Content deleted Content added
|
m whoops, restore 1
|
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
|
Line 92:
Respondents were self-selected and "voted" via phone calls to a TV station <ref name = bbc> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/10_october/19/great_britons.shtml</ref>.
Aside from MOS problems (ref should go after the period without a space, ref needs title, publisher, access date, etc.) there are some other issues with the sentence. First off the ref makes it clear that people could vote in three ways (phone, internet or digital TV). It also points out that some 30,000 voted and I would describe the BBC as a netowrk, not a station. I know [[User:Brianboulton]] mentioned at least two authors referred to this poll regarding Scott's status, which seems to be a better sentence to add to me. Thoughts?
{{reflist-talk}} [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::When polls are cited in general discourse, for example, in mainstream news media, the assumption is they are reputable and that respondents are not self-selected. The convention in news reports (where readers typically encounter poll results) is to offer brief statistical explanation of poll results and [[margin of error]], which seems inapplicable to the BBC "voting." My first point is that this was '''not an actual poll''', as the term is widely understood.
Line 138 ⟶ 140:
''Over 30,000 people responded and the results were collated. From this we have the top 100 that will be counted down in order from 100-11 in the Great Britons launch programme on Sunday 20 October, followed by the announcement of the top ten in alphabetical order.''<ref name = bbc/>
:I repeat, while I do not have access to the sources, Brianboulton says two [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] cited this survey as a measure of Scott's popularity in 2002. I also note that any number of FAs on music albums and songs mention equally unscientific surveys. Whatever the limitations of the survey, Shackleton and Scott faced the same biases and Shackleton just missed the top ten, while Scott did not even make the top half.
{{reflist-talk}} :[[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 03:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
==Unsure about Ruhrguy Statements==
Line 181 ⟶ 185:
:This decline in Scott's reputation was accompanied by a corresponding rise in that of his erstwhile rival Shackleton, at first in the United States but eventually in Britain as well.<ref name= Barczewski283>Barczewski, p. 283</ref>. Barczewski notes that a rough guide to the relative public standings of the two men was provided in 2002 by a BBC survey purporting to discover the '[[100 Greatest Britons]]'. A self-selected sample of over 30,000 respondents placed Shackleton in 11th place, with Scott down the list at 54th.<ref name= Barczewski283/>
How is this?
How is this? [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)▼
{{reflist-talk}}
▲
:The sentence above still implies that the BBC Poll showed change over time, which obviously it didn't do.
Line 206 ⟶ 212:
::Scott's reputation declined. Demonstrating this, a poll in 2002 put him in 54th place.
::Thanks for the comments Calamitybrook - for some reson none of your recent edits are showing up here - not sure what the problem is. I can see your edit in the edit window, just not on the Talk page.
{{reflist-talk}} ::[[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks for thanking me. The syntax is obviously inaccurate, but it doesn't matter.
Line 406 ⟶ 414:
What I find more troubling are the conclusions reached from the weather analysis. It is one thing to say the other data, which all modern records show is correlated, does not correlate with Scott's data for the last few weeks of his life. It is another to say based on that ''the temperature data reported by Lt. Bowers and Captain Scott himself in late February and March 1912 were distorted by them to exaggerate and dramatize the weather conditions. My results clearly show that Captain Scott, Dr. Wilson and Lieut. Bower’s deaths were a matter of choice rather than chance. The choice was made long before the actual end of food, fuel and long before the end of their physical strength to reach imaginary salvation at One Ton Depôt.''[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1272.pdf]
{{reflist-talk}}
[[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] '''[[User talk:Ruhrfisch|<sub><font color="green">><></font></sub><small>°</small><sup><small>°</small></sup>]]''' 11:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Line 415 ⟶ 423:
:::"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
::I don't think Sienicki's work is that much of a jump. He showed that Scott's temperatures remained consistent with Simpson up until a certain point, then became highly inaccurate and stayed that way. Using the same Schwerdtfeger weather station data as Solomon, his neural network worked out with reasonable accuracy what the temperatures would have been like. Note that up until February 27, they are quite close to Scott's recordings. Still, your concerns about [[arXiv]] and wish for these to be reviewed in a peer reviewed scientific journal remain.
{{reflist-talk}}
:::[[Special:Contributions/96.42.255.124|96.42.255.124]] ([[User talk:96.42.255.124|talk]]) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::::One more thing: I expanded on this further in the [[Controversies surrounding Robert Falcon Scott]] page. Could you edit this as well?
Line 435 ⟶ 444:
This paragraph is therefore in violation of [[WP:NPOV]]: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." I don't believe that the New York Times Book Review would be considered a minority viewpoint. Thereby I am adding one sentence to the end of this paragraph to reference the NYT book review and bring this paragraph into line with [[WP:NPOV]].
{{reflist-talk}}
[[Special:Contributions/96.42.255.124|96.42.255.124]] ([[User talk:96.42.255.124|talk]]) 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
|
|||