Talk:Vannevar Bush/Archives/2015/March

not the right thermostatic switch

The link to the thermostatic switch is to conventional thermostats. Some of them are bimetal, but not the right sort. The type of switch he helped pioneer is sold under the trade name "Klixon" (i.e. it "clicks on"). It uses a bimetal dome that inverts at a defined temperature. This motion is used to close or open an electrical circuit. Their virtue is that they are dead simple and extremely reliable, so they are great as safety devices. --AJim (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me add that Bush's action illustrates his excellence as an engineer. He saw that the advantages of simplicity and reliability in this device were valuable. The proof is that it is still made, --AJim (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I had to first find a source, but will add this to the article soon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No Majestic 12 mention

Even if it was all a hoax, it's still main reason he's notable. He's mentioned in the article for Majestic 12. I'm just surprised to see this is a featured article with no mention. Popish Plot (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed this information several years ago and compared it to our best secondary source coverage. None of them mentioned Majestic 12. I have no idea where you get the idea it is the "main reason he's notable", but I'm here to tell you, that after reviewing our best sources on the subject, you are mistaken. That's why it shouldn't be in this article. I suspect the sourcing standards for UFO conspiracy literature are lower than this one. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Popish Plot: see WP:ONEWAY. Mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean. Popish Plot (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate LuckyLouie's POV, but I must disagree with it. If the fringe theory of Majestic 12 was cited proportionately in the best secondary sources about Bush, we would link to it and discuss it. However, those sources say nothing about the theory. I know this, because I spent a considerable time reviewing them during the GA review. I must note that BLP and NPOV take precedence over the FRINGE guideline in this and every other instance. I must disagree with those who consistently treat guidelines as if they are policies. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was perhaps too brief, and agree that if high quality secondary sources had discussed the fringe theory that Bush was part of Majestic 12 we might rightly include mention of it in the article. What I did not realize was that WP:BLP applied to the deceased. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused . . . isn't something considered "fringe" because it may have a bunch of sources, but not what is "reliable"? So aren't you both saying the same thing? And also . . . aren't guidelines and policies basically the same thing? I get confused but basically the one rule of wikipedia is use reliable sources right? I was thinking it was a well known hoax but I see reliable sources didn't say so. Popish Plot (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)