94
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: + +
→Human appendix
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm talking about actual hard data. What I meant was that if you cite a POV source such as the Journal of Creation, then you have to make sure that their NPOV references actually verify their arguments. None of the peer-reviewed papers (the only ones that really matter) cited in those articles are even accessible. It is therefore impossible to check if they actually agree with the statements attributed to them. Using medline, pubmed, and thomson ISI I was unable to even get an abstract from any of them. This is highly unusual as those sources usually have any article I am trying to find. Also, just because one source draws that conclusion does not meant that it is irrefutable. If there is conflicting evidence on a topic it is inappropriate to make a definitive statement in an encyclopedia such as "The human appendix has a role in early development." It is fine to cite summary pages like you have done because it makes it easier for the reader to learn more about the topic, but please check the veracity of them before you do so. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 07:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)