That's problematic. If one were to link to a number of blogs, and there are many good ones out there, and they supported a grammar rule in bulk, that can be valuable supporting information, depending on the argument. If someone is aware that a particular blogger is full of it, I'd rather cite the source and learn from fellow forumites here that John Doe blogger is an idiot. How will I otherwise learn that?
I know of a few good grammar blogs or sites, but I still wouldn't consider them authoritative sources. The CMoS is used by most publishers/editors, so that's the source I would link to first. Of course, it's up to the mods to decide which websites are acceptable and which ones are not.
It's not really that there is significant controvery or denialism (certainly nothing like flat earthers, or 911 truthers, or anything like that). Merely instances where the consensus turned out to be wrong, but not due to any denialism or any kind of bad intent (it does happen in instances (Clovis) but not as a rule). With estrogen receptor, for example, there was only one known for a long time, and so scientists assumed there was only one. That was the consensus, and when a second started showing up on gels, it was pretty uniformly written off as an artifact. It wasn't due to denialism or bad motives, but merely because the consensus was well enough established that people weren't questioning it. That happens quite a bit in science, I think, until something finally comes along and shifts it. The "central dogma" in biochemistry was that information traveled only in one direction DNA-->RNA-->Protein. This was actually called the "central dogma" within the science, so that should give some idea as to how fundamental it was. Of course, we now know information can move in the opposite direction, particularly RNA-->DNA. Again, the adherence to the central dogma wasn't due to denialism or bad motives on the part of scientists, it was just a result of thinking we knew more than we did, or being more certain about the answers than we should have been. One key distinction in each of these examples is that when the weight of evidence is finally brought to bear, science moves on. 911 truthers and the like do not.
I recited precisely what you said. Maybe you didn't express yourself clearly and simply don't wish to clarify, but there's no doubt that you said it. Here's the quote if you're interested in making yourself more clear. If you'd rather just move on from it, that works for me too.
Getting too off topic so this is my last comment, feel free to reply. I don't see the Central Dogma (I looked into it further) or the estrogen receptors as something that was rejected after the evidence emerged. There are paradigm shifts in scientific discovery, but not all of them are after mainstream scientists deny overwhelming evidence. In the case of Dr Snow, he waited until he had overwhelming evidence on the epidemiology of the cholera epidemic, even discovering the source of contamination of the Broad St pump water. When he presented the evidence to his colleagues they rejected it and maintained their 'bad air' hypothesis. It took 10 years before Snow's work was finally recognized. Similar denial occurred with the H-pylori discovery. Perhaps I'm just not familiar enough with these two examples of yours but I don't recall any specific denial of overwhelming evidence before recognition and shifting paradigms. I've been interested in and following discoveries in the field of genetic science and molecular biology for several decades, (though it's a very big field and I'm more invested in genetics and microbiology than some of the biochemistry). It seems to me new discoveries are expected, looked for, and soaked up like sponges. When you get to practicing physicians who are certain they know a certain pathology, it becomes a bit harder to get them to accept some discoveries like the H-pylori ulcer etiology. But the geneticists are like kids in the candy store with new discoveries, in my experience. It takes a fair amount of evidence before a major new hypothesis or theory becomes mainstream, as it should. And one might put what we are talking about on a continuum that perhaps I'm drawing the line in a different place than you are. Or, I'm just not familiar with some of the academic resistance that you are. In any case, I'm glad to hear you aren't supporting the crazy stuff as possibly equally valid. And that's the bottom line here. There is a difference. Science being slow to shift paradigms is not the same as people who believe conclusions where there is no valid scientific evidence in the first place.
Though we still allow political, current events, and debate threads, the members here voted, more-or-less (55/45?), not to have a dedicated forum for such topics (though, personally, I would love one). If we end up moving in that direction I have no problem with it as long as everyone can keep discussion non-personal and confined to The Lounge. The discussion here about authoritative verses non-authoritiative sources amuses me a bit, to be honest. You're all reading way to much into what I meant. It may have been my fault, as describing them as "non-authoritative" may have been an incorrect way to phrase it. All I meant was that links to sites that aren't credible, appear commercial, spammy, shady, illegal, deceptive in nature, or otherwise don't meet moderator approval may be removed, on a case by case basis. In essence, I'm saying that the WF staff can remove links on a case-by-case basis on their own judgement. When I said non-authorative, I was picturing authoritative sites as authoritative in regard to their reputation (sites like CNN, .edu sites, popular blogs, etc., being authoritative). Since non-authorative sites (in this context) make up most of the web, we wouldn't be banning or removing virtually any of them, but we can if deemed appropriate. I'm actually all for challenging established paradigms and am personally okay with "non-authorativate" sources in discussions, but the burden of credibility, proof, and sound logic would naturally fall on the non-authorative source. To be clear, I am in no way prohibiting the discussion or citation of any ideology or school of thought. My description of allowed links in this thread still stands. I should also mention that after a discussion with the WF moderator team, we have agreed that posts discussing writing resources or specific writing products is allowed under this "free speech" policy - though threads and links that appear intended to promote specific sites or products will be treated as advertising. You bring up an interesting conversation. I wasn't referring specifically to writing. I think discussion of sources on writing is a topic for another thread. I have no intention of setting a policy for writing-related sources; that's something our writing community can establish in the form of norms, rather than formal rules. I agree, and I would like to see most discussion and use of sources remain related to writing. However, there is a place for other discussions, and that's The Lounge. While I can see the benefits of this from your point of view, I know from experience that having a dedicated section to this would be an invitation to advertisers and people pushing their own products, which I'd like to avoid. In our early days we had an "open market and contest listings" forum, or something to that affect. I know it's not exactly the same, but it's still relevant. The forum ended up being a complete cesspool. I am still giving thought to this issue. As I mentioned above, discussion of specific resources or products is marginally acceptable as long as they aren't intended to promote, but I'd like such dedicated threads to remain at a minimum, focusing on more well-known tools (such as someone's blog on writing tips verses a tool like Scrivener). They will still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. My concern is that people will discreetly try to promote their own sites and resources masking their conflict of interest. All that said, I do recognize the need for the sharing and discussion of writing-related resources. I have several big feature improvements nearing the end of the planning stage, which are intended to address this exactly this, all while adding valuable features and resources to writingforums.org. I don't want to give too much away, but I'd be happy to discuss it in more depth privately.Suffice it to say that it will render the entire discussion of writing-related links, resources, and advertisements obsolete.
So I need a clarification, how might we discuss promotional techniques without linking to examples? The current issue is this thread: Using Video to Advertise Literature. Yes it's a promotional video, but the subject is discussing trailers for books, a subject well worth discussing. Can the mods delete the links but allow the thread discussion, which I believe was started with honorable intentions or at least duel intentions? I didn't post a link to advertise a friend's book, I did it to discuss the issue because as I get closer to finishing my first novel, promoting it is moving to the forefront.
As the rules state that as a writing forum standards should remain high, perhaps it's time to substitute the word breech with breach in Rule Violations...
