Talk:Plate tectonics

Criticism and skepticism NEVER belong in the main body of the article. An article is about what something is, not whether it is true or not. They belong in a Criticism section at the bottom. Moreover, it is not appropriate to have an entire section entitled "Arguments against X" in an article defining X. That belongs on its own page. Never forget that Infogalactic is not Wikipedia.

Couldn't agree more. Also, avoid words like "some." If there are people who criticize the theory, and I am sure there are, you can name them and use references. -- Crew (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

1. "The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory" was changed to "Some members of the geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory". The first version carries an implication of anonymous standing in the "scientific community" predicated upon accepting Plate Tectonics (or any theory X). This is a common device, revolving around scientific consensus. How to call it out?

2. There's quite a bit of disclaimer and uncertainty in the introduction of the original article and continuing throughout. Their (Wiki) "criticism and skepticism" is already baked in there to some extent.

3. I've been searching for a format to present a scientific theory. This 'arguments pro and con' idea is modeled after a court proceeding, where the parties first present their opening arguments. I'd used it in the Global warming article as a test case but didn't get any feedback. (I put this one out as a second test case.) So that GW article format should be changed as well? Can I stick the list of "arguments against" back into the bottom of Plate Tectonics? Or only start a new page? This presentation problem applies to just about every science theory out there- they all get criticized, even the ones that might be true. Rectified (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)