This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2024. | ||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 12 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sagan standard to Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The result of the discussion was moved. |
A discussion at MOS:NEO suggests that this article, created 2016, is the source for all later uses of the exact term "Sagan standard". Three sources were helpfully produced in that discussion to disprove the suggestion, and I have added two here though, apologies, not following the established citation pattern for this FAC. I hope someone can fix the style of the refs, and that editors agree it's useful to include them. The sources may not be particularly "reliable" but they support the statement that the term was in use. Any earlier examples would be great, of course. @ Silverseren @ RoySmith. Pam D 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
This article discusses the similarities between the SS and Jefferson's thoughts. But isn't this comparison just OR? So far as I can see no cited source draws this parallel. Or have I missed something? Bon courage ( talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
in the article lead, should "a year prior to Sagan" be replaced with "two years prior to Sagan"? the article body states that sagan first used the phrase in a washington post interview in 1977, and that truzzi's publication in parapsychology review appeared in 1975. the cited quoteinvestigator source reports that sagan's version was published in december, and truzzi's version in late 1975, so it looks like sagan's interview appears closer to two years after truzzi than to either one or three years after truzzi.
by the way, the quoteinvestigator source mentions that truzzi's wording appeared in a letter rather than an article, which appears to be similarly asserted by this article published in philosophia. dying ( talk) 05:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Halfway throught the second paragraph of the section titled "Analysis and criticism" appears this extraordinary sentence (italics added): "Additionally, there are concerns that, when inconsistently applied, the standard exercerbates racial and gender biases." Surely the word intended is "exacerbates" and should be corrected. 75.118.14.168 ( talk) 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 09:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Sagan standard → Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – Many people expressed similar ideas long before Sagan and the phrase itself seems to be the most common form. For example, David Deming's paper "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?" discusses the topic at length without once calling it the "Sagan standard". Other aphorisms and adages are used directly as the title of their articles, e.g. All models are wrong, Perfect is the enemy of good and The pen is mightier than the sword and this seems to work well. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Is this supposed to indicate something in particular? I feel like most articles I've read do not generally color these types of quotes. Am I mistaken? Indochina2 ( talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This article uses the term "science communicator" multiple times, but does not define the term. It is not a part of standard written English, and thus it should be defined or described, particularly for those not "in the know" of science or American popular culture. Minturn ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2024. | ||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 12 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sagan standard to Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The result of the discussion was moved. |
A discussion at MOS:NEO suggests that this article, created 2016, is the source for all later uses of the exact term "Sagan standard". Three sources were helpfully produced in that discussion to disprove the suggestion, and I have added two here though, apologies, not following the established citation pattern for this FAC. I hope someone can fix the style of the refs, and that editors agree it's useful to include them. The sources may not be particularly "reliable" but they support the statement that the term was in use. Any earlier examples would be great, of course. @ Silverseren @ RoySmith. Pam D 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
This article discusses the similarities between the SS and Jefferson's thoughts. But isn't this comparison just OR? So far as I can see no cited source draws this parallel. Or have I missed something? Bon courage ( talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
in the article lead, should "a year prior to Sagan" be replaced with "two years prior to Sagan"? the article body states that sagan first used the phrase in a washington post interview in 1977, and that truzzi's publication in parapsychology review appeared in 1975. the cited quoteinvestigator source reports that sagan's version was published in december, and truzzi's version in late 1975, so it looks like sagan's interview appears closer to two years after truzzi than to either one or three years after truzzi.
by the way, the quoteinvestigator source mentions that truzzi's wording appeared in a letter rather than an article, which appears to be similarly asserted by this article published in philosophia. dying ( talk) 05:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Halfway throught the second paragraph of the section titled "Analysis and criticism" appears this extraordinary sentence (italics added): "Additionally, there are concerns that, when inconsistently applied, the standard exercerbates racial and gender biases." Surely the word intended is "exacerbates" and should be corrected. 75.118.14.168 ( talk) 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 09:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Sagan standard → Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – Many people expressed similar ideas long before Sagan and the phrase itself seems to be the most common form. For example, David Deming's paper "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?" discusses the topic at length without once calling it the "Sagan standard". Other aphorisms and adages are used directly as the title of their articles, e.g. All models are wrong, Perfect is the enemy of good and The pen is mightier than the sword and this seems to work well. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Is this supposed to indicate something in particular? I feel like most articles I've read do not generally color these types of quotes. Am I mistaken? Indochina2 ( talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This article uses the term "science communicator" multiple times, but does not define the term. It is not a part of standard written English, and thus it should be defined or described, particularly for those not "in the know" of science or American popular culture. Minturn ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)