Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 8

message: Anon -
Although I am pro-relativity myself, I see little value in your edits.  Your harping on Dingle having changed his mind after he retired implies that he was "losing it" at the time, and so is POV.  Instead a simple statement of when Dingle retired is sufficient.  Also your telling people to "see the twin paradox article for the scientific view" is also not needed.  Instead, there should be a "See Also" section which lists that other relevant articles.  
To top everything else off, you lose the statement that Dingle was "ultimately unsuccessful" in his attempts to convince the scientific community that SR is wrong.  For me, that it the one key point that I want the article to make unambiguously.  Your text fails to do that!
I kindly ask you to stop trying to impose your opinion and start workng towards consensus.  Whether you like it or not Wikipedia is a group endeavor, and in this case the group includes the anti-relativists.  Let's just say that it is bad enough having some of them trying to impose a pro-Dingle slant.  We don't need you trying to impose an anti-Dingle slant.  Wikipedia calls for a neutral point of view, not a scientific one. --EMS | Talk 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EMS - Well said - Swanzsteve 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wholeheartedly seconded by an obviously dissident member of the Shuba team. DVdm 08:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by anon 63.34.* / 130.76.* 

message: As this article is still a stub and we are asked to expand it, please follow the folowing rules strictly:
- If some statement seems to lack sourcing, don't delete it but instead add a FACT tag as explained in Template:Fact.
- If some statement looks erroneous, please don't just delete it but instead improve it, tag it, or  move it to the Talk page for discussion. It's even common practice to discuss important changes before making them Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Major_edits - and as long as this artcle is still a stub, most deletions of whole sentences are important. 
Thanks in advance!
Harald88 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced material can and often should be removed, not tagged.  As another editor put it, "In general, I find the  tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes  is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone."  Bottom line is that any unsourced material can be removed at any time for being unsourced, and the way to avoid this is to source information in the first place.  Of course, sourced information can also be removed, but for different reasons, such as to uphold the current consensus that this article should be whitewashed to avoid reference to current mainstream thought about the consistency of special relativity. Tim Shuba 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is this claimed current concensus that this article should be "whitewashed"? The concensus above is certainly not to whitewash; whitewhashing is certainly not compatible with Wikipedia policies! Moreover, this is not about the consistency of special relativity but about Dingle and his debates. Harald88 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with ''constructive'' editing