Talk:John Murray (science lecturer)/Archive 1

start

reliable source

Should Mortenson's thesis be used? This discussion seems to say not. Henryallenedison (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP policy is that Ph.D. dissertations are considered reliable sources. See WP:Reliable sources#Scholarship, which says, "Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress are not vetted and are not regarded as published. They are not reliable sources as a rule."

The discussion you mention is flawed in several ways. No one presents any secondary sources to support the idea that Ph.D. theses are not valid. All they present are their OR opinions which have no weight and flatly contradict WP policy. They verge on libel by claiming that Coventry University is not qualified to grant Ph.D.s. And since Ph.D.s are only granted by other Ph.D.s, then only Ph.D.s are qualified to determine if a Ph.D. is valid or not. None of those who commented have Ph.D.s, so none of them are qualified to speak on the topic. Thanks for your concern. RVscholar (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it 'verging on libel' to make the factual points that Coventry University (i) had only just achieved university status at the time Mortenson started his PhD there, (ii) had no department with expertise suitable to supervise a PhD in the History of Geology and (iii) was in the bottom 1/4 - 1/3 (depending on which ranking system was used) of British universities? I would point out that the whole bloody purpose of WP:RSN is to elicit opinions on the reliability of sources, to allow a WP:CONSENSUS to be formed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The article in the “Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 42” is entitled “Suspect PhD thesis”. While this seems to cast doubt on Mortenson, it is actually an accusation that Coventry University and Mortenson’s PhD candidacy committee fraudulently or gullibly granted the PhD. These are both libel charges.

An educational facility must be accredited to grant PhDs. That Coventry had just recently been granted university status is completely irrelevant. Having or not having a specific department of history of geology is also irrelevant. And it is completely irrelevant where Coventry may or may not stand in some kind of ranking system. No reliable source is quoted to show that these points are of any value concerning a PhD’s validity. A PhD is a PhD when granted from an accredited facility. As stated before, since a PhD can only be granted by those who hold PhDs, only those who hold PhDs are qualified to determine if a thesis is a valid PhD. None of those who participated in the “consensus” hold a PhD and therefore none are qualified to make any kind of determination, so the “consensus” is so much hot air.

Besides, there is no need for a “consensus” whether this is a reliable source or not because Wikipedia policy plainly states, “Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. ... Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes." (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship) Thus, Mortenson’s thesis is a reliable source. RVscholar (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks:

1. No claim "that Coventry University and Mortenson’s PhD candidacy committee fraudulently or gullibly granted the PhD" was made. Your claim would appear to (i) violate WP:TALK by misrepresenting others comments & (ii) bordering on violating WP:NLT by these repeated and unsubstantiated accusations of "libel".
2. That the university had "no department with expertise suitable to supervise a PhD in the History of Geology" BLOODY WELL IS RELEVANT. I did not suggest that "a specific department of history of geology" was required -- so kindly stop dishonestly pretending that I did. But I would suggest that relevant expertise is required.
3. I did not claim that either the recent university status or the low ranking invalidated the PhD -- merely that it raised questions over it.
4. The passage in question does not suggest that PhD must always be accepted, or that they must not be subjected to greater scrutiny on occasion.

If you think that the WP:RSN thread reached an erroneous conclusion, you are welcome to reopen the discussion there. Until that time I (i) see no reason to overlook this wider consensus, (ii) or to trust in your own unilateral judgement in this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The very act of stating "Suspect PhD Thesis" directly implies that there is something wrong with Coventry U, which granted the PhD thesis. There are only so many options where by this could occur; fraud, gullibility, ignorance, naivete, etc. Coventry could take libel offense with simply the statement "suspect PhD Thesis" because of the implications. I have drawn attention to the statement because it makes WP subject to possible legal repercussions. I recommend that the statement either be withdrawn or modified to avoid probably legal issues.

2. Relevant expertise: One of Mortenson's Thesis supervisors is Colin A. Russell

3. When a person questions the validity of a granted PhD degree, he is putting himself above the qualifications of the institution that granted the degree and above the qualifications of the supervisory committee. None of those who support this "suspect PhD Thesis" position are better qualified than the institution. And no reliable sources are cited to support their claims. So, this "consensus" of unqualified individuals is of no value. WP policy thus stands unchanged and unchallenged. Mortenson's PhD is a reliable sources. RVscholar (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Get a fracking clue! Labelling a thesis "suspect" on a reliability noticeboard clearly means that one thinks that its reliability is suspect -- not that one is proposing some grand conspiracy. You're ubiquitous protestations of faux-outrage are becoming tiresome.
2. Russell WAS NOT AT Coventry University -- so why the hell did Mortenson go there to study under Russell? What part did Coventry actually play in the degree, other than rubber-stamping it? This is one of the very many oddities about this PhD that raised suspicions.
3. Nonsense. "Even a cat may look at a king." And Wikipedia editors are not merely allowed, but required to evaluate the expertise of sources in judging their reliability. And what we have in Mortenson is an explicit partisan who had his PhD cobbled together in highly anomalous circumstances.

But again, if you think that the WP:CONSENSUS at WP:RSN was wrongly decided, then go there for a fresh one -- but do not expect me to accept your unilateral word as overturning it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that RVscholar was blocked as a sockpuppet. And one missed issue was the copyvio from Mortenson. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Article title

The ODNB makes clear that the "wide range of subjects to which he gave attention prevented him from attaining eminence in any." So why is he listed as a geologist? It would seem that 'science writer' or 'science lecturer' would be more appropriate. His scriptural geologist writings were only a fairly small part of his career. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was originally titled John Murray (1786?-1851) but then changed to John Murray (geologist). RVscholar (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppets

The article's creator, Ninatukawewe, is also a blocked sockpuppet. Blocked today are two more socks of the same puppetmaster, SmittysmithIII and Mthoodhood. I've had to remove a lot of copyvio from these socks. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)