Talk:Red rain in Kerala/Archive 2

Reverted Gamahucheur's Edits
I took the liberty of reverting most of his/her/its edits, since most of them make no sense ("these" refer to the theories below, not above; random hyperlinking of years seems...pointless). However, I'll shortly fix a few linguistic mistakes that the revert reintroduced.
 * What you primarily did was vandalize, by restoring a dating format that isn't the Wikipedia standard (and in at least one case was improperly done anyway, as an additional comma would be required after the year). You might find the hyperlinking of dates pointless, but it is how they are handled on Wikipedia.  Your point about that to which “these” referred simply highlights the problem with using a bald “these” (especially with a period rather than an colon comming after the apparent sentence).  Also, you need to beginning signing and timestamping your remarks in discussion. Gamahucheur 18:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links; see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Years.2C_decades.2C_and_centuries" Face it; you're wrong about dates. And, while the use of the word "these" might be misleading, it's not blatantly wrong, as the term "the above" is (the term should refer to the paragraph BELOW, not above). I will revert back to my edit, using 2/3 of my 3 reverts. I intend to respect the rule. Do you? (Oh, and since you asked so nicely, I'll sign and date myself) 72.140.137.189, 03 Apr 2006
 * First, you've only attempted to address trhe issue of linking dates, and not of your imposition of the wrong format. Second, because dates are being tied together in chronological tables, there is strong reason for linkifying them; people are seeking context and correlation.  Third, had the sentence with the bare “these” been grammatic, then the demonstrative prnoun would refer to antecedents; the point that I was making in my comment above, then, was that a bald “these” was unacceptable; once it was made clear that the sentence was ungrammatic (nad not merely hard to read), I replaced the “these” with “the following”, as you might have noticed before blatting.  Fourth, learn the four-tilde trick. Gamahucheur 05:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! I realize now that you've presumed an unstated “in that order” (not in fact there) in the statement that you quote! Gamahucheur 05:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First, it's not my format, but I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't care either way; I'm leaving it as is until the linking is sorted out. Second, that's your opinion only; I'd rather follow the guideline, unless you can properly explain what the hell your second statement means (I'm assuming it's relevant). I can respect the third change. And fourth, thank you for your most sincere advice, which was obviously meant to help me save time. Oh, and your bald changing of the title was a big disappointment to me. Please, stop with the juvenile tricks. 72.140.137.189 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at how the Wikipedia software itself timestamps things. See the format?  I really don't give much of a rat's ass about the Wikification of dates (though it's easier, however, for me to revert in a way that rewikifies), but your insistence on trashing-out the format is what's truly juvenile here.  You've made the other format yours.  If you'd paid attention (insteead of butt-wiggling) in response to my original comment to you, you'd have seen that I explained the essence of the “third” change;p I just didn't spoon-feed you.  I'm not going to bother with much further spoon-feeding; it's nto worth my time.  My bald changing of the title was to have it accurately reflect what you'd done.  Rather than just unwikifyinbg the dates and launching a civil discussion, you trashed-out everything and then “justified” it with an insult.  This discourse is not going to get nice until-and-unless you back-pedal hard-and-fast, and I'm not holding my breath on that one. Gamahucheur 01:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop changing my title. Now. I won't warn you again; it's simply not worth my time. You do raise a good point on how the wikipedia software treats dates in the talk page, but that's not a guideline on how dates in an article should appear. Since you've graciously admitted to being wrong about hyperlinking, your revision has nothing going for it. The original version didn't have hyperlinks, which is the correct procedure, and thus it is superior to your version. Therefore it should be the version that visitors to wikipedia should see. Note that in my argument I assume that "alii" and "al." are equally correct; if you have an opinion as to why I'm wrong, please say so. Oh, and I also assume we both agree that the new edits by neither of us are acceptable, having a place in both of our versions.
 * Your Version
 * Hyperlinking:Wrong
 * Dates:Correct
 * Citing Sources:Correct
 * Original Version
 * Hyperlinking:Correct
 * Dates:Correct
 * Citing Sources:Correct
 * 72.140.137.189 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One: Warn me? Yeah yeah, I expect you to stop by my place with your posse any day.  Two: The Manual of Style clearly gives clear preference to formatting dates as I have.  Three: You are simply trolling in claiming that I admitted (graciously or otherwise) to being wrong about the Wikification of dates; I admitted to being relatively uninterested.  In any event, the Manual of Style also notes that Wikification of dates serves multiple purposes (with at least one being unrelated to hyperlinking), and that the issue of alleged overlinking is under discussion.  Four: “et al.” is no more than an abbreviation of “et alii”; either is correct, though the former is a bit like writing “Apr.” for “April”.  Without a period, “et al” is wrong.
 * My Version:
 * Hyperlinking of Years: More controversial.
 * Wikifying of month-day combinations: Best practice, for reason unrelated to hyperlinking.
 * Default format of dates: Standard.
 * Citations: Correct.
 * Your Version:
 * Non-hyperlinking of Years: Less controversial.
 * Nonwikifying of month-day combinations: Poor practice, for reason unrelated to hyperlinking.
 * Default format of dates: Non-standard but no longer incorrectly lacking some commas peculiarly needed by that format.
 * Citations: Now correct, with the addition of previously absent periods.
 * Gamahucheur 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing that has become evident is that you presume that Wikipedia mark-up more closely approximates a a tag-by-tag translation of HTML than it does. Gamahucheur 22:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: From here on, I'm not even going to bother changing the main article until this is resolved. After all, all I have to do is change some dates and links, and I'd rather do it one final time at the very end. Anyway, to the matter at hand: One, you'll notice that I neither uttered nor implied the threat of violence. That would be most uncharacteristic of me. Two, you're wrong about hyperlinking whether you admit it or not (and you've provided no defense); but to save time, your gracious admittance of "less controversial" is all that I need to show that non-hyperlinking is superior, provided you cannot justify why hyperlinking is otherwise better (see the last point). Three, the manual of style clearly states that your format is the only accepted one "For topics concerning the UK, Australia, and New Zealand." Need I remind you that Kerala is in India? For those countries, "either format is acceptable." This directly contrasts with your words "The Manual of Style clearly gives clear preference to formatting dates as I have." I kindly suggest that you read the manual of style more carefully next time. Four, you'll notice that I have inserted periods behind every "et al." quite a while ago. Therefore, both forms are equally correct. Lastly, I would greatly appreciate some mention of exactly why adding hyperlinks to dates is useful, beyond "for reason unrelated to hyperlinking.". Oh, and again I have no idea what your last statement is supposed to mean. Interpret that as you wish.
 * Your Version:
 * Hyperlinking of Years: More controversial.
 * Wikifying of month-day combinations: Unsubstantiated so far.
 * Default format of dates: Correct
 * Citations: Correct
 * My Version:
 * Non-hyperlinking of Years: Less controversial.
 * Default format of dates: Fully acceptable
 * Citations: Fully acceptable
 * Since you insist on calling this "my version," I'll be happy to oblige. You'll notice that "my version" has never lacked commas or periods, as far as I can tell. In fact, it might not have lacked periods and commas even before I took the version under my wing, but I haven't checked. 72.140.134.165 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I see you've wisely chosen the less loaded word "presumptiously" over "vandalistically." Bravo! However, changing someone else's text on the talk page is still incredibly rude. I can quote a WP guideline for this, but I think we both know this already. 72.140.134.165 03:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One: Of course you weren't threatening violence. In fact, your warning was utterly lacking in efficacy.  Two: You still haven't got it that Wikipedia mark-up isn't just weird HTML.  That's why you're using HTML in discussion here, and that's why you don't know why Wikifying dates is best practice regardless of hyperlinking.  So long as you assume that Wikipedia mark-up is simply disguised HTML and that Wikification is just hyperlinking, you'll make laughable demands to know how hyperlinking serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking (when I am instead saying that Wikifying serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking).  Three: The Manual of Style also links to the controversy on actual hyperlinking per se. (You want to claim that I'm wrong without substantiation, yet you hypocritically complain about my not allegedly not substantiating things.) Four: I never denied that the other form was acceptable (if done correctly); showing that the form that is standard is the only acceptable form in some cases doesn't mysteriously not make it standard in others.  Fifth: Your version once lacked at least one grammatically necessary comma after a year.; but I'll accept that you indeed couldn't tell as much. (It also lacked a period for “et al.”)  Sixth: Oh, yes, I was so terribly, terribly rude in response to your most amusing insults, wasn't I?  You poor, poor thing.  I weep to think of it!  I am consumed with such guilt! (Let me guess: Canadian, right?) Gamahucheur 04:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You still haven't got it that Wikipedia mark-up isn't just weird HTML. That's why you're using HTML in discussion here, and that's why you don't know why Wikifying dates is best practice regardless of hyperlinking.  So long as you assume that Wikipedia mark-up is simply disguised HTML and that Wikification is just hyperlinking, you'll make laughable demands to know how hyperlinking serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking (when I am instead saying that Wikifying serves more of a purpose than hyperlinking).
 * ---Excessive Hyperlinking = Bad. Excessive Hyperlinking =/= Wikifying. Changing Date Format MIGHT = Wikifying. Sorry, you're completely wrong about hyperlinking and I doubt you can somehow change that fact. My use of HTML has nothing to do with this discussion.
 * "You want to claim that I'm wrong without substantiation, yet you hypocritically complain about my not allegedly not substantiating things.
 * ---That sentence makes no sense. Sorry.
 * The Manual of Style clearly gives clear preference to formatting dates as I have.
 * ---No such preference was found. You were lying. Simple, no?
 * Your version once lacked at least one grammatically necessary comma after a year.; but I'll accept that you indeed couldn't tell as much. (It also lacked a period for “et al.”) 
 * ---Link to the version, please.
 *  yes, I was so terribly, terribly rude in response to your most amusing insults, wasn't I? You poor, poor thing.  I weep to think of it!  I am consumed with such guilt! (Let me guess: Canadian, right?)
 * I am so amazed by your ability to look at my IP address and guess my country. I also never made a single insult. Unlike some, I keep things civil. I never called anyone a "dork," I never said anyone was "trolling," I never called someone a "vandal," and I've never edited someone else's discussion page text. 72.140.134.165 04:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. You are still proceeding as if Wikipedia mark-up is simply synonomous with HTML. (Your use of HTML is in fact a reflection of your presumption of simple equivalence, albeit that it has no more to do with this discussion than serving as such a reflection.) One of four things will happen: You will test your presumption by looking into what happens when dates are Wikified; or someone will take pity upon you and explain how it's not simply hyperlinking; or you will weary and depart; or this will go on indefinitely.
 * Hey, good job making a point that says absolutely nothing. I applaud you. Your "I'm right and I won't bother explaining why" attitude is a real winner, here. Keep making excuses so that you don't have to justify yourself.
 * It's not “I'm right and I won't bother to explain why.” It's I'm right, I've explained why, but I'm not going to further explain the explanation just because you're too sloppy-lazy a thinker to get it. However, someone spoon-fed you below, which is perhaps why you've gone from writing as if you're right to whining about my unwillingness to help you. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. Your inability to see sense (in multiple places) is a very different matter from an objective lack of sense in what you view. As I've stated before, I'm not much inclined to spoon-feed you.
 * Hey, good job making yet another point that says absolutely nothing. I applaud you.
 * The point it makes is that you confuse your failure to see something with its absence. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Pore over the versions and find the missing punctuation, or don't. I don't respect you enough to care.
 * Ditto. So I guess this matter is dropped since neither of us can bother.
 * Presumably. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. So my gender might plausibly be neuter, and you're unable to recognize French masculine nouns, eh? Your mother should have taught you better, but I guess that he/she/it failed you. (I'd guessed your nationality well before running an nslookup; Canadians so often insist that they've not been insulting when they have that I infer this to be a national trait.)
 * Well, I'm sorry if my politeness offended you. There are hermaphrodites out there, and if I had wanted to insult, I have much better insults than calling others "it." Take it the way you want, though.
 * That's pretty much the passive-aggressive dodge that one expects from your part of the world. Hermaphrodites, of course, don't usually like being called “it”, and one who did wouldn't use a masculine French alias (“-eur”).  I'm sure that indeed you could produce better insults, but this was just a throw-away act of passive-aggression. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Gamahucheur 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: My presumption has been that spoon-feeding you about the relevant issue of Wikification here would do no more than (1) enlighten you and (2) silence you. But were I offered some greater reward, I might actually get out the spoon. —Gamahucheur 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All in all, your recent posts have said absolutely nothing. Don't stop now, though; this has become a rather fun diversion. I'll visit this talk page again when I have time, at which point we can resume our enlightened discussion.
 * All-in-all, you've gone from certitude that your changes were correct to whining that I wasn't kind enough to gently and patiently explain them to you after you'd undone them and then underlined your act with insults. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I'd welcome the judgement of others on this issue. We're getting nowhere with each other; perhaps it's time for someone else to judge this. I give my word that if the majority side with you, I will stop this argument. If you're as confident as you say you are, you would do the same. No pressure, though. 72.140.134.165 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If I were confident in the judgment of democracies, then I'd endorse the decisions of every one of the world's democratically elected leaders. Do you, or are we witnessing more of your hypocrisy?  In case you hadn't noticed it, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and I'm not going ot bother with a Get Out the Vote drive. (But show me that you've assembled some people who know the differences in effect between Wikipedia mark-up and HTML, and then you'll have my attention.) Gamahucheur 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with the policy. Last time I checked, I didn't force you into anything. Straw polls are perfectly acceptable, and used in many discussions. You don't need to make excuses. Too bad; we could have had a resolution to this issue. 72.140.134.165 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Last time that I checked, I didn't claim that you'd forced me into anything; indeed, I would have chuckled at the thought that you could force me into anything. The issue isn't whether straw polls are acceptable; it's whether your argument for using one here was reasonable or hypocritical.  Your spoon-feeding below should tell you what the out-come of a poll would have been. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's End this Flame War
12.72.69.52 08:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Challenging someone's sexuality is an insult.
 * Saying that what someone has done is completely without sense is an insult when it's true and it's an insult when it's false.
 * Wikifying dates not only creates a hyperlink, it also affects how dates are rendered for users who set date preferences.


 * Interesting. Does wikipedia have a policy on this issue? I mean, if the dates are changed for everyone then I'd heartily agree for hyperlinking, but the majority of people probably don't have a wikipedia account. 72.140.134.165 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I told you that there was a policy and how to find it. But, since you were reading my “wikifying isn't just hyperlinking” as “hyperlinking isn't just hyperlinking” (even when explicitly told that this was a misreading), you just butt-wiggled instead. —Gamahucheur 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Orthography
Both American and British spellings have been used in this article. The word "color" has been spelled with and without a "u". I've tried to make things more consistent. I've used mostly American spellings, simpl because I'm American. If someone made the spellings consistently British that would be fine with me. 71.154.215.168 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I also prefer American spellings, but in India they use British spellings, so so I standardized them to be British.Cameron Nedland 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In India, they also use a slightly different grammar. Unless you are going to use that as well, rendering everything with different orthography is inappropriate. —12.72.68.76 11:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting to your preferred spellings, anonymous user. The earliest version of this article used British spelling, so that's what it will remain as.  There is no good reason to change it to US spelling.  Worldtraveller 11:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just one person doing the reversion, so you need to refer to “users”. The fact that you originally wrote it in British English gives you no ownership.  As I noted, this article was a mix or British and American when 71.154.215.168 made it consistent, and he made it consistently American.  Changing just orthography just to impose your prejudices — and especially just to impose your ethnic prejudices — is quite inappropriate, and will be resisted. —12.72.71.49 12:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Users? Curious that two IPs (12.72.... and 71.154...) apparently used by entirely independent people would choose to use exactly the same comment when butting in and imposing their preferences, don't you think? ,  Worldtraveller 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop imposing US spelling inappropriately. There is no reason that this article should use US spelling.  If you continue to revert to your preferred version you're likely to be blocked.  Don't take everyone for fools by reverting from two different IP addresses.  Worldtraveller 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The only violator of the 3RR here is you. Don't insist that your opponents must be one devil with sock-puppets. —12.72.71.161 13:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing inappropriate about US spelling, and there would be nothing inappropriate with British spelling either, except that the article was already fine with American spelling. Again, spelling had become very inconsistent until 71.154.215.168 made it consistent.  American spelling was then established simply in the act of making it consistent.  Now you are trying to make the spelling British out of pure prejudice and spite.  Each is inappropriate. —12.72.71.161 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the conventions followed throughout wikipedia, all India-related articles are to use Indian English. Please see Notice_board_for_India-related_topics. Also, I would like to point you to this policy -- thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have more than once earlier noted that Indian English is not being used by anyone here; if it were, then I would be fine with it exactly because of policy. Instead, there is a struggle between British English and American English. —12.72.71.1 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules are pretty clear - anything with a clear reason for US/UK spelling should use that. In the absence of a good reason, go with the original. In this case, the original is UK, as WT wrote it. As for reasons, India is more UK spelling than US. So it should be coloured. William M. Connolley 20:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * “In the absence of a good reason, go with the original.” Prior to clean-up in early April, it was a mish-mash; at clean-up, it was American. In the absence of a good reason, stick with the last convention consistently used.  “India is more UK spelling than US.” The rule favoring Indian English does not order other dialects based on approximations. —12.72.71.1 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article's spelling was perfectly consistent right at the very beginning, anonymous editor. Why would you think you need to revert to enforce someone else's subsequent conversion to US spellings?  You might note that that editor said if British was preferred he had no problem with that.  It's very strange to me to suddenly see lots of IPs with no other contributions than changing spellings to this article.  What is your motivation?  What has made you pick out this one article in particular as worth attacking to impose US spellings?  Worldtraveller 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be rather unlikley for the spelling of an article not to be consistent at its very beginning. The spelling of this article, however, was allowed to become a mish-mash.  71.154.215.168 cleaned it up in early April, at which point it was not a mish-mash; it was also not British.  The point here is not that 71.154.215.168 somehow came to own the article with that cleaning any more than that you came to own the article by beginning it.  I am not imposing American spelligns per se; I am unimposing British spellings.  I would have had exactly the complementary reaction had 71.154.215.168 made the spellings all British and someone made no changes other than to Americanize them all.  I don't bother to sign in to Wikipedia unless I have good reason (and providing a target is not what I regard as a good reason), so I just take the IP that AT&amp;T assigns to me at dial-up. —12.72.71.1 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's incredibly annoying to see someone who's made no substantive contributions to the article at all blathering on about rules they obviously don't understand and imposing their preferred spelling against all good sense. I don't really give a toss if people introduced US spellings into an article which I originally wrote using UK spellings.  I don't mind the anonymous editor making it all US, although according to the conventions he should have made it all UK.  What I do mind is someone suddenly deciding to take it upon themselves to determine what spellings should be used.  Who do you think you are, really, to emerge from nowhere and act in this way?  I can't think of any good reason at all why someone would choose not to log in but to make disruptive and unhelpful changes anonymously.  I do not think you're acting in good faith.  Worldtraveller 01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally endorse Worldtraveller. In India, we use British spellings, and as such it should be left as colour and not color. And like I said before, please do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. We are not interested in feeding trolls. Regards, thunderboltza.k.a.D e epu Joseph10:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Critique of official study
Rainsman, your interpretation of the elemental analysis of Sampath et alii ought not be included in the Official Findings section. So I opened a whole section (stub) for it. I also pulled the elemental table since its inclusion in the Official Findings section was for the purpose of critique. Also consider...

There are two problems with what you posted. (1) The elemental analysis of Sampath et alii was on the whole residue, not only on the primary colorant -- Trentepohlia spores. The whole residue includes not only fungal and algal spores, but protozoans, and other debris. So you can't attribute all the elements to said spores. (2) You posted that, "Sampath et alii also lists some 57 cases of colored rain." However, at first I assumed as you did, but in communication with one of the authors I was informed that many of the places are contiguous (ie, they share a border) and so multiple entries may represent a single instance of colored rain. Also, entries represent reports from residents; so suppose there's a blackout in your neighborhood and five residents report it, that would not mean there are five blackouts. Of course there may have been more than 57 separate colored rains, but we can't infer that or 57 separate rains from the listing.

Also, in your argument that enough spores could not be produced and in your selection of sections from Sampath et aii to support that argument, consider that they also said: "The extent of lichen in the region is sufficient to generate the quantity of spores seen in the rainwater." Ian Goddard 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ian, thanks for you suggetion we can have a seperate section on the problems of Sampath et al. study. Readers may get a more balanced view. This will also hilight the need for further research. No theory presented here is complete. Personally you may believe in one theory but you should not impose that on the readers by projecting only positive arguments and hiding critical points. Scientific progress takes place by critical examination. This is an encyclopedia article and we should limit our discussion based on available reports and published papers. It is not correct to argue on the basis of personal communications you had with the scientists.--Rainsman 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If regions share a border, then count has different meaning. While perhaps Mr Goddard could be said to “argue on the basis of personal communications” that some regions do share a border, even without that communication there would be the possibility that they did.  And he's not presenting the personal communication in the article; he's just offering it here in discussion. Gamahucheur 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rainsman, you say input should be "based on available reports and published papers," yet you entered a series of factual claims about elementals of living organism with zero supporting references. Your claims are not credible without references. And without a known elemental analysis of spores, you're just shooting in the dark. You also continue to make the erroneous attribution of all the elements to the spores when you say: "The presence of Aluminium and Silicon in these spores is very strange." Again, the study tested the whole residue. It's also odd that you suggest I attempt to silence other theories when in fact your first input was to entirely delete the storm-circulation theory, whereas my responce to you was to open a whole section for critique of the official study. Ian Goddard 01:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Goddard— You are dragging into the article things that do not belong in it, albeit that they certainly belong in discussion. (Not only was your “According to wikipedia editor Rainsman,” inappropriate; it transforms your demand for a citation into an active absurdity.) —Gamahucheur 03:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why does the source of an argument not belong in an article? There is no absurdity in my requirements since there are factual claims (that require citations) and there is an argument of which they are a part, for whom the arguer ought to be cited. So citing the source of the argument does not absolve the need for factual reference to support the argument. Ian Goddard 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is hard to see your question as other than facetious; you asked for citations exactly because, by presumption, Rainsman has a source other than himself. And the reason that you made your demand for a citation actively absurd is because, as the sentence was then written, the citation would be to establish that Rainsman had made the claim, not that the claim that he'd made had a foundation in the literature. —Gamahucheur 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Geez! Ian, I am sympathetic to your desire for substantiation, but you are letting your irritation spill into the body of the article. —Gamahucheur 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gamahucheur, my appropriate citation of the argument's source did not also call for a reference. I entered: "According to wikipedia editor Rainsman, the presence of Aluminium and Silicon in the sediment is very strange and the very low content of phosphorus is still more puzzling." With no "citation needed" added at the end of the sentence (see). But I'll add that now. Also, consider that there is a difference between (1) an argument and (2) facts used to support 1. It is appropriate to cite both the source of an argument and references for the facts in the argument. Ian Goddard 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Goddard— I stand corrected on the point of the citation for that sentence. I apologize for that much, but the reference to Rainsman was still inappropriate. —Gamahucheur 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In other words, Rainsman's argument roughly takes the form:


 * Argument: (It's odd that y and z are in S. It's odd due to Fact 1, Fact 2, ..., Fact n.)


 * As my edit shows, I called for references to the supporting facts, not to the argument proper, which the cited facts ostensibly support. I factually attributed the argument to Rainsman and called for references to its supporting facts. That's not absurd. Ian Goddard 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I say above, I conceed that I was in error in claiming active absurdity. —Gamahucheur 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the need for most or all of the citations that you've demanded. —Gamahucheur 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The concept of accurate source referencing being inappropriate strikes me as ethically untenable. But I also know where you're coming from -- an encyclopedia ought not contain claims with anonymous sources. But therein lies an anomaly: claims may be entered into wiki by anonymous sources, but anonymous sources should not be cited in wiki. The only resolution I see is that claims should be either referenced or not entered.


 * Yet as it stands, we have a series of claims with "citation needed" appended to them. I find only this to be inappropriate. I frankly don't mind Rainsman being referenced, it's truthful and thus ethically appropriate and it allows readers to judge for themselves. But appending "citation needed" implies that a reference to some fact-anchored source may exist, but anyone who's been following this topic should know that no critique of Sampath et alii has been published (in fact, it was virtually unknown to the world and mass media till I tracked it down and posted it). So allowing the claims to stand with "citation needed" appended and reference to the known source omitted is a disservice to readers. Ian Goddard 01:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing Rainsman is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. First, his alias isn't an acceptable terminus of citation by anyone; your citing “Rainsman” provides no more effective substantiation than what is provided by the history and discussion tabs.  What citing Rainsman really does is just call him out in the article by name to defend his claims; the article is not the place for that; “discussion” is the place for that.


 * Leaving "" in these various places is quite appropriate as a temporary measure. It warns readers, and it puts anyone (Rainsman or other) who wants those claims to stand on notice that citations should be produced.  If, after some reasonable interval, those citations are not produced, then the assertions should not again be attributed to Rainsman; they should just be deleted. (Again: “Rainsman” isn't an acceptable terminus of citation.) Rainsman can in-the-meantime save the raw source to his HD (or somesuch), to be restored if-and-when he has appropriate citations; or he can dig that source out of the article's history.


 * I understand your concern about how "" might be interpretted by the unwary; but the very existence of the fact tag shows that a decision was taken in the design of Wikipedia to allow assertions in need of citation to stand at least temporarily. Note that even the name of this tag reflects a notion that the citation is to address doubt, rather than merely to pad the end of a book report. ;-)


 * Rainsman has been silent on this matter for about half-a-week. My suggestion is that he be given the remainder of a week before the assertions are removed.


 * —Gamahucheur 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Silicon Rarity
There is, of course, a very great difference between
 * Diatoms use silicon.

and
 * Few microörganisms use silicon.

Rainsman had linked to an article that supports the former, as-if it supports the latter; it does not. I have removed the superfluous parenthetical citing of Diatom, and reïnserted a “”. I hope to see Rainsman provide an appropriate citation promptly. —Gamahucheur 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rainsman— I don't see that the silicon claim necessarily needs a link. But it does need a citation. If you can direct readers to a credible source in print, then that should be fine. —Gamahucheur 04:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Gamahucheur - The 7.5% silicon presence in the sediment appears as an anomaly if it is from the spores, but it is difficult to argue that due to the lack of data on the elemental composition of algal spores. Further search for information on this shows that in addition to Diatoms some marine organisms, some large plants and grass leaves also contain silicon in small quantities. These are however connected with water or soil from which silicon can be easily obtained. Algal cells in the lichens growing in the tree bark has to get silicon from the rainwater or through the fungal partner, which may extract it from the tree bark. It is unlikely that they can obtain so much silicon from such sources. The case of silicon anomaly can be kept away from the article till more data is available. --Rainsman 06:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)