Talk:Cattle mutilation/Misc

Original Reports

Jefffire, please stop demanding original reports. Some of these reports are 10-20 or even 30 years old and simply aren't available on the web from their original form for me to link to. So I have to use third party citations. They are the only linkable material for some of these reports.

If these third party citations were bogus, don't you think that the organizations being cited would set their lawyers on the people posting them.

Plus, whenever I put up an original link to people like George Onet, you take them down even though he's a certified DVM with years of work in normal respectable vetinary research. You also changed the wording to make him sound like he's throwing around wild claims rather than reporting on a subject that he has researched heavily, and removed the mention of him having a DVM and a Phd which made him sound like a journalist rather than a qualified vet.

If you cannot find the original reports then stop citing them. I don't believe for a second that these ufologist are accurately reporting on the original articles. Either reword to make it clear that it is their claim of what the original said, or remove it altogether. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. These are not reliable sources. Jefffire 10:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Onet's credentials, I don't see you campaigning to mention Carroll's phd in the article. Listing your credentials at every possible mention is the international sign of the idiot, which George E. Onet (phd pi md php exe etc) has stumbled into, and I see no reason why we should entertain his vanity. Jefffire 10:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you cannot find the original reports then stop citing them." So, what you're saying, in effect, is that no online journal article that cites an offline journal article or report can be considered reliable.

"I don't see you campaigning to mention Carroll's phd in the article", I didn't write a single word about her. That was somebody else.

"Listing your credentials at every possible mention is the international sign of the idiot" removing people's credintials at every turn is an international sign of trying to discredit them. He's a DVM, it's relevent to the article. It shows that he's not just a journalist dabbling in the field.

WP:V allows for "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", which Onet is. He is a qualified VDM, has over a decade of experience in the field and the lab, and has extensively researched cattle mutilations. You don't agree with his conclusions, but that doesn't mean that the evidence that he bases them on is bogus.

perfectblue 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misrepresent me. My point is that Oregon Ufo Review and NIDS are not reliable sources, they cannot be trusted to accurately report original articles. If you can find the original articles listed on a reliable sources, such as PubMed, then do so. My comments about listing credentials at every oppertunity stand. It would be appropriate to mention Onet's credentials once, in the correct fashion, but listing them everytime gives the impression of infantile insecurity. He cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a reliable sources however. Jefffire 11:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onet's credientials are mentioned once, at the very end of the page, but they are mentioned nowhere in relation to the article itself (anywehere that a casual reader will see them). It does not mention that he has years of conventional medical experience, or that he has been following the phenomena for years. It must be made clear that he is not some random journalist.

As for his credibility, he's credible enough for the Journal Vetinary Medicine and the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and has published 320 papers.

FYI, his PHD is in Veterinary Microbiology. How more credible do you want?

Then mention that he has it. I think the reader can be relied upon to realise he's a fruitcake by themselves. Jefffire 11:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]