Talk:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge discussion

As a followup to the inconclusive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagan standard, I'd like to continue the discussion here by seconding the support for either merging the relevant bits of this article into Carl Sagan or replacing the redirect at extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This aphorism is commonly used in skeptical discussions, but there is little evidence of it being widely known as "the Sagan standard". There may well be enough intellectual history behind the aphorism, independent of Sagan's popularization, to merit a deeper discussion in its own article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning about the name "Sagan standard." I think we should replace the redirect at extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It would be analogous to what we have with the page Correlation does not imply causation.

There's definitely a lot that can be said about ECREE – discussion of the history (eg how the older versions are different, such as "proof" in Truzzi's version), discussion of how people have used it and misused it (eg, discussed in one of the papers I cited in the AfD), arguments about its failings, and even a mathematical justification for it in terms of Bayesian analysis (I saw this recently in a discussion about the use of p-values; I didn't see this aphorism mentioned, but one of the points made about prior expectations and the probability of false positives was a technical version of exactly the same thing). The hard work will be digging up suitable reliable sources, to avoid WP:OR.

I assume we want to preserve the history of the page. There's virtually no history at the redirect page, so do we have that page deleted (admin required?) and then this one renamed? (Assuming we get consensus.) – Gpc62 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, a page mover could simply swap the two pages (three separate moves-without-redirect), so would not necessarily require an admin. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Bayesian interpretation

A useful Bayesian interpretation of the claim is presented at: https://arbital.com/p/bayes_extraordinary_claims It may be useful to integrate this analysis into the article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I am all for it. -Jordgette [talk] 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armstrong misquotations

The sources cited, and this one

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/10/22/david-walsh-lance-armstrong

suggest that Armstrong's wording was different, about extraordinary "allegations" and "proof", and that he was not asked the question about the standard of proof for murderers.

The whole episode could be deleted or reduced to Armstrong's actual words, but there is a larger problem that this article is about the imaginary phenomenon of ECREE being called by the name "Sagan standard" (which is no more common than the also unusual acronym "ECREE"). Also, exceptional seems to be at least as common a phrasing of the aphorism as extraordinary. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Self references

@HAL333: The self reference was added with this edit. We do not allow self references on Wikipedia except in circumstances outlined in the guideline WP:SELFREF. None of those apply to this instance. Do not re-add the self reference. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I may be reading it wrong, but I'm not sure whether the "self-reference tools" section of WP:SELF forbids hatnotes. ~ HAL333 21:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at this passage in particular: Mentioning the Wikipedia community, or website features, can confuse readers of derived works. Unless substantially part of the article topic, do not refer to the fact that the page can be edited, nor mention any Wikipedia project page or process, specialized Wikipedia jargon (e.g. "PoV" in place of "biased"), or any MediaWiki interface link in the sidebar or along the top of the screen. If it's to stay on the page, yes, you would use {{selfref}} to make it easier for content reusers to remove the self reference and keep it from being included erroneously in printed media of these pages. But I'm not convinced this hatnote adds value for our readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not particularly convincing. There is a strong precedent in usgae for hatnotes pointing towards Wikipedia policies and essays. I have readded it and would appreciate if you gained consensus before changing the status quo. ~ HAL333 21:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're not convinced. The guideline is a guideline for a reason, because it has strong community consensus behind it. You've also re-added content inappropriate for reusers of our content in violation of WP:SELFREF, this is disruptive editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)