I prefer the latter, on the grounds that it doesn't concede the existence of the thing, which the first version does, at least implicitly. Others point out that Loch Ness Monster for example appears to use the former format. William M. Connolley 19:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I would counter that simply stating "X is the name for Y" does not imply that X or Y exist. It provides a definition of the term, nothing more. Whether or not the what the term refers to exists or is a real phenomenon is a separate question (which is discussed at length in the rest of those articles). Very few, if any, pages on controversial topics use this kind of language in their opening sentence. ObsidianOrder 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For purposes of comparison, here's a couple examples from some articles on things whose existence is rejected by a majority (or, in the second case, perhaps a near-majority) of the developed world population (I omit extra links for ease of reading):
- Vishnu (IAST viṣṇu, Devanagari विष्णु, with honorific Shri Vishnu; śrī viṣṇu, श्रीविष्णु ), is a form of God, to whom many Hindus pray.
- Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity,
- Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is the name given to any ability to acquire information by means other than the five canonical senses...
- Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which work is done with an unknown energy source. Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics.
- The last, perhaps the most directly analogous, does use the word "hypothetical" (as does polywater). I looked at a few examples from category:Pseudoscience, and, for example, Psi ball uses "claimed". I'd say that polywater and perpetual motion are rejected by a greater majority of scientists than cold fusion is. I'd say either would be fine. -- Pakaran 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm... interesting. In the Jesus case, I'd be happy with that, because he *is* the central figure, independent of (say) his historical existence. For perp motion use of hypothetical is probably stronger than the "claimed" caveat, because it directly implies that they are *only* hypothetical and not real. I hope others will comment too. William M. Connolley 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- What about something that attributes the POV? "Cold fusion is a process in which, according to a minority of physicists, nuclear reactions occur..." -- Pakaran 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]