" 

 == Conference Proceedings == 

 EMS said that conference proceedings are acceptable citation sources. Here is a web link for a recent conference in Russia in which there were discussions about whether or not Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is correct, 

 http://www.shaping.ru/congress/2000en.asp 

 Discussions on this controversy are still very much alive.( ) 

 : This is just more dishonesty.  I said that proceeding published by a publisher of other reliable sources could also be assumed to be reliable.  Kindly show me that these proceedings come from a publisher of reliable sources. 

 : I can't deny that the debate is ongoing, and will for a long as people misunderstand relativity.  That does not make the debate ongoing in the mainstream physics community.  Instead it is occurs off on the fringes.   |   

 And for as long as people misunderstand the simple fact that one year is an absolute measure based on the complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun. ( ) 

 == Is the Controversy Largely Forgotten? == 

 The last sentence in the main article says that the Dingle controversy is largely forgotten.  

 Do we just leave that statement in the article even though it is clearly not true? The controversy is in fact a very active and growing area of debate. Just do a google search on 'Einstein was wrong' and you will see. 

 That end statement in the main article has been inserted as an opinion by people who are anti-Dingle and whose own private research hinges on the special theory of relativity. 

 So why is it still in the article following this lengthy discussion?  

 Is it because if anybody tries to remove it, reinforcements of prejudiced editors will drafted in to restore it again? 

 If relativity was safely and comfortably an undisputed fact amongst mainstream physicists, supporters of relativity wouldn't feel the need to fanatically try to block out Dingle's message. They could all go home and relax in the knowledge that relativity is an undisputed fact. 

 But it clearly is a heavily disputed topic and hence they have to try and pretend that it is not disputed at all. 

 The moral of the story is that where wikipedia may be good for ascertaining basic facts such as dates and places of birth etc., it is most certainly not to be depended upon for information on any controversial topic whatsoever. A controversial topic will always have a band of fanatics who sit guarding their pet article day and night. 

 Ordinary people won't want to bother playing that game. Slowly and surely it will come to be realized that wikipedia is not to be heeded for opinions on controversial topics. 

 And argument will ensue in a pub and somebody will sarcastically say 'Did you read that in wikipedia?' 

 Wikipedia will become synonomous with unreliability.( ) 

 : The anon wrote: 
 :: If relativity was safely and comfortably an undisputed fact amongst mainstream physicists, supporters of relativity wouldn't feel the need to fanatically try to block out Dingle's message. They could all go home and relax in the knowledge that relativity is an undisputed fact. 
 : Let's see.  Relativity being undisputed means that people like me should step aside and let people like you put whatever you want into Wikipedia.  The anon furthermore as part of his/her argument worries that 
 :: Wikipedia will become synonomous with unreliability. 
 : That of couse is what will happen in we let poeple like this anon have their way.  Therefore those of us who support relativity are obligated to make sure that the true status of Dingle's arguments is reflected here.  |   

 EMS - you should remember that it was the pro-relativity, anti-Dingle crowd who were using this page to push their POV and to criticise and insult Dingle. Since the insulting comments and links have been removed, there has been no vandalism of this page.    

 : ???.  I'm not quote sure where that came from.  I do agree that blatant criticism of Dingle in this article violates WP:NPOV.  However, discussion of the existing criticism does not violate that policy.  More relevant is that the removal of the last paragraph (which is what this anon wants) would be POV as a pro-Dingle edit, as it would be removing all mention of the lack of respect the Dingle has amongst theoretical physicists today.  That fact and its POV obvious