[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Mon Mar 21 02:12:51 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message --------------  
> Yes. Or the expert can refer to the standard textbook they have several 
> of ... or wrote. (If they want to avoid referring to their own work, 
> they can note it on talk for another to put on the page.) 
> 
> I remain utterly unconvinced of this alleged impossibility of reference. 

I tend to agree that things are ultimately referencable, although some derivation  or application of a  form of analysis may sometimes be needed.

I am probably more concerned about the difficulty of providing
a reference, an example that comes to mind is when something is in the literature, not in the textbooks, but the literature is too old
too have abstracts online, if I recall correctly, this difficulty
actually occurred when I was researching whether the theory
that thalidomide caused birth defects by inhibiting angiogenesis.
Although, research into its possible application in cancer did
not occur until the early 1990s, the theory was first proposed
back in the late 60s or early 70s.

In terms of "real life" wikipedia examples I may not have a perfectly apropo example but I can probably bracket it.  Consider the difficulty of defending this statement (fortunately I haven't had to) in the [[Global warming]] article 

  "Climate models that pass the above tests while only modeling the direct effects of increases in solar activity will have attributed too much of the historical warming to greenhouse gas forcing, and will predict larger increases in temperature in the future."

Yes, it may ulitimately be referencable as an APPLICATION of basic understanding of modeling, parameterization and correlation, but frankly, I am glad that some in the community will apply their basic scientific understanding and not insist that every nuance be documented.

Consider also, consider whether one should object to Connelly's refutation of Singer in the SEPP article, which I tried to revert but have not insisted, since I think, good faith in controversial scientific articles requires the allowance of some argumentation and derivation.   Others, however, are in a continuing revert war with him, and I disagree with his interpretation.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_%26_Environmental_Policy_Project&diff=10911317&oldid=10895572

         -- Silverback