Talk:Alpaca fiber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by the Peru WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. | |
|
WikiProject Peru To-do:
|
||
 |
Alpaca fiber is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs. |
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
[edit] NPOV
Per the tag, unless people can source the claims about alpaca wool being supposedly "warmer" and such than sheep wool, I'm going to be removing them. VanTucky 08:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I think I can get a source for that in some knitting books. DurovaCharge! 08:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great! But it shouldn't be the first sentence anyway, it doesn't really state the obvious well enough. I'll try and tweak it. VanTucky 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- VanTucky, with all due respect, it seems very obvious that you have never put an alpaca sweater on! Just try it, and then attempt to justify (in this case at least) the fixation toward "sourcing", and "citation needed" tagging that plagues so many articles! Regards, --AVM (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The ultimate test for inclusion of material on Wikipedia is not personal experience, it is verifiability through reliable sources. Whether I've worn an alpaca sweater or not is completely irrelevant. Source material is the only influence of any significance in articles; this is a reference work, not a promotional guide to alpaca products. VanTucky 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's make this clear: this is not a discussion on Alpaca products, and as a promotional guide it would be very lacking. This discussion is about the above-referred infamous "sourcing" and "citation needed" tagging mania. Well, to begin with, I do not think there is any other source more reliable than my own senses and observations; I've always regarded that mania as absurd, for it inferes that only obervations and affirmations made and written by others are valid and worthy of credibility, and that my obervations and affirmations are not. About the verifiability criterion, what better way to verify an affirmation than to test it yourself, something that anyone can do?. I don't need to read someone else's testimony about alpaca wool being 'warm' or 'warmer', I just need to put my alpaca sweater on, and then compare (I'm sorry that you have not had the experience, that much is pretty obvious). Just the same, I don't need to read a confirmation in some 'source material' or 'reliable source' that "if human skin is exposed long enough to a live flame, it will suffer severe burns": isn't such common verifiable experience enough? --AVM (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The arguments you're making are both off-topic to the subject at hand (whether or not the article is neutral) and is simply not in line with our standing, venerated policy on what verification means for articles. There is no arguing around the fact that, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." You're not going to single-handedly change the entire project's core stance on factual accuracy through arguing on the talk page for Alpaca fiber. If you disagree with our core policy, take it up on a more appropriate talk space than this one. In the meantime, we need to get this article in line with standing policy. VanTucky 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let's make this clear: this is not a discussion on Alpaca products, and as a promotional guide it would be very lacking. This discussion is about the above-referred infamous "sourcing" and "citation needed" tagging mania. Well, to begin with, I do not think there is any other source more reliable than my own senses and observations; I've always regarded that mania as absurd, for it inferes that only obervations and affirmations made and written by others are valid and worthy of credibility, and that my obervations and affirmations are not. About the verifiability criterion, what better way to verify an affirmation than to test it yourself, something that anyone can do?. I don't need to read someone else's testimony about alpaca wool being 'warm' or 'warmer', I just need to put my alpaca sweater on, and then compare (I'm sorry that you have not had the experience, that much is pretty obvious). Just the same, I don't need to read a confirmation in some 'source material' or 'reliable source' that "if human skin is exposed long enough to a live flame, it will suffer severe burns": isn't such common verifiable experience enough? --AVM (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The ultimate test for inclusion of material on Wikipedia is not personal experience, it is verifiability through reliable sources. Whether I've worn an alpaca sweater or not is completely irrelevant. Source material is the only influence of any significance in articles; this is a reference work, not a promotional guide to alpaca products. VanTucky 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- VanTucky, with all due respect, it seems very obvious that you have never put an alpaca sweater on! Just try it, and then attempt to justify (in this case at least) the fixation toward "sourcing", and "citation needed" tagging that plagues so many articles! Regards, --AVM (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've added a cite for alpaca fiber warmth. DurovaCharge! 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sidestepping this issue- I'm new to putting in references (of which I found one that said, multiple times, that alpaca was warmer, soft, and had a few more positive adjectives that I've added), and if I've referenced things poorly, or too often, or something, feel free to tell me/fix it. Loggie (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any remaining reason for the NPOV tag? DurovaCharge! 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is safe to remove it- we've referenced the warmth now. Loggie (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comparisons are odious
Never mind the fact that it is warmer than sheep's wool (it is a hollow fibre, thus being a fantastic insulator)- i object to the openeing sentence reading 'Alpaca fleece is fiber, similar to sheep’s wool in some respects'. The only way in which it is similar to sheep's wool is that it's a natural fibre that grows on the back of an animal. There is no reason to devalue alpaca fibre by starting the article by relating it to a sheep. It should begin: 'Alpaca is a light-weight, lustrous and silky natural fibre... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.124.182 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Emphatically agree. An opening description should stand alone, without resorting to mention an unrelated species, in this case vastly inferior in quality. Please keep in mind that a garment manufactured from alpaca wool is a glorious luxury, always a pleasure to wear and touch. --AVM (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
