Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) |
Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::The Guardian's source is a blog, by a notorious partisan. The accusation is clearly false, and absurd. We don't put in UE stuff like this -- it's just political posturing, and has no place in a biography. --[[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::The Guardian's source is a blog, by a notorious partisan. The accusation is clearly false, and absurd. We don't put in UE stuff like this -- it's just political posturing, and has no place in a biography. --[[User:Tillman|Pete Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|talk]]) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::The Guardian can use whatever sources it likes. It remains a reliable source itself (again, the Guardian piece is not itself a blog). Why are you so sure the accusation is false? Note the wording of the sentence: "Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron." It does not say, ''Schmidt points to an E&E paper that '''he asserts''' claimed that the Sun is made of iron''. So the Guardian is in no doubt about the truth of the claim. A Wikipedia editor's assertion to the contrary is thus [[WP:OR]], if not mere speculation. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
::::The Guardian can use whatever sources it likes. It remains a reliable source itself (again, the Guardian piece is not itself a blog). Why are you so sure the accusation is false? Note the wording of the sentence: "Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron." It does not say, ''Schmidt points to an E&E paper that '''he asserts''' claimed that the Sun is made of iron''. So the Guardian is in no doubt about the truth of the claim. A Wikipedia editor's assertion to the contrary is thus [[WP:OR]], if not mere speculation. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
==Removal of reliably sourced material== |
|||
The material supported by the Guardian article makes explicit reference to Boehmer-Christiansen's direct involvement as editor in publishing the paper in question. There is no problem re [[WP:TOPIC]] here. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:52, 30 June 2012
Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Environment: Climate change Start‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Link to generic comments
I removed the link to Stephen Schnider's generic remarks, mainly because his site's down, and even cached versions of the page are not coming up. So it basically doesn't exist any more (and I'm not sure if it was appropriate to link to in the first place, but if I can't find it, then it doesn't matter anyway...) All I could find was this: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61104
So. Sln3412 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Retired
Looks like she's retired? [1] Does anyone have more up to date information?
– Apis (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Demoted to res assoc? Indeed, it would be nice to know more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed blog-sourced comment
I removed this:
- Her journal once published a paper that claimed that the sun is made of iron .Cited to Shanta Barley, "Real Climate faces libel suit", The Guardian, 25 February 2011 --
--which claim is sourced to "Big City Lib's" blog, and unconvincing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It needs to be reworded, but the source in use (The Guardian) is not a blog. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Guardian's source is a blog, by a notorious partisan. The accusation is clearly false, and absurd. We don't put in UE stuff like this -- it's just political posturing, and has no place in a biography. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Guardian can use whatever sources it likes. It remains a reliable source itself (again, the Guardian piece is not itself a blog). Why are you so sure the accusation is false? Note the wording of the sentence: "Schmidt points to an E&E paper that claimed that the Sun is made of iron." It does not say, Schmidt points to an E&E paper that he asserts claimed that the Sun is made of iron. So the Guardian is in no doubt about the truth of the claim. A Wikipedia editor's assertion to the contrary is thus WP:OR, if not mere speculation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Guardian's source is a blog, by a notorious partisan. The accusation is clearly false, and absurd. We don't put in UE stuff like this -- it's just political posturing, and has no place in a biography. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Removal of reliably sourced material
The material supported by the Guardian article makes explicit reference to Boehmer-Christiansen's direct involvement as editor in publishing the paper in question. There is no problem re WP:TOPIC here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)