether the content of WP should include a moving image--are there any others?--or do i misunderstand and the effect is produced from a static gif--in which case it should be pointed out in the article." For a number of optic phenomena  the articles do show an illustration of the effect. It can be mus clearer than words.  DGG 09:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The animation is actually a candidate for featured picture. Yeah, we have quite a couple of them, e.g. Roundabout. ~ trialsanderrors 09:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The animation is excellent.  I was not able to achieve the full effect (as the chaser kept catching my gaze and so the dots never vanished), but I don't doubt that it is real.  My concern is whether this article is properly documenting a well-known illusion or promoting one that is not (yet?) well known.  Any AfD must be based on the notability of this effect, not its reality.  (BTW - I'm not sure that I care to remove the article either.  At the least, it would be nice to get an opinion from someone who is knowledgable about optical illusions on this matter before trying to do so.)  I will however warn everyone that this article requires a well crafted AfD request if it is to be removed. --EMS | Talk 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Today in "[[WP:SCI/TC|test cases]]"...

message: In the case of a subject that fails scientific notability (fringe references but no mainstream ones) but has cultural and fictional references, is it appropriate for the article to go into scientific detail or give equal weight to cultural and scientific info?  Or to put it another way, if the subject is notable culturally, does that make the scientific details (such as going into detail on studies that aren't peer reviewed or that are only covered in "fringe' publications) notable as well?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a case like this, the science (or pseudoscience) involved becomes fair game.  However, one normally would not delve as far into the details as they would given mainstream acceptance on the topic itself.  After all, the cultural circumstances that made the topic notable are in this case a major subtopic in need of coverage.  OTOH, the fringe theory may well be behind the effort in question.  Examples to consider are cold fusion and warp drive. --EMS | Talk 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The article in question is Electronic voice phenomenon.  Editors there seem to agree that it is only notable due to cultural/fictional mentions, but there's still strong insistence from some that the article keep a ton of details on "experiments", mostly self published and non-peer reviewed ones.  Any outside perspective would be welcome there.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases" 

message: The current sentence is: "In general, a contribution in the field of science is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria, which fall under two general headings, scientific notability and popular notability...". What if the contribution doesn't meet any of the criteria? Currently the statement says nothing about that situation. Did we mean it to say, "In general, a contribution in the field of science is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia only if it meets at least one of the following criteria..."? Sancho McCann 05:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the intent here.  A topic is notable as a contribution to science only if a requirement set in here is met.  That is not to say that the topic could not be notable in some other context.  (For example, a theory on what makes a paint glisten may be a joke as a mainstream science topic but could be of serious interest to the subject of art.)  So this standard cannot be directly used to deny inclusion, but if the only grounds for inclusion is being of scientific interest then this standard can and will block a topic from Wikipedia.  If you know of a case where this standard may work to block an otherwise worthy topic, please let us know about it. --EMS | Talk 06:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I wasn't thinking that this phrasing would block any worthy topic. On the contrary, it blocks no topics, because it says if, instead of only if. Sancho McCann 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This proposed guieline is not intended to explicitly block anything.  As I mentioned above, it is possible that an article that is not notable as a scinece article could be notable in another context.  I don't see that as happening often, but it can.  My benchmark is for this guideline (ironically) is whether it is sufficient to block my own original research as that work currently stands, and it is.  (You can get an idea of what I am doing on my user page).  It also sets what I see as some reasonably high (but not too high) criteria for inclusion.  Please keep in mind that most OR is placed here as a topic of interest to science.  If the topic cannot pass that test, there usually is nothing else to which to creator can turn to as a notability basis, and then the topic is AfD-ed and removed in short order. --EMS | Talk 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notability guidelines are never written as "if and only if" guidelines. They capture the general cases, with exceptions possible if inclusion helps the project. ~ trialsanderrors 10:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if it doesn't? 

message: Seems like WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V have been merged into WP:A (Attribution). Not sure how this affects this guideline, I haven't read it in detail yet, but it certainly requires some changes. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]

message: Why has this been marked as bandoned? Its the most objective standard we have.DGG 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial plan was to include standards for a wide variety of subfields, but from the discussion above this was considered too unwieldy. ~ trialsanderrors 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: widely cited

message: Hi. I saw this: "The main policy impetus for this guideline comes from Neutral point of view (NPOV). ". Does this mean that any scientific theory/hypothesis/etc. that can pass WP:NPOV and WP:ATT automatically passes this guideline or does this guideline set a higher bar? If it's aiming to set such a higher bar, should that be stated? mike4ty4 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "automatic pass". If there was such a thing, deletion debates would not be needed. Deletion guidelines such as this one are mostly to help the editor consider the possible dimension in which a scientific contribution can be notable. The actual appraisal of the evidence has to be left to the community, or otherwise we would have bots doing all the deletions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases at AfD when an article technically passes, but does not seem actually N, the article has been kept as following the rule; some may have been decided otherwise, & I dont think there is  general consensus either way.DGG 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My hope for this guideline is to have a higher bar.  That is not to say that the initial sentence cited above is incorrect.  It seems to me that the truth of the matter is found if you turn yoru statement around: Anything that fails WP:NPOV or WP:ATT automatically fails under this guideline.  The point is that meeting those policies is required for but not necessarily sufficient to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. --EMS | Talk 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that notability guidelines should set a higher bar. They should apply policy rather than create policy. But neutrality is a policy that's frequently ignored in content discussions and other notability guidelines, where the existence of 1 1/2 reliable sources is often considered sufficient material to write an encyclopedic article. But under the principle that strong claims require strong evidence, the claim that X developed a novel scientific theory is a stronger claim than X started an internet meme, so there are policy-compatible reasons to set different bars in different subfields. ~ trialsanderrors 08:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatically passes? 

message: It seems that there should be some discussion before specifically acknowledging this as a guideline.  There is no specific procedure, but there should be something more than "seems to have died down" as a justification for inclusion as a guideline.  --Kevin Murray 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have half a year's worth of discussions if you want to read them... ~ trialsanderrors 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is most pertinent is that there be significant consensus from a broad enough range of editors.  This has not received wide attention and there is no clarity for consensus.  This is not receiving much attention since the entire notability structure is being evaluated.  A lull in the argument does not demonstrate consensus being reached.  What has been negotiated here is essentially meaningless. --Kevin Murray 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you may wish to share your objections.  I for one do like this guideline, and see it as being quite appropriate. --EMS | Talk 04:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Kevin, you say (correctly) that there's no specific procedure, and then you ask that we invoke a specific procedure anyway for "specifically acknowledging" this page. There's 380 kb worth of discussion about precisely the subject. WP:NOBOOK. >Radiant< 09:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating Consensus for adopting as a guideline

message: Quote from proposal:
"Press and fiction. It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being a recurrent theme in notable works of fiction. In this case the article should make note of this status. A single article on the theory, even if from a major media source such as New Scientist or Scientific American, is not a sufficient criterion."
** How can a scientific principle be validated by fiction?  If it is a ficticious theme like a Star Trek warp drive, it should be covered by WP:FICTION, but more likeley be merged into an article about the work of fiction. --Kevin Murray 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction as a reference of science