User talk:Viinamakelainen

opasnet.org
is not a reliable source of information for wikipedia (it does not site any sources within itself). Please do not add it. Materialscientist (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, most references I have seen do not have further references? Hardly any textbooks have any references? There are even references to newspapers that certainly do not have references in scientific sense.Viinamakelainen (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is looking for secondary sources, where an authority in the field summarizes information referenced to primary sources. Some authorities are accepted without citing sources. This site appears as a wiki. It is unclear who writes for it and what sources do they use. Materialscientist (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you go up to the front page of the book, you will see all this information. The book is used as university textbook at least in one university.Viinamakelainen (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not locate the information on who writes for that site. Main page says "a wiki-based website". Universities are free to decide what they can use as a textbook, so as wikipedia decides what sources are reliable for it. Materialscientist (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The main page of the BOOK is http://en.opasnet.org/w/Arsenic_to_zoonoses Viinamakelainen (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand, a professor wrote a book which is being uploaded on a wiki-based server by volunteers. Problems: the book sites no sources. It is accepted as a reliable source by a narrow (Finnish) community. There is no clear evidence that what we see on that server is the book being uploaded. It is not a reliable sources for wikipedia, especially for such major topics like toxicology, ethanol, methanol, etc., where hundreds of standard books can be found, e.g. on Google books. There are some other signs on that site (scientific quality rating bar, etc.) which are not compatible with a reliable source.
 * The preface says it all "though to some extent the reader will have to trust my selection of sometimes ambiguous data" Materialscientist (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand opasnet has two parts, one that is freely accessible and can be edited by others, and the other that will take whole works that are not open for editing. The author alone is responsible for the latter type. As to the trust of selection, that will hold for any scientific publication as well. Only feedback afterward will tell who was right, Galileo or Pope. I am surprised on the arrogant comment of narrow Finnish community. Every scientist is from some state, and they do not represent the "narrow Minnesotan community". Viinamakelainen (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely, you are free to keep your opinion on reliable sources, but if it contradicts wikipedia standards, like on this case, please avoid exercising it. A proper secondary source sites other sources wherein its information can be cross checked. This book says instead, in the preface, "search the Internet and you'll find the sources". We are not talking about new theories here, thus Galileo's argument does not apply. My apologies if my comment on narrow community sounded offensive - it did not mean to be so - but a community with about 5.4 million of total population (can't tell how many professionals in this area, which is what matters here) is a minority on the world's scale. Materialscientist (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, I'll follow the rules. Just one more comment. I can not imagine the "modern computerised methods of literature searching" would mean Google or the like, but PubMed and Web of Science. Science is not national but international, not Finnish but not American either.Viinamakelainen (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean American either. Finnish science is fine, but acceptance by a few Finnish universities would not be representative. No hard feeling here, just an advice - not to use that source on wikipedia, it is not utterly unreliable, but below the reliability threshold. You do much better in 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (though again, wikipedia prefers books and review to primary journal articles). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this discussion extremely interesting. I have three questions. First, why is the scientific quality rating bar not compatible with a reliable source? Its purpose is to evaluate scientific reliability. Second, Opasnet is trying to develop new ways of doing and applying science . One of the main ideas is that it contains original research such as this epidemiological study, review-type secondary research, and also applications of scientific information in policy assessments. Another main idea is that peer review is done afterwards, just like in Wikipedia. Does this approach ever produce information that is reliable in the eyes of a wikipedist, because it does not produce review articles in traditional scientific journals, nor does it produce textbooks? In my view, an open, continually evolving, and criticizable website is closer to the scientific ideal than the current standard of scientific publishing. Third, can Opasnet be used as a source for such topics where widely accepted textbooks are not available? --Jtuom (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jussi Huttunen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jussi Huttunen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jussi Huttunen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sean ( Ask Me? ) 20:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: deletion would be kind of funny, because at least two of Huttunen's lieutenants have their pages (Pekka Puska and Leena Peltonen-Palotie) Viinamakelainen (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Doull (toxicologist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Research Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)