Forum:Hypothesis and speculation

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Hypothesis and speculation

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

The Manual of Style and POV policy state clearly that in-universe articles should stick to the known facts and hypothesis, speculation, and other No-prize explanations are inappropriate. However, I've seen quite of lot of speculation in articles, and much (not all) of the speculation has been similarly formatted with italics and indentation. Has the consensus on this changed since the help docs were written? Should we be removing speculation or simply formatting it consistently? (Personally, I'm happy with either keeping it to the OOU sections only or keeping it in the main articles but using special formatting so it's clearly identified as speculation. But mixing speculation with the facts willy-nilly without special formatting will make me cry, I tell you, cry!) --Bedawyn 05:18, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

We've even got a place just for it, The Howling. I know what you mean, though. My usual rule of thumb is, does it add something to the article, or is it just taking up space? If the latter, delete it. Monkey with a Gun 05:49, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

The speculation in italics is...well it shouldn't be there.

As with many things some things have slipped by. Any speculation that is pure speculuation should be kept to the Howling:The Howling, the Behind the scenes section if it's got some out-of-universe sources.

Occasionally the italics stuff does clarify positions when there are multiple accounts that don't quite fit together. --Tangerineduel 13:46, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, some of the speculation is just personal opinion stuff that I'd be happy to delete. However, I have seen some that I think does add value to the article and that I'd be reluctant to delete altogether. This is particularly the case for articles where canon doesn't give us facts for large swathes of what the article should cover and leaves us to draw conclusions based on other facts. For instance, it's not 100% positive and proven that Jack's first war was against the same aliens that invaded his homeworld; however, the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong. If it's mentioned, it needs to be clearly identified as hypothesis, but it's also a significant enough event in his life that not drawing that conclusion would make the article weaker. I think there is a place for some speculation and hypothesis within the in-universe section, if it's strictly kept within certain criteria: formatted to distinguish it from known fact; written as a future historian might, objectively and with an in-universe perspective; drawn logically from in-universe known facts (A and B therefore C, not just C by itself); balanced with competing theories; and if the content of the speculation provides a valuable insight into the article topic that we can't get without it. It is possible to present speculation objectively and without descending into fanon, and I think banning it from articles entirely would mean prioritizing form and policy above usefulness to readers. However, I am inclined to be merciless about deleting speculation that doesn't meet those criteria.--Bedawyn 14:58, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Speculation seems fine at the outset, but it suggest to others they can go forth on whatever tangents they want.

If it's going in the article it still needs to be supported by in-universe sources.

We'll also need to be very careful in coming up with criteria for this, perhaps another word than speculation (sounds too vague to me). I'm just concerned about how this could be abused by editors adding in rambling speculative information.

There can always be gaps in knowledge, we needn't have speculation in the article at all. An article covers the information that exists on the topic. Those gaps may be filled at a later date, or speculating on things may just open up other issues with continuity. --Tangerineduel 15:15, December 26, 2009 (UTC)