Talk:Reiner Grundmann

References

After a quick look at the page it appears that there are secondary sources missing, for instance the section "Peer review and climate change", is based solely on entries from a single blog, based on primary sources, and a second reference just briefly mentions "see Climate Change: What role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy". Thus, the reference is lacking a URL etc. While research fields are extensively outlined in the article and appear interesting, the notability remains unclear, but i assume can be improved with additional reliable secondary sources. --prokaryotes (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Goodness. "Notability remains unclear". OK he is not Oxbridge and as an German intruder mentioned just on oil stained Canadian journals, once an alien, always an alien which doesnt speak white. Are you kidding? Try scholar, h-index of 15 is great for social sciences. I assume he would be noteable just as book author, without the refered to minor posts at certain universities and research centers and I added a review of the English version of his and Stehrs book on expert knowledge. The papers mentioned in section 3 "Peer review and climate change" are all listed in section 6 "Examples of peer reviewed publications". In so far it would be completely OK provide NO footnote at all or to refer via short cuts as I have done. The blog entry you are refering to is NOT at all a primary source. This would be the case if we quoted a blog of Grundmanns. The source in question is an interview of Grundmann on an external science blog, Hans von Storchens, which is in good standing and in so far third party and not primary, as if it were in a newspaper or on realclimate. It is even better explaining (as stated out of the authors perspective) how and why two peer reviewed paper came along and into existence. So what? Serten (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are some guidelines, in regards to foot notes, just writing the book title isn't enough. If you have added the reference elsewhere you can replicate the "Ref" via < "ref name=RefName /" > (remove the " marks). Interviews are primary material/sources. For clarification, im not suggesting interviews shouldn't be used, just for overall reliability, there needs to be secondary material (sources reviewing/writing) about RG, not just his book and an interview. And refs belong normally at the end of a sentence. --prokaryotes (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The quotation level and style is completely in line with WP:IC, as well with Wikipedia:Inline_citation#When_you_must_use_inline_citations. You quote "All_sources_are_primary_for_something", as proof for "(All) Interviews are primary material/sources". I doubt it. A secondary source "is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." So if we use Storchs intro to refer to Grundmann problems getting his paper through peer review, the interview is a secondary source. If we state that he did so in an interview with Storch on his blog, we use it as primary. So what? Wether a ref is on the end of a sentence or in the middle (the latter indicating a small difference in coverage) is a question of style. I guess youre clutching at straws now. Serten (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that references were lacking, you have improved references now, good. However, you may have added to many references. --prokaryotes (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Eisenhower to Patton: Bypass Trier, it would take four divisions to capture it. Patton to Eisenhower: Have taken Trier with two. What do you want me to do? Give it back?" Prokaryotes, if someone doubts the validity of statements in a disputed topic or denies the sources contents, I provide references. Climate change is the religion of our times ;). Serten (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Btw the last sentence is based on the last sentence of "The Power of Knowledge". Tell me if I quoted that wrong. Serten

Did you read that book? And yes, according to this page, the quote content appears legit, http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1783.html --prokaryotes (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Goodness. Grundmanns book, not Rommels or Pattons. You havent read anything, have you? OK, you believe in quoting wikipedia. Serten (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought you meant, "The Power of Knowledge". Anyway this is all off-topic, including your snide remarks. --prokaryotes (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You checked the Patton quote, not Grundmann. Grundmann and Stehrs book last word on the matter is (translated) "Its on the highest irony levels, that the science dispute about climate carries all signs of a religious war." They acknowledge that there is a science dispute and they doubt the climatists believe in science authority does relate to political power. You can list both of them as sceptics easily. Serten (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC) PS.: I had received the Book, yes. And yes, I have read it. Serten 17:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Publications

No need to exclude them ;), especially as they are refered to in the text. Serten (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

the ones that are included in the text will be referenced already, so there is not need to incl;uide them in a separate list also.

We essentially never provide this sort of a list for academics in a field where notability is primarily by published books, and for those that go primarily but journal articles, at most we list the two or three most highly cited. But as these are probably mentioned in the text, there is no need to have them here either. The basic rule is that WP is NOT CV--not a place for publishing academic CVs, where one does list every such publication. Insisting on adding them , makes an article look promotional. If anyone wants to see them, there will be a more up to date list on the web site. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, better refer to a official WP policy. Its completely normal to include selected papers and what is provided here is not at all a complete list. Serten (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC) PS.: I dont care wether book chapters do provide notability (I would doubt you could disproof notability for a scholar, that preferes to write book chapters btw), I care wether they are providing noteable content. Serten (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

I deleted that attempt as noted and as foreseen. Its a regular professor, tenureship with a variety of peer reviewed publications and books. I reserve any right to tag any repeated attempt as vandalism. Serten 12:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Now in AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reiner_Grundmann prokaryotes (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Drive by tagging

I am OK with the request for reviews, and have inserted them. It gets however contentious again, major points and content from Grundmanns science books and peer reviewed papers are being tagged as having no sources or needing third party confirmation. An article about a person doesnt need third party sources to confirm that he has written certain stuff. Thats being based on books and papers, in case of Grundmann high quality research in major journals and publishing houses. You may ask for reviews and third party confirmations for the noteability, but the current incoherent tagging is overdone and feels like a character assination attempt. I do detest that. Serten 23:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I think the section about the media analyses should be restored in the one or other form. Its quite a sort of pioneering work and he started the same on climate change with various studies. Serten 01:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes on Climate Change in Germany

The changes should be reverted completly, Prokaryotes falsified or misused various statements and left out completely the paradox examined in the study, compare the last section.[1]

1. Compare Original and Prokaryotes: I interpret the US situation as an instance of a politics of knowledge where the power of the IPCC experts and their open environmentalist allies had little influence on US climate policy. Instead, it was the political agenda that drove US climate change policy. The high visibility of sceptical scientists in the media resonates with this.

1. Same applies for the assumption of ‘balanced reporting’ ... not so much in Germany, because of the greater presence of scientists, and their warnings. That cannot be warranted on this study. Grundmann quotes important findings, but his conclusions are different. 12:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That said, I ask Prokaryotes to stay far away from this or related articles. Serten Talk 12:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Grundmann's explanation for the paradox as he calls it, is the inaction in the USA and the action in Gemrany, and balanced reporting (skeptics majority exposure in US media vs scientists warnings and media exposure, the time after Tchernobyl in Germany), was the reason he gave. The reference contains the pdf. IPCC allies had less influence in USA media, because skeptics got more exposure. prokaryotes (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Plain misuse of the source. The pararadox found by RG is between the technocratic interpretation and the lack of science drive in actual policy, in both countries. The IPCC was - according Grundmann - never the main source of evidence for governments, in both cases, local poltics is much more important. As said, I ask you to revert and stop your biased editing. It confirms a general bias in your activities. I registered signs of a COI once, I repeat that here. Serten Talk 14:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)