User talk:Newty23125

{| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #000000; width: 100%"
 * - padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
 * style="text-align:left; padding: 8px; background-color:#F8F8F8"|
 * style="text-align:left; padding: 8px; background-color:#F8F8F8"|

Why request for further citations?
Hi

I wonder why you wanted further citations in Event Horizon page after text "Stephen Hawking, who was one of the leading developers of theories to describe black holes, suggested that an apparent horizon should be used instead of an event horizon, saying "gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons". He eventually concluded that "the absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity." [1][2] This does not mean denying the existence of black holes, it merely expresses the distrust towards the conventional strict definition of the event horizon."

Last sentence was meant to point to those Hawking's words, so they should be strong enough citation, doesn't it?

This Talkback message system is really odd. Yoxxa (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Yoxxa, I guess there are a few things here.
 * The location of the citations in the sentence or paragraph matters. The final sentence itself appears to be unreferenced because it appears after references [1] and [2].
 * The way the sentence is written currently implies some kind of consensus within the scientific community (i.e. that there is widespread "distrust towards the conventional strict definition of the event horizon"). If that is the case then it needs a citation(s). However, what you've written on this talk page implies that it's meant to summarize Stephen Hawking's views on the subject. In that case, we need to be careful about:
 * WP:NOR. "Any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" falls foul of this policy, which is in place to protect the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. If there is a reliable source for the summary presented in that final sentence then it just needs adding in. :)
 * Hope that helps but let me know if you have any further questions! --  Newty   12:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Newty23125


 * References "This does not mean" and "it merely expresses" can not be misunderstood, sentence refers to previous words of Hawking. It also does not include a word about the spreading of Hawking's statement, claiming so is unjustified. I'd suggest that you just get off the citation request, please. If you feel that the contents of the page would be somehow unsatisfactory weighted so it would be nice to discuss how try to make it better. Yoxxa (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Yoxxa,
 * When doing the rewrite I hadn't really intended to get much more involved in this than adding the tag, so that another editor with a bit more time available to them could find an appropriate citation to support the statement or reword it as necessary. However, to investigate whether this could be resolved by simply moving the references to the end of the paragraph, I've now read both of them and feel that the sentence in its current form conflicts with the earlier sentence: "Stephen Hawking ... suggested that an apparent horizon should be used instead of an event horizon". In the first reference, I couldn't find an example of where Hawking advocates a redefinition of the term "event horizon" and I cannot find evidence in the second reference that he did so, either. This doesn't mean that he didn't, of course, only that I don't think these two references demonstrate it.
 * One possible solution is to remove the second part of the sentence, which removes the main conflict and is encompassed by reference [1] (thereby resolving the need for a new citation and satisfying WP:NOR).
 * As for unsatisfactory weighting, I don't think I've read enough around in the field to make a useful assessment of that/know of reviews that try to summarise where the consensus lies. --  Newty   11:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)