Talk:Dayton Miller

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

Roberts Section Fails Verification[edit]

The Robert section both misrepresents the paper cited and cites a paper from arXiv which is neither peer reviewed, nor even endorsed in the arXiv system. Additionally wording represents strong bias with hyperbole. Appears to be a self-publish. Needs to be completely removed or balanced and framed as examples of contentious debate of opinion still active. Nemesis75 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Roberts section, references, and statements directly based upon this self publish have been removed Nemesis75 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile it seems that there's sufficient secondary sources quoting Roberts, so I have re-inserted (with the additional sources) the part that had been removed here, and which is now verified. - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Shankland analysis[edit]

The use of the term “relativists” in that section to mean “proponents of the theories of relativity” does not bear well for the neutrality of the section of the article and the neutrality and reputation of the cited sources. In my experience, you only ever read that term from relativity-deniers, i.e. crackpots, who have the misconception of “relativity” to mean “relativism” (a relativist is a proponent of the philosophical concept of relativism, which has nothing to do with the theories of relativity: those are theories of invariances, the exact opposite). This section should be checked for neutrality and updated, which I why I have added the corresponding template reference for the time being. --PointedEars (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You used the {{POV-title}} template, which refers to the title of the article. I assume you meant to use the {{POV section}} template here. I have replaced it.
Regarding the usage of the word "relativists": as far as I know, that term is perfectly neutral and means "relativity experts". On Usenet it seems to have a different meaning indeed, but this is not Usenet, so I see no problem here. We can of course just replace it with "relativity experts", and then remove the tag. Would that be OK? - DVdm (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. No, the modification that you suggest would not be OK.
First of all, usage of the term “relativist” in a derogatory way for “supporter of the theories of relativity” is unfortunately not limited to Usenet.
Second, a proponent of the theories of relativity is not necessarily a “relativity expert”, and Dictionary.com is the only online dictionary, among those including Wiktionary, on the first three Google result pages for “relativist” to make the connection by giving the alternative meaning (without reference) as “adherent of the principle of relativity”. Wikipedia redirects “Relativist” to Relativism, too, for good reason.
Third, I have reviewed this section now, and determined that the last paragraph actually consists only of unsourced/irrelevant crackpot nonsense: the links are dead, the referenced papers are not published in a peer-reviewed journal and are tied to crackpot organizations like the “Natural Philosophy Alliance” (why is psiram.com blacklisted here?), and the argument made (which should not have been in there in the first place) digresses from the lemma on top of that it sounds like a combination of conspiracy theories.
Therefore, the last paragraph should be removed altogether. If nobody comes forward with a convincing argument in due time as to why any of this should be retained, or is faster than me, I will remove that paragraph. --PointedEars (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Your analysis of the meaning of "relativist" can convince me. Otoh, I had read this entire closing paragraph as somewhat anti-crackpot, but I agree that it is not properly sourced, and certainly irrelevant in this section. The link to Robert Crease is certainly improper (dead, and against wp:MOS). So AFAIAC, feel free to remove that last paragraph and the tag. - DVdm (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. --PointedEars (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dayton Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)