Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive 15: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m fixed lint errors – obsolete HTML tags |
m fixed lint errors – obsolete HTML tags |
||
Line 165:
:It says:
::The element is the heaviest alkali metal and, as might be predicted, possesses very few characteristic co-deposition reactions; but it can be separated from other elements, cesium or rubidium being used as carrier, on the perchlorate, picrate, or phosphotungstate after removal of most other metals by the addition of sodium hydroxide and carbonate. Since nearly all francium salts are soluble and because its radiation characteristics are distinctive, the separation and estimation of the actinium-K has been proposed as a method of assaying actinium. (p. 280)
:Is that solubility in water? Chemistry is definitely not my strong suit. --<
::Thanks after all. Are there any descriptions on how they arrived to this conclusion? Is it original research to apply it to a specific case, e.g to say that FrOH is soluble in water(it might be deduced otherwise by the solubility of other alkali metal hydroxides)?--[[User:Inspector|Inspector]] ([[User talk:Inspector|talk]]) 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
::He writes nothing more on the matter and cites nothing. So you have to trust the author's word. Author: Dr. Alfred Maddock, DIC, MRSC, Sc.D., CTH, D.C., Louvain, [Cambridge University:] Assistant Director of Research in Radiochemistry, 1947–52, Lecturer in Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, 1953–62, Reader in Radiochemistry, 1962–84, Fellow and Emeritus Fellow of St Catharine’s College, 1959–2009. Paper from 1951.--<
:::So, is it sufficiently a reliable source and significant enough for inclusion in article?--[[User:Inspector|Inspector]] ([[User talk:Inspector|talk]]) 11:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I would guess so. The only issue may be that research on the topic was poor before more recent times, such that those views are outdated. I would guess that research on solubility of salts would be well-established in the mid-20th century. However, as I said, I don't know chemistry, so that is just a guess. The author's credentials are impeccable, and the paper is written in a respectable journal. --<
:::::And supporting the notability of a number of salts?--[[User:Inspector|Inspector]] ([[User talk:Inspector|talk]]) 00:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I guess just say "claimed to be soluble..."Is a moderate way to say this.--[[User:Inspector|Inspector]] ([[User talk:Inspector|talk]]) 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 180:
:And in the Draft Addition (June 2012) for "dominant":
::2007 ''Guardian'' 20 Sept. (G2 section) 17/3 You are both turned on by the type of erotic play broadly known as BDSM.., but whereas he enjoys being both a ‘bottom’ and a ‘top’ (playing either a submissive or dominant role), you are only comfortable being a ‘bottom’.
:--<
:::Thanks for info (and the Usenet cite for "pleasing" is certainly interesting!), but these are much later than the earliest date that Google Groups gives (June 1991), so it doesn't resolve any of the open questions about the origin of the term... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 09:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Line 245:
==== Seebold-Kluge Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache 2002 ====
I'm looking for the entries for Dogge and Docke in the 24th edition of das ''Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache'' Kluges, edited by Seebold, published 2002. ISBN-10: 3110174731 ISBN-13: 978-3110174731 I believe both entries are on p. 207. There was also a CD produced with this book that should contain the entries. The 25th edition of 2011 could also be useful. This is to confirm/dispute the etymology that occurs both at [[Dog]] and at Wiktionary's entry for the word, and has by now entered the wider web. If anyone could reproduce to this for me I would be quite thankful, and you may as well do a service to the wider community. --<
:As this is an etymological book, would [http://archive.org/stream/etymologisches00klug#page/78 the 1899 edition] be at all helpful? [[User:HMman|HMman]] ([[User talk:HMman|talk]]) 19:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC).
::Unfortunately not, it really must be the newer edition. Thanks anyway though. --<
:::The 2002 CD is {{OCLC|51655480}}, in 151 libraries. You might find [http://books.google.ca/books?id=hsRISNLSSHAC&pg=PT296&q=dogge&redir_esc=y# this] interesting too. Seems there's a long-running academic debate on that etymology. [[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<span style="color:red; font-family:Papyrus;">come howl!</span>]]</small> 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Line 994:
For [[De l'un au multiple: Traductions du chinois vers les langues européenes]]
--[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 06:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::I sent both, but page 382 in Xiuying appears blank to me. I tried downloading twice from ingentaconnect, but same result. --<
:::What's really strange is that I also have access to this journal through the ALJC, but for this issue it ends on p. 381! And thirdly I have access through EbscoHost, but it only goes back to Feb. 2003. P. 382 of that issue is the only page of this journal going back to Jan. 2000 which I do not have. --<
::::I wonder if that page is intentionally blank (the phrase in 381 starts "Ces titres en témoignent de l’objectif: non pour élaborer une théorie de la traduction mais pour mettre en" and in 383... "l’original, en particulier pour la littérature chinoise, mais à séduire le public, ainsi a-til cherché avant tout l’élégance du texte traduit.") ? It would be good to wait for other editors to download from other sources. Thank you for your help [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 07:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::My French is subpar, but that sentence doesn't read like sensible French to me: She's saying the titles show the objective of the work, which is not "to elaborate a new theory of translation, but to...", but using "pour mettre en ... l'original," to finish the clause just doesn't make sense to me (set the original?), nor would it with the rest of the sentence. Also, note that the next paragraph then starts: "La troisième partie"; well what happened to the second part? I'm guessing the first word on 382 is "avant" (i.e., "put forward" [a thesis]). --<
:::::::Ok. In that case one page definitely is missing. I wonder if somebody with access to another database will be able to get a complete version of this essay [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 18:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::::: [[User:WhisperToMe]], here's a good copy[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19774761/De%20l%E2%80%99un%20au%20multiple.pdf]. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><span style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</span></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><span style="color:green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></span></b>]] 06:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 1,019:
Hi, "Georges C. Anawati (1996), "Arabic alchemy", in Roshdi Rashed, ed., Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, Vol. 3, p. 853–885 [875]" is used as a reference twice in the [[Avicenna]] article, once to provide a list of four works by Avicenna, once to support the statement: "Among his works on alchemy, Liber Aboali Abincine de Anima in arte Alchemiae was the most influential, having influenced later medieval chemists and alchemists such as Vincent of Beauvais". Please could someone send me the article, or if that's too much, the relevant pages on Avicenna / Ibn Sina. One of the things I'm interested in is whether Avicenna actually wrote the works listed in the [[Avicenna]] article, as another Anawati reference I found said Avicenna did not write three of four works attributed to him. Thanks.
--[[User:Merlinme|Merlinme]] ([[User talk:Merlinme|talk]]) 17:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
:Sent. I hate it when sources are misrepresented. Anawati on 375–6 is explicit in saying that he agrees with Ruska that ''De anima'' is a fake. --<
::Thank you. I'm afraid the misrepresentation of the source is not exactly a surprise, this is part of the [[WP:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85]] cleanup. Still clearing up his mess nearly four years later. --[[User:Merlinme|Merlinme]] ([[User talk:Merlinme|talk]]) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Merlinme}} Thank you for pointing out that case to me. Anecdotally I have noticed such "boosterism"; I guess I'm not the only one. People who take part in such an activity may think they are improving the reputations of their favoured groups, but when their activity is discovered, their groups' reputations are harmed because the groups become associated with this dishonest behaviour. Also, the level of trust about claims on the topic is diminished: If such behaviour were ubiquitous for a topic, then people would simply ignore everything said about the topic, because they wouldn't trust any of it. The topic would become ignored entirely: The exact opposite of what the boosters might hope. And then there is the real harm: The people who have more than a passing interest in the topics start by being misinformed, but then—when they go on to read more on the topic—they become confused due to the conflicting reports, and their whole progress in understanding the topic is retarded. --<
::::{{ping|Atethnekos}}The Jagged_85 case is in a class of its own. I sincerely hope we never see anything like it again. What made his edits so damaging was that they ''looked like'' they were well sourced. A lot of editors don't check references; very few indeed check references which are not available online, and Jagged_85 frequently used hard to check sources with incomplete references. This was made far worse by his prodigious output, at one point he was in the top 100 editors by number of edits. He would copy the same bad material with bad references into a dozen articles. Not only does the boosterism cause confusion and perhaps even a backlash against the exaggeration, it's immensely damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Wikipedia references are supposed to be how you know an article is well-sourced; if you can't trust what look like good references to scholarly articles, Wikipedia is nearly useless. Some of his mistakes have been used as examples in newspapers to show how unreliable Wikipedia is. I was never quite sure if they were mistakes; at the very least, he made definitive statements about things he didn't understand. Sometimes what he wrote was so ridiculous (Avicenna was the first to describe the lever was one of my favourites) then he must surely have known that he was essentially making it up.
::::It can take 100 hours work to clean-up even one article, given how time consuming it is to track down all the references. It also requires a fair amount of understanding quite difficult sources. One of his favourite tactics was to use an article that mentions X and Y to say that X ''invented'' Y, and you have to understand what the article actually does say before you can correct his edit. I did a philosophy degree and I'm happy skimming scholarly articles to get the required information, but I can understand why few others have the understanding and patience to get involved. The time I have available is fairly limited, although I have a bit more at the moment. If you feel the urge to get involved, I'm sure your help would be much appreciated. --[[User:Merlinme|Merlinme]] ([[User talk:Merlinme|talk]]) 18:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||