It is an account of the French expedition to Peru to measure a degree of latitude conducted by Charles Marie de la Condamine and Pierre Bouguer in the 1730s. The older reference is in Pierre Bouguer´s La figure de la Terre, page xliiii, paragraph beginning with "On voit presque tous les jours sur le sommet de ces mêmes montagnes." The book was published in 1749. There is a reference to this phenomenon that predates the one mentioned in the article. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 21:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Reply That the forum is hosted on the Fortean Times website would not seem to matter at all in this case. But that would be pointless and extremely unlikely in this case, and other online content is equally vulnerable to manipulation, even static websites. Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 12:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Reply For documenting language usage, a thread on a forum is as reliable a source as can be, except for the fact that forum threads could potentially be manipulated/hacked (or simply edited years after the fact). But I see your logic regarding the other newer usages. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 19:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Reply Sounds fair enough to me, with the sole limitation that a thread on the Fortean Times forum may not be the most reliable source ever. " is an acceptable solution: the word may have been even more rare prior to your edit, Jxm, as far as it has helped popularising it, but now the damage has already been done and it is better to correct the mistaken variant rather than to omit it completely. It does sound like a mishearing, though, and glockenspiel may well have inspired this corruption – the alternative possibility I've suggested that it is an intentional pun crossing glory and Brocken spectre sounds too far-fetched to me. The thread on the Fortean Times forum seems like compelling evidence that the term was already in real (if rare) use at the time and not invented by you. Sorry for questioning your good faith, Jxm. Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 08:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Reply OK. Descriptive not prescriptive, and all that! :) But if there's only one or two, that are not dependent on this, then I think perhaps it could come out, on the understanding that if good evidence shows up for it it can always go back in. Thoughts? jxm ( talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Reply Interesting! I feel that if there is evidence that it is a frequently-used alternative name, even if wrong or based on a mishearing or whatever, then we should perhaps include it. OTOH, perhaps an edit that indicates "sometimes incorrectly known as." might be more helpful. Anyway, what to do? We can simply remove all evidence of glockenspectre and be done. Although some of them (eg ) date from well before my 2011 edit. As you pointed out in another msg, most current online usages probably eventually link back to this WP entry. In retrospect, they were probably mistaken. However, it's certainly not a hoax, as I know of the word being written by older people numerous years ago. There indeed doesn't seem to be an authoritative source for the term. Florian Blaschke ( talk) 17:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Reply I can find no reliable indications that this term has ever been used prior to its insertion into this article by User:Jxm. Skepticism Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism Template:WikiProject Skepticism Skepticism articles If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Physics Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics Template:WikiProject Physics physics articles This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |