User talk:Wesley R. Elsberry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know if you are still active, but just a head's up: I used your draft to make an article for TalkOrigins_Archive. It is almost identical to your earlier version but incorporates a list of awards and recognition for the archive. JoshuaZ 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt that I could contribute a draft, but that Wikipedians should look it over and fix it up for use. -- WRE

Hi Wesley. I just wanted to thank you for your very helpful comments on the bottlenose dolphin talk page. If you haven't already begin doing, you should feel to correct the article directly in cases like this - i.e. in cases where you are familiar with the literature and confident of your own correctness. Thanks again for your contributions. Pcb21 Pete 12:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sternberg

While this is arguably an exceptional case(given the nature of the issue at hand), WP:V frowns highly upon the use of blogs such as Panda's Thumb as sourcing, so it would be helpful if we had other sources that said the same thing (possibly the NCSE?). JoshuaZ 14:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, newbie type thing. I was adding a sentence to the entry. The previous sentence already was using a PT link as a source. Wesley R. Elsberry 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I'd like to send you an email but your Wikipedia email is not enabled, would you mind enabling it and/or is there some other way to obtain your email address? JoshuaZ 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal probability bound

I made some changes to the Universal probability bound article. Still more work needs to be done but I think the proper context of statistical mechanics was missing from article. Please have a look and feel free to change it.--CSTAR 05:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "dB SPL" is an invalid unit

Numerous articles in Wikipedia are using an invalid acoustic "unit", variously specified as "dB SPL", "dBSPL", and "dB(SPL)". There may be other variants. Affected articles include decibel, sound pressure, sound pressure level, and audiogram. But the full range of articles with the problem can best be seen by search for each specific variant. Such a search on "dB SPL" returns 21 Wikipedia articles.

The guidelines given for the US National Standards clearly excludes the use of "dB SPL". See the ASACOS Rules for Preparation of American National Standards in ACOUSTICS, MECHANICAL VIBRATION AND SHOCK, BIOACOUSTICS, and NOISE, which states:

3.16 Unit symbols 3.16.1 When to use unit symbols In the text of the standard, the unit symbol for a quantity shall be used only when the unit is preceded by a numeral. When the unit is not preceded by a numeral, spell out the name of the unit. In text, even when a numerical value is given, it is desirable to spell out the name of the unit. Moreover, the name shall be spelled out when it first appears in the text, and more often if the text is lengthy.
Thus, in text write "...a sound pressure level of 73 dB; or "...a sound pressure level of 73 decibels." Do not write "sound pressure level in dB"; the correct form is "sound pressure level in decibels." Do not write "dB levels", "dB readings", or "dB SPL."
Levels or readings are not of decibels; they are of sound pressure levels or some other acoustical quantity. Write out the word "decibel" for such applications, and be sure that the word 'decibel' follows, not precedes the description of the relevant acoustical quantity.

The use of "dB SPL", as shown above by an authoritative source, is wrong. The incorrect use is common in Wikipedia articles, and it is a problem. I've been leaving a message in the talk sections of various articles that need to have this fixed. An attempted edit to begin correction of the decibel article was reverted to the incorrect usage.

The treatment of sound pressure level is inconsistent with standard reference works across Wikipedia. Both Kinsler and Frey's "Fundamentals of Acoustics" (2nd edition) and Robert Urick's "Principles of Underwater Sound" (3rd edition) indicate that a measured intensity is a level (Urick p.15) or sound pressure level (K&F) relative to a reference effective pressure (K&F pp.125-126). Both of these sources recommend reporting decibels with an explicit listing of the reference effective pressure, like so: "74 dB re 20 micropascals", where the number and units following re is the reference effective pressure. Level or sound pressure level in both these standard texts simply refer to a measurement in the sound field and are not indications of a specific reference pressure upon which the decibel is based. In other words, "dB SPL" is an invalid means of attempting to refer to the in-air reference effective pressure. In no article thus far have I seen the "dB SPL" usage tied to an authoritative source. By contrast, the "dB re" formalism is common to both standard reference works that I have cited, and is explicitly excluded in the work laying out the format for the national standards.

Other sites using the "dB re" formalism: Oceans of Noise (explicit in defining SPL and SIL in terms of "dB re"), SURTASS LFA, NIST listing SPL in terms of "dB re", and Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals.

On the decibel page, an edit lists having entered a better reference for use of "dB SPL". This "better reference" for use of "dB SPL" added to the decibel article ends up being a document that merely includes "dB SPL" in a list of terms. The glossary within the same document does not even list this supposed unit, even though weighted decibel terms are defined. The glossary in the file does have an entry for "sound pressure level", which is

Sound pressure level: (1) Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the time-mean-square pressure of a sound, in a stated frequency band, to the square of the reference sound pressure in gases of 20 micropascals (µPa). Unit, dB; symbol, Lp. (2) For sound in media other than gases, unless otherwise specified, reference sound pressure in 1 µPa (ANSI S1.1-1994: sound pressure level).

Notice that the unit specified is "dB", not "dB SPL". The inclusion of "dB SPL" in the list of terms does not establish that that usage is correct, and even their own reference of the ANSI standard indicates that their usage is incorrect. SPL refers to a measurement, and is not an indication of the reference effective pressure. The ANSI standard referenced makes this clear, as SPL is defined as being used for other reference effective pressures, too. (Note: The ANSI standard itself is not something I have on hand; I am relying on the quoted glossary in the referenced link. I did check and found another page that claims to have extracted that text without modification from the ANSI standard, and it matches. To get the PDF of the ANSI standard, one would have to pay $150.)

A reasonable question to ask is why, if the term is incorrect, does Wikipedia have so many articles that use it? Since SPL is a useful concept, people do report measurements of various SPLs. I think that the shorthand way that this may commonly be done (and which the writing guideline above warns against and the ANSI standard contradicts) would be to say, "We recorded a 74 dB SPL at 10 meters from the sound source," rather than, "We recorded a sound pressure level of 74 dB at 10 meters from the sound source," or the complete, "We recorded a sound pressure level of 74 decibels re 20 micropascals at 10 meters from the sound source," which is unambiguous. If one uses the shortcut of the first example a lot, one may become erroneously convinced that the actual unit of measurement is a "dB SPL". This may be more common among people who do all their acoustic work using only one assumed reference effective pressure. Within a particular community, actually writing out each measurement with the reference effective pressure indicated may appear to be redundant and a waste of space and time. Because reference effective pressures have changed in the past, published reports that failed to specify which one corresponded to a particular measurement has made comparison to modern measurements ambiguous, and thus unreliable.

If the "dB SPL" problem is going to be fixed, we must have some agreement among those who regularly contribute to the acoustics articles on Wikipedia that there really is a problem here. The incorrect usage is otherwise too pervasive in existing Wikipedia articles to risk starting edit wars that will simply waste people's time.

Wesley R. Elsberry 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with you 100 % that there's a problem with the way the decibel is used on Wikipedia. It's not just dB SPL though and not limited to acoustics either. So-called units like dBA, dBu, dBm, dBJ (even dBJ/Hz) are listed in the decibel article, so not surprisingly they get used elsewhere. I'm not sure what to do about it though, because it's so widespread. Have you ever raised this on the decibel talk page? Thunderbird2 22:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Some change happened there, but it wasn't complete, and as you point out, Wikipedia has a lot of widespread incorrect usage. Given the resistance I've gotten, I just haven't had the energy to pursue this as aggressively as needs doing. --Wesley R. Elsberry 04:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I think that the main contributing factor is that the decibel is so widely misused *outside* Wikipedia. Thus, it is easy for editors to find examples where terms like dB SPL etc, even in otherwise reputable publications. I am reluctant to push this one myself either, for the reason that I am already building myself a reputation as a pedant for trying to achieve standardisation elsewhere (I am trying to persuade the SHIPS project to stop using the abbreviation nm for the nautical mile, and replace it with nmi - even more limited objective that is sapping much of my WP budget). Nevertheless, I will add a note of support following yours at decibel. Perhaps that will encourage someone with more time and energy to take up the challenge. Thunderbird2 09:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head, in that Wikipedia's reliance on verifiability means that common errors can easily be propagated here. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I made an attempt to clean up the misuse of the dB unit in the decibel article. Let's see how other editors respond Thunderbird2 09:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm an administrator here, so if you ever need any covert EAC work done you can contact me through the usual backchannels. Seeya around. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hovind dissertation

Hi, I noticed your comments on the Kent Hovind page in which you wrote "Yes, NCSE does have a copy of Hovind's dissertation. I have seen it..." Is there any web source or magazine article that I can reference the NCSE as having a copy available for viewing from the public? It needs to be sourced in the article. Arbusto 07:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Karen Bartelt's review of Hovind's dissertation was based on the copy obtained by Skip Evans, then the Network Project Director at NCSE. That is the copy that NCSE currently holds. It is very likely the original, since it includes illustrations that are based upon graphs trimmed from magazines and taped into the document. Other references include a Usenet post by Jason Gastrich, who visited NCSE to read Hovind's dissertation, though he forgot NCSE's name. In two other posts, Jason Gastrich and Skip Evans discuss Jason's visit to NCSE: here and here. --Wesley R. Elsberry 06:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, any chance the NCSE would be willing to put a PDF or some other scanned version up on the website? JoshuaZ 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that NCSE would love to be able to do so. NCSE has to treat its copy of Hovind's dissertation like any other copyrighted work. NCSE would have to have permission from Hovind, who so far has not seen fit to grant permission for his dissertation, as provided by Patriot University, to be re-published by anyone else. This goes with Hovind's bizarre claim to have continued to work upon and add to his dissertation post-graduation; so far as I know, Hovind does not provide this work-in-progress to anyone else, either. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if you can't put the whole thing on the web, then a photo or two from far out enough that you can't read it properly but you can still see the stuff stuck in with glue stick with like artistic merit. Paul A. Newman 12:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds do-able. I'll see about that. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Any word on the photo idea? A picture of the cover uploaded on wikipedia for interested parties? FGT2 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I will try and get this done, but I have to admit it isn't way up on the priorities as I pack for a move. --Wesley R. Elsberry 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No rush, but it would be nice to have an image of it. Especially with his sentencing coming up. FGT2 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOA hacking & google

Wow. Some of those people who posted comments are amazingly rude jerks. Guettarda 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski photo

To be usable by Wikipedia you need to release it under an appropriate free license (GFDL, CC-by-SA, etc.) Assuming that you are the copyright holder, it would be best for you to upload the image either here at the English Wikipedia (via Special:Upload) or at Wikimedia Commons (via commons:Special:Upload) where it would be available for use in all Wikimedia projects. Make sure to tag the images appropriately when you upload them. Guettarda 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the first photo to Image:Wad_by_wre_20060317_2972.JPG . --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski's Christmas Present to his critics

Wes, can you name who Dembski sent the christmas present email to? If it was his critics then I think an argument could be made it belongs in the response to critics section. See my latest comments on the Dembski talk page.

There’s a Christmas present for you at www.overwhelmingevidence.com – a flash animation that features each of you prominently (some of you are probably aware of it already

Cheers! Mr Christopher 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Recombination Information Issue

Wesley, I am bringing this debate over to your talk page as instructed by Wikipedia guidelines regarding dispute resolution. Firstly, I would advise you to read the Guidelines for Vandalism. You may find that your edits (or Phippard's) fit the definition much better than my edits. I'm sure you would not want that to be the case. Also, let me point out to you the Wikipedia policy for dispute resolution:

Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

As instructed by Wikipedia policy, I improved the article by adding to it and making it more clear. You, (or your friend Phippard) however, simply reverted the article because you disagreed with my added sentence, in violation of the Wikipedia policy just mentioned. Then you insinuate that I am a vandal, not to mention that you did it publicly on the Article Discussion page. The reason you gave for reverting it was

This is an antievolution talking point. It comes with no substantiation whatsoever, and depends critically on leaving any coherent definition of "information" out of the discussion. While this may not meet the Wikipedia:Vandalism criteria, it comes pretty close to that. I suggest reverting to the previous version. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave an excellent, recognized reference supporting the idea that existing genetic information is merely reshuffled. I suppose your statement of "no substantiation" refers to the definition of "information"? Are you telling me you are unfamiliar with Dr. Thomas Schneider and his discussions of biological information. Surely you are aware of these? If not, I will furnish references for you. Afdave 02:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You have gotten yourself confused. First, I have never made any change to the "Genetic recombination" article, as a brief check of the edit history will demonstrate. Second, Dr. Phippard did not revert your insertion; "JoshuaZ" did. Third, your addition to the article did not have any reference; that is "unsubstantiated". Fourth, I have been a correspondent of Dr. Schneider's; I certainly do know the researcher and his work, which contradicts your stance. Fifth, this comment that you left on my talk page is in no sense "courteous", as you erroneously claimed on the "Genetic recombination" talk page.

References that show that recombination does cause the formation of novel alleles trumps references that have not taken cognizance of that research. This aspect of science will continue to cause you trouble until you learn that you cannot set aside evidence by quoting people who have not yet addressed that evidence. --Wesley R. Elsberry 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your portrait photo

Hi, we have a policy which restricts fair use images solely to articles (mainly to comply with US Copyright Policy, not because we're all misers) so I was hoping you could supply a freely licenced replacement for use in your article and for use on your userspace. Best Wishes -- Nick ^t 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a self-portrait, so I can give the needed permission for use. Tell me how you would like that done. --Wesley R. Elsberry 00:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your article

I have reverted it again to my version (which I know is unvandalised) and protected it for five days to prevent all these sweeping changes, mass content deletion and attack paragraphs. I have left a comment on the talk page that you ought to read also. Kind regards, SGGH ^speak! 18:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. you might want to check it over and see if there is any vandalism I haven't spotted. SGGH ^speak! 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy cow

You are THE Wesley R. Elsberry? I just wrote about you in an article (the new Tara C. Smith article.--Filll 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. There is a "Wesley A. Elsberry" in Tyler, TX, but that's about as close as anyone else gets to my name. :-) -- Wesley R. Elsberry 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on Afd

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NCSE_Grand_Canyon_Raft_Trip and the associated article NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip. 21:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Happy Couple", I don't know what you are trying to pull, but I am definitely not buying it. Your creation of the article was gratuitous, and your claim that "Project Steve" is no more notable than your pathetic page is completely bogus. Did you expect me to simply say we needed to keep your page no matter what? --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photo problem?

You might want to provide input at [1]. --Filll 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a response on my talk page in the same thread at User talk:Kenosis ... Kenosis 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, thanks for the Image:Dembski head shot 2.jpg. The dual GNU/CC by SA licence is fully acceptable and recommended, though personally I'm unsure if GNU requires attribution, so I go for CC by SA on its own, but that's not a standard option now. Only quibble: this image can now be uploaded to the Commons for use in other projects i.e. Wikipedia in other languages etc., and it's helpful to upload to the Commons in the first place to save this having to be done later. You have to open an account to do so, it's no different from opening a Wikipedia account and you can use your own name or a pseudonym if you prefer. The instructions as you click through to upload an image are slightly clearer on the people point – Step one asks for "Photographs or videos you have created of: ... people that are either public figures or are taken at public events", and the Other tips includes "Compromising or embarrassing images of non-public people taken without their knowledge are often problematic. Use good judgment." So, unless Dembski is not a public figure AND it wasn't at a public event AND it's embarrassing, there should be no problem. There's more detailed guidance and a help desk, but that seems pretty straightforward. Further images will be much appreciated. .. dave souza, talk 10:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Yes, I can see the problem with contributing pictures of non-public figures. However, the picture in question is of Dembski giving a public lecture in an auditorium at UC Berkeley. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, Wes

Hi: Chris Ho-Stuart here. Nice to see you active at Wikipedia. I've been involved in a range of matters here. I got your message, expect to hear from me again shortly! Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your input

Take a look at [2]. Thanks.--Filll 01:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John (Angus) Campbell

While updating the John Angus Campbell article, I noticed that the reference cited says that his deposition was scheduled for June 2, 2006. Seems a trifle late to me, so have amended the article. It would be good if the reference was updated ;) .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I've requested Carrie Sager at NCSE make the correction. Thanks for the heads-up. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect info about PT

It might be helpful if you would add a note on PT or on your personal blog that the claim is wrong. Then we can cite that as a specific debunking of the claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/the-calpundit-w.html

"While we certainly appreciate the plug, it should be noted that the formation of this blog was not inspired by this incident at all. It is a mere coincidence that one followed on the heels of another, though I'm quite certain that some of our friends from the Discovery Institute could put together a compelling Argument from Really Big Numbers showing the staggering implausibility of those two things occuring in that specific order by random chance alone."

We had the requested note up *the day after we opened for business*.

Can't help it if nobody paid attention. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with a source

The Dembski article needs a source for the following passage: "Wesley R. Elsberry contacted the person in charge of the The Design Inference manuscript at Cambridge University Press, who declined to describe what a normal review process at Cambridge University Press consisted of." Cheers. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I briefly discussed my exchange with Skyrms here. Is that sufficient? --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of William A. Dembski

Please upload the image to Commons, so that we can use it in the others Wikis. Thanks--Domingo Portales (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Got a pointer to how to do that? I don't have a problem with uploading it to Commons, but as I haven't done that before, a how-to would be appreciated. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Happy New Year to you! -- Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Design of Life

Do you know of any reviews of this yet, both positive and negative? The natives are getting restless about deleting or merging this article (which I do not want to do unless forced), and I think the book is so new there is not much out there yet. Any ideas?--Filll (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kitzmiller & Judge Jones's memoranda

Dr. Elsberry, I am not sure if you read the talk page before you edited. I disagree with you that there was any POV-pushing in the statement you edited, particularly the way I rephrased it, since my POV and yours are in fact the same. Remember that part of the "wedge" strategy is to claim that the pro-science community has something to hide. Your edit could be interpreted as an act consistent with someone who is trying to hide the truth. That does not make our side look better. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't broach it, and I thought they did source it! I just rewrote it to avoid POV. As for sharing a side... in the abstract, I suppose it is creepy, but this is evolution we're talking about, not a family tree. How many sides can reasonable people take? I would say one and a half at most. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The Austringer

Dont you think we should have a short stub on this weblog, given that we seem to be using it as a source more and more often? After all, Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula and several other prominent blogs have their own articles. Comments?--Filll (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I can provide some text if it is considered that the weblog deserves an article here. Short stub, you say.

The Austringer is the personal weblog of Wesley R. Elsberry, initiated during a 2004 hospitalization as a convenient way to keep friends and family updated on developments. The title derives from falconry jargon for a person who flies a short-wing hawk. While posts cover falconry, science, wildlife, computation, and media issues, the most notable posts concern science education and the antievolution movement. These have included substantial materials concerning Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, the Sternberg peer review controversy, and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

External Links

The Austringer

Too long? --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No I like it. If other people want to add more they can. I just want to start with something since we seem to be using it more and more often. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I was too optimistic. I found an article about it in the Miami Herald. Any other media coverage? Awards? Rankings? Ratings? How about Technorati? Nature science blog rating? Ideas about how to establish notability?

Four minutes after I started it, it was already up for deletion. This deletionist business just is over the top, frankly.--Filll (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fussed any way that goes. IIRC, people have tried to argue that Myers' Pharyngula doesn't deserve an article. My weblog has been mentioned in the media with respect to the Cheri Yecke/Reputation Defenders incident and the Polk County school board's decision to back down from their endorsement of creationism and "intelligent design". I'll see if there are other instances I have overlooked. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your name personally is in the media a lot, but I have only found one instance of it tied to The Austringer so far. That is the Cheri Yecke matter.--Filll (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Lakeland Ledger mentioning and linking to my blog. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Any more?--Filll (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that seems to have scraped the bottom of the peanut butter jar. It may be best to simply go with the merge suggestion. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tampa tribune on Polk County flap

North County Times article linked to Austringer for description of Mark Perakh papers

Added a couple more media links as I found them. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure. The Blogosphere is becoming more important. And when Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula and other important blogs are starting to use The Austringer more and more as a source, then it is quite noteworthy, I would claim. If this Florida situation continues to heat up, The Austringer is going to become more prominent (not just its author, who is already prominent). I also believe that since its author is prominent, by WP:SPS, The Austringer is noteworthy and of course definitely a WP:RS. But let me keep pondering this. Was The Austringer rated at all by the Nature magazine study of science blogs a year or two back?--Filll (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Austringer did not get mentioned in the Nature article. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expelled

Thanks for helping here. One of the troublesome bits about this article is that so much of the commentary is coming from blogs, which aren't normally sufficient for WP:V purposes. The more multi-dimensional, and ideologically independent, the publisher for reference sources used, the less arbitrary the editorial judgment...both the notability of the commentary and the objectivity can be better measured with independent publications. Your help in expanding the body of attributable refs would be most helpful. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)