Talk:Expanding Earth

criteria for external links

For several weeks (at least) we had this list of external links:

Historical:

• G. Scalera: Roberto Mantovani an Italian defender of the continental drift and planetary expansion
• G. Scalera, Braun: Ott Christoph Hilgenberg in twentieth-century geophysics
• G. Scalera: Samuel Warren Carey - Commemorative memoir
• Andrew Alden: Warren Carey, Last of the Giants

Contemporary:

• Growing Earth Consortium - Michael Netzer et al.
• Animation collection of Expanding Earth Theory by Neal Adams

In the last couple days, these were proposed/added to Contemporary:

• Expanding-earth.org
• G. Scalera: The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millennium

Wikipedia has a number of criteria for WP:External links. I am concerned that not all the links above meet these criteria. For example, we should "normally avoid"

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
• Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

Has any editor actually vetted the sites for factual accuracy? Does this even make sense for a theory that has been so thoroughly rejected?

Has any editor established the notability of these sites? At least Michael Netzer and Neal Adams are notable comic book artists, but what about the others? It is easy for a nobody to set up his own web site or upload his rantings to someplace like www.earth-prints.org.

On the other hand, if we don't include such links, how can we give the reader a sample of the thinking of contemporary expanding earthers? I am not sure what we should do. I lean toward removing everything except Netzer and Adams. Please comment. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Giancarlo Scalera is a member of it:Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), which is a respected geological institution, and unlike Adams or Netzer and most other "modern" proponents he has managed to publish his theories in geological journals like "Annali di geofisica", "New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter". See some articles. That doesn't make him mainstream, but he is at least, contrary to Adams, a geologist.... --D.H (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the links about Mantovani, Hilgenberg and Carey could be moved to the articles about these gentlemen. Although the google results are meagre, Scalera seems indeed to be (or have been) active in geoscientific research: [1] (besides the EE publications some stuff about seismology in south Italy between the 80s-90s, little referenced though). Woodwalker (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody tell me how many of these and those articles by Scalera are both about his expanding Earth ideas and also published in peer-reviewed journals? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...the Annals of Geophysics (or Annali di Geofisica, ISSN 1593-5213) is the official journal of INGV. There he published most of his articles, including those on EE. Scalera himself and other plate tectonics "dissidents" also created the online journal New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter. So at least the first journal seems to be peer reviewed, however, in the second journal, Scalera is sitting in the editorial board.... --D.H (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A search on Annals of Geophysics returned this for Scalera, most of which seem to be related to expanding Earth:

• 1993 Non-chaotic emplacements of trench-arc zones in the Pacific Hemisphere Scalera, G.* -
• 1993 Seismic hazard in Irpinia and considerations about the seismogenic area Scalera, G.*; Favali, P.*; Smeriglio, G.* et al. -
• Sep-1993 Non-chaotic emplacements of trench-arc zones in the Pacific Hemisphere Scalera, G.* -
• Nov-1998 Paleogeographical reconstructions compatible with Earth dilatation Scalera, G.* -
• Feb-2001 The global paleogeographical reconstruction of the Triassic in the earth dilatation framework and the paleoposition of india . Scalera, G.* -
• Feb-2006 Frontiers in earth sciences: new ideas and interpretation Scalera, G.*; Lavecchia, G.* book
• 20-Mar-2006 Are artificial satellites orbits influenced by an expanding Earth? Scalera, G.* -
• Dec-2007 Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography – A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography Scalera, G.* article

Not sure where that leaves us. If he only published in Annals of Geophysics, I would be a little suspicious. (I do admit he is better than a comic artist.) --Art Carlson (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends what our aim is. If we want to give the EE-people's view as complete as possible, we can include as much of Scalera's work in the external links as necessary. If we want a balanced selection of external links, in which those opposing EE are covered as well, we have a problem. Generally, EE is just not considered in publications on geodynamics. It even does not occur in any handbooks on geodynamics/tectonics/petrology, except those written from a historical perspective. That is of course because almost all authors see EE as something too absurd to mention or consider. If we would, on the other hand, want to give a selection of links to sites covering the opposite view (in favour of subduction) for balance, we have an overwhelming choice. I would not know where to start... Woodwalker (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there many other, any other contemporary scientists besides Scalera that have peer-reviewed publications on EE? Can Scalera be considered a RS besides on his own ideas? 3 of the 4 historical links are from him. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodwalker wrote

I suppose the links about Mantovani, Hilgenberg and Carey could be moved to the articles about these gentlemen.

Yes, since there is an article on each of these 3 gentlemen, ELs in this article do not seem to be necessary/appropriate. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The same could be said of the Netzer link. As for the Adams link, if he is not (important enough to be) mentioned in the article, I don't see why we especially need a link to his web site. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

not a theory?

what is it then? any answers from WP:STALKers? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know what theories are. There's the link again for you to check. Also, you clearly have no idea how watchpages work. You see, those with named accounts have them. NJGW (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You clearly are ... Anyhow, see ... THEORY ! 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I feel so important now, great NJGW is watching me! 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you really don't know how watch lists work? That cute. [2] NJGW (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, you should not edit other people's comments. Why did you change my link from theory to hypothesis? Don't act so immature. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to format my link in a veiwable way. My browser doesn't give a useable link but yours does so I was borrowing, didn't mean to leave your link changed, but you should have assumed that. NJGW (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You should assume AFG before assuming that my view is biased, even though I provided source, and didn't provide my own (unbiased?) judgment about what theory may or may not be. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For best results here, please keep comments focused on the article, and not on other editors, thanks. --Elonka 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Give an example. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)