Talk:Paul Bert

Untitled

In the "Works" paragraph we can read: "The eponymous "Paul Bert effect" describes nitrogen narcosis at hyperbaric pressures". I don't have the ability to refer to the referenced book but this is a mistake. The "Paul Bert Effect" is of no relation to nitrogen narcosis. It is in fact related to the Central Nervous System (CNS) toxicity of oxygen . Barbagus (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article misses an important part concerning Paul Bert's political life and, more particularly, his views on civilisations, colonisation and races.. 174.70.124.22 (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Paul Bert - Anticlerical, yes. Atheist, speculation.

Adding individuals to atheism category may be in violation of several WP rules and guidelines

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive.

Multiple sources and scholarly consensus must be the main aim when something is stated as a reasonable fact. Otherwise we are deceiving.

PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING

WP:BLPCAT - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question

WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content

WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

WP:SCICON The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article

WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts

WP:NOR -Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)

PS

These may be furthermore of use

WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".

WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional

WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.

WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!

Pgarret (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)