Talk:28-hour day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 28 hour day article is based on a personal web site that was set up as self promotion and a hoax (the 28 hour day website) therefore the article is nonesense. The creator of the 28 hour day website, which is linked in the 28 hour day article, must have had someone, or someone unwittingly did so.. It could be a user or an admin on wikipedia created an article about his 28 hour day hoax not knowing the background OR perhaps they have ties to the 28 hour day web site creator? I know the 28 hour day to be a hoax and a self promotion tool, I know this first hand. While amusing and even creative, it is pure nonesense and a shameless self promotion tool by the owner of the 28 hour day website. The problem is that such an article, undermines wikipedia, even if being posted in good humor. Attempts to remove the personal web site links to the 28 hour day web site, or challenge the veracity, are promptly undone by admins. Which means admins are helping clear policy violations. Perhaps the admins will see clear OR perhaps they have personal or professional ties to the author of the 28 hour day? You all will decide what you want anyway, just thought I would put it out there for thought. Enjoy! 199.74.155.50 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a reliable source talking about this concept, so it can't be a total hoax (e.g., something someone came up with in school one day and decided to put on Wikipedia, even knowing that it wasn't true). Do you have any reliable sources establishing that this is one of the things you assert it is: self-promotion, nonsense, or a hoax? Do you have any sources at all leading in that direction? I would like to see them. Note also that Wikipedia does not only cover truth; if someone posits a theory and reliable sources debate it and eventually decide that it was hogwash from the start, the fact alone that reliable sources covered it may make it notable enough to be included here. Vadder (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How strange, Vadder. Apparently you were writing here on Talk just as I was adding to (& partly debunking) the article. It may well be nonsense (I don't see the self-promotion??), but it's appealing and may well work for very extreme evening types. I may give it a try when I retire :-)

(If by "reliable source" you mean the Harvard Gazette article, that means you haven't read or understood same. Czeisler et al chose a 28-hour day specifically because normal people cannot adjust to that. As that article makes clear, subjects were forced to wake and sleep on a 6-day week, but their circadian markers, such as hormones and temperature, continued on a 24-hour cycle.) --Hordaland (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the Harvard Gazette article does tend to disprove the concept of a 28 hour day as a desirable lifestyle. My point is that even disproven concepts can sometimes deserve articles here (appropriately including references to the fact that they are disproven) if they have been discussed in reliable sources. Thanks for improving the article! Vadder (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)