User talk:74.4.219.197

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"The so-called "appeal to authority" information on Deutsch quickly details who he is and his major claim to fame, hence why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. Therefore, deletion reverted."

The title "Physicist" before his name quickly details his area of expertise and why anyone would bother to quote his conclusion.

He has an article about him on Wikipedia (therefore he's notable enough to have an article) listing his work and publications, I've transferred the information about him on the Omega Point (Tipler) article there (as I stated before). His work on quantum computers is irrelevant to Cosmology (he may have other work which is relevant, such as his book which references Tipler's theory). Putting such comments about his irrelevant "qualifications" in an already overloaded article with an NPOV tag is unnecessary, a waste of space, and lends more credence to the NPOV claims. Please reference Deutsch's book, not his other work. We don't need to know anything else about him on this page, we can quickly click a link to find out everything else about him.

I'm reverting your revert. If this revert of mine is reverted I'm going to arbitration (you're welcome to file for arbitration before I do). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard in factual works that when introducing a new person one gives a brief background as to whom he is and his major claim to fame in the body of the writing in which that person is being invoked (particularly with a person who is not commonly known, as opposed to say, e.g., Hawking), hence, e.g., why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. And in this case, contrary to your assertion, it is relevant as to why anyone would bother to quote Prof. Deutsch's conclusions because it demonstrates that he is apparently very good at doing physics.
Nor have you cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, which makes it appear that you are making up your own rules as you go along to suit your own desires.
Moreover, that passage has existed in the article since August 17, 2007.
And whom are you quoting with the word "qualifications" in quotation marks?
Since you have not cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, I'm going to revert your deletion.--71.49.14.40 (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I prefer quotations to scare quotes. Call it a personal predilection I thought was understandable in context of the sentence.
I know of no wikipedia policy either. I pay attention to the content of wikipedia, not it's policies (except when they stab me due to my not knowing about them). I call these things on my own usually. (As if many of wikipedia policies weren't originally thought of by one person who convinced others they were worth having.) And I haven't really noticed this standard practice for factual works (though that is probably me reading over such entries in practice); I don't think this practice should apply to a hyper-referenced work, for reasons I stated above in my third-to-last sentence in the original commentary.
Coming from a scientific background, I like the credentials which are cited as reasons to listen to a Point of View to be as relevant as possible. While the Omega Point Theory does talk a bit about quantum computing, it seems fundamentally a cosmological theory.
Perhaps I wouldn't have such an issue with the qualifications discussed if this article was titled "Omega Point (theory)", or somesuch.
Fine whatever, I'll send this to arbitration or moderation, who'll either ignore it or send it somewhere it would be better addressed (hopefully as a wikipedia "policy", whichever way it turns out). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Never mind about the arbitration, I saw a link to "Requests for Comment" on the arbitration page --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's now a Request for Comment on the Omega Point Talk page. (I also made some grammar edits to my comments above.) --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)