<span class="SFPTagline"> From SCIFIPEDIA </span>

I noticed the addition of qualifier terms ("purportedly", "allegedly"), and I completely understand the desire to put them there. In the case of Churchward in particular, I would guess that most people who read the books see them as a romantic fantasy.

Let me give my logic for not using them initially.

The articles in Scifipedia are supposed to take a neutral position. While it seems legitimate to report the published feelings of other people about the facts, the article itself should not make a judgement. This is very hard to avoid, of course, and you can sometimes sense someone's enthusiasm (or disdain) in the way they write something.

In the Paranormal category, we are dealing with things about which there is dispute (and often vehement dispute). If the items were not disputed, they would probably be reported in the Science category (or, perhaps, in Literature). I assume that Scifipedia readers are aware of that, and for simplicity and neutrality's sake, I make my contributions without making a point of that. If it is done on some articles, it should be done in all of them, which makes them less easy to read. There are certainly people who would like to see the same sort of qualifiers apply to some of the articles in the Science category.  :)

Fortunately, there is an area in Scifipedia where such opinions can be expressed: the Discussion page for each article. If readers want to put in their own personal feelings that something is a hoax, for example, that seems to be the place. If the hoax claim has been made by another person publicly, then I would think it could be cited in the main article.

That's just my opinion (which is why it is here on a Discussion page), but I thought I would explain my approach.

--Bufocalvin 09:35, 3 November 2006 (EST)

---

If this article were appearing in a wiki called parapedia.com, I would probably agree with you. However, this article appears is the paranormal subsection of a wiki called scifipedia.com, where the audience at least presumably cares about the distinction between science and pseudoscience. I know that market forces have blurred the lines between Science Fiction and Fantasy, but Churchward's claims are scientific, and should be treated as such, with the requisite amount of skepticism. If we were talking about Robert Howard's depiction of Lemuria, then no skepticism would be necessary, as Howard wasn't making any claims at all, scientific or otherwise, but merely writing entertaining fiction. Further, I don't feel that Lemuria deserves the paranormal label. It either exists/existed, or it doesn't/didn't. The claim is falsifiable. Churchward's method of obtaining his knowledge of Lemuria is pseudoscientific, or paranormal, but the question of Lemuria's existence isn't.

--Chasuk 09:57, 3 November 2006 (EST)

---

Thank you for expressing your opinion! Discussions such as these are one of the valuable elements in Scifipedia.

I have no objection to the words being there, I just think they are superfluous, precisely because they are in a paranormal section of a non-exclusively paranormal wiki. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to put words like that in all the articles, I just don't think they are necessary. All non-fiction is purportedly non-fiction: the distinction between fiction and non-fiction is a literary one, and I would say it doesn't have to do with the accuracy of the material, but the intent and the presentation. Since the intention is difficult to judge, the classification is typically based on how it is presented. For example, when the preponderous of evidence caused most scientists to abandon classical spontaneous generation, that did not cause treatises on spontaneous generation to be reclassified as fiction.

I would argue that the claim itself is not what determines whether or not something is scientific, it is the technique used to investigate the claims. I'm assuming here that you have read Churchward? Do the techniques he uses in testing his theory of savagery coming from civilization seem scientific to you?

As to the paranormal label, that's a touchy one. Many of the people involved with topics covered under paranormal in Scifipedia would object to the use of the term. For example, the scientific cryptozoologists find it tends to lump their traditional science with subjective approaches. Just as you mentioned market forces in blurring science fiction and fantasy, so I have argued that "paranormal" is where people look for Bigfoot, even though much of the research and theorizing fits neatly into zoology.

Would you have placed Lemuria under science, at the same level as astrophysics and chemistry? I think a distinction needs to be drawn between consensus belief and non-consensus, and I think we agree there. Your technique would be to add the words, and I prefer to assume that the readers are aware of the status because of the category. Perhaps the category could have a clearer explanation of that? What do you think?

I guess someone could take it to the point of saying that Heinlein was "allegedly born in 1907", since a "fact" like that will be placed in the Timeline without any sort of scientific verification. Obviously, there is a much lower threshhold to a birth year than to spontaneous teleportation, but it's a matter of degree.

Anyway, welcome to Scifipedia! I look forward to seeing your future contributions. I'm sure they will be well thought out and interesting.

--Bufocalvin 20:48, 3 November 2006 (EST)

---

I am the originator of Lemuria to scifipedia. This is my first submission to a 'pedia and my formal training as a journalist kicked in. I can assure all of you that my choice of words is secondary to my intent on making sure Lemuria was included along with Atlantis in the lost continents section. Please let us populate the data and subordinate the original wording. Thanks much. Ladyfinger

An excellent discussion

and the perfect use of a Discussion page!

I'm really happy to see how you're working through these ideas. We had a previous experience in which people chose to jump in and change wordings to a flavor they preferred, with no understanding that there might not be a "right" or "wrong" way, just points of view about ways things could be done.

I'll add my point of view to the information pool. I don't think it's possible to drain opinion completely from a piece of writing. All you'd be left with is sawdust. We're not trying to eliminate any writer's enthusiasm or skepticism about a topic. If a topic has an element of controversy, ideally both sides would feel represented by the article. We want to avoid pure partisanship ("this book rocks" vs. "this book sucks") because it offers little of substance to our readers.

Here's what I would do on the Lemuria article. The first paragraph now reads

Lemuria was reputedly a powerful civilization that was lost in ancient times. It was allegedly located in the Pacific, considered that ocean's equivalent of the Atlantic Ocean's Atlantis.

Candy's take:

Lemuria was reputedly a powerful civilization that was lost in ancient times. It is considered to be the Pacific Ocean's equivalent of the Atlantic's Atlantis.

I agree with Chasuk's and Bufo's considerations of the fiction/nonfiction label, and would replace "Purported Non-fiction" with "Nonfiction."

Regards,
Candy, SCIFI.COM Staff
Cashanundudyub 13:31, 7 November 2006 (EST)