[WikiEN-l] Philosophical question re sources

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

An organisation exists which makes certain claims.  These claims are
at odds with informed opinion on the subject.  They are not published
in any peer-reviewed journals, and can be demonstrated to be false or
at best questionable by reference to primary sources.  

Most credible authorities do not deign to reply to these claims,
because the organisation is mainly dismissed as cranks (or rather, a
lone crank) and many of the claims are considered absurd, but they
have a popular resonance among certain groups who desperately want to
believe them.  The person who runs the group is a talented
self-publicist and gets his claims in the news, but declines all
invitations to submit the claims for peer-review.  As unpublished
work, there are therefore no published rebuttals, and most reputable
authorities simply dismiss the group.  

Some of the group's claims have a basis in published research, but
constitute an extreme interpretation of that research.  This
interpretation is, in some cases, strongly contested by the
researchers themselves.

Supporters of the group are vociferous; this is in many cases the sole
source for what they really want to believe, so they promote it
assiduously.

So: the group is notable by reference to news coverage.  The existence
of the group's claims come from reliable sources, the group's own
materials which are reliable in the context of documenting the group.
Rebuttals do not come from reliable secondary sources because the
secondary sources have published neither the claims nor the rebuttals.
Opposition to the claims is therefore denounced as uncited and "weasel
words" because the opponents are not named, although there is not one
single reputable authority which supports the claims.

How best to handle this?

I am personally involved in one side of a dispute on this, as is
patently obvious from the way I have phrased the above :-)  In the end
I want the article to be a good one because every article should be a
good one.  Another user, DeFacto, has been effective in challenging
opposition from me and others, and thus tightening up this and other
articles on subjects related to motorist activism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Speed is the article in question.

There now exists a groundswell of motorist activists who sincerely
believe that Paul Smith has "proved" that speed cameras cost lives.
How can we demonstrate that this is a false claim, as [[WP:NPOV]]
requires we must, without straying into original research?

This is also a problem because their claim that cameras cost lives has
now been repeated in other Wikipedia articles.  That is a serious
concern to me.  It is a claim which Smith actively refuses to put up
to peer review.
Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG