Talk:Morgan Reynolds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

This article is biased. Claiming that Reynolds easily debunks Hoffman. What the heck?

I have tried to clean up the article language to comply with WP:NPOV. It may stilll need some work, but I think it is at least nominally better than before. Dick Clark 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restrictions on self-published sources in BLPs

Citing Reynold's personal website is clearly prohibited by WP:BLP. It states that:

Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if . . .it is not contentious.

Citing a press release, or the NIST filing are also primary sources and would qualify as self-published. If you want to include this material, you need to find an independent reference to it. Ronnotel 14:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says the following:
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* such material, if [[Wiktionary:contentious|contentious]] or unduly self-serving, is presented as being made by the subject about themselves;
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
* the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The only possible objection is on the final point. Other sources should be brought in. But the claim that Reynolds said something is not contentious, even if what he said is. There is no contention as to the question of what he said, is there? Republishing what someone published about themselves can't be a BLP violation. DickClarkMises 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theorist???

I think that 911 is an inside job, beyond a reasonable doubt. However this guy is a nutjob and he gives a pretext for bystanders to perceive the entire movement as nutjobs. It's very good that those organisations have been split, so that the full time job shamans can rest in their wack-shack and people who are trying to make a legitimate claim on a subject, about which few dare to even think of, can work without obstructions from them. I hate to use the term "conspiracy theorist" even though it even has a definition here, because it puts people like him or Felzer, or "Elvis is alive" in one basket with those who have the courage to ask the authority real questions about real issues.Mik1984 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Felzer appears as rational as you any of the other conspiracy theorists. Some of the others are clearly nutjobs, but he's just mistaken. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if you stick to the philosophical definition of rationality, well if you put an egg in the microwave and have it explode and you have never done it before, you're still rational...heh
And that's the problem that you can put those theories on an even ground with the better ones with no chance of the second ones to speak for themselves. Mik1984 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)