Content deleted Content added
Eric Kvaalen (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 144:
::::Of course letters to the editor are not reliable sources for facts. But that's not how I used them. What I said in my edit was that this idea has been suggested, and '''''that''''' fact is proved by the existence of the two letters. I suspect that the idea has been suggested by other people, but I don't have a reference for that. New Scientist is, I think, the most read popular science magazine, so the fact that something has been published by them means that it has had wide exposure. [[User:Eric Kvaalen|Eric Kvaalen]] ([[User talk:Eric Kvaalen|talk]]) 04:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
:I don't think published suggestions are noteworthy enough to include in the article unless the suggestion is published in a more prominent way that a letter to the editor. For example, [https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/64811223/Resolutions-2022.pdf/281f3160-fc56-3e63-dbf7-77b76500990f?version=1.2&t=1668786143360&download=true the CGPM resolutions from 2022] include the statement "encourages the BIPM to work with relevant organizations to identify the need for updates in the different services that disseminate the value of the difference (UT1-UTC) and to ensure the correct understanding and use of the new maximum value." That is the sort of suggestion that would be important enough to include in a Wikipedia article. A way that a suggestion made as a letter to the editor could be worthy of inclusion in an article would be if several scholarly sources commented upon the suggestion. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
==What next?==
| |||