Talk:Eugene Parker

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eugene Parker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229195941/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_arctowski to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_arctowski

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eugene Parker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211172157/http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k19_b_eugene/ctn_e.html to http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k19_b_eugene/ctn_e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Views on climate change
On March 15, I had added a section "View on climate change" wit this content :
 * In a preface to the book by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (2007), Eugene Parker wrote: "Global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by ‘eminent’ scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets the established orthodoxy."

On March 16, an anonymous contributor deleted this section with the following comment : "delete this section. it is misleading, irrelevant to his work, and was added after his death." Is that a good reason for deleting an information ? Marvoir (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "misleading, irrelevant" is a good reason ("added after his death" is not). Wikipedia biographies should summarize the most important aspects of a person's life and career, not record every minor thing they might have said or done. The quote is merely pointing out the politicization of the issue. How is it significant to Parker's biography? Schazjmd   (talk)  15:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, the opinion of Parker on an important question is significant to his biography. Moreover, as a scientist, one would think that he is competent with regard to the political pressures undergone by scientists. Marvoir (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is a question of balance here. Because this quote is unrelated to the rest of the content, you had to create a new subsection for it. That puts this excerpt from an introduction to someone else's book on a par with his scientific career (Hypotheses). It's about three times as long as the coverage of his personal life and of the several textbooks he wrote. It looks more like advocacy from an editor than a serious contribution to his biography. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is a well-sourced addition on an important subject. It was removed by an IP user without discussing it first and without reasonable explanation. It is a valuable addition and there is no reason for attacking it. Parker spoke, and that's that. Yreuq (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , the IP gave an explanation in their edit summary, so reverting it as "vandalism" as you did wasn't accurate. Marvoir made a bold edit, the IP challenged it, and Marvoir opened this discussion - exactly how WP:BRD is supposed to work. Please explain why you think Parker's preface to a book is a valuable addition to his biography? Schazjmd   (talk)  18:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very simple. A leading physicists voiced his opinion on an important topic, and he did it in writing. The burden of proof is on the other side of the debate if you wish to explain why it is irrelevant.Yreuq (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the verifiability policy states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Also, please read through WP:UNDUE, which RockMagnetist linked above to explain their objection to the content. Parker's preface in the book is not significant, prominent, nor important to his legacy. All it says is that climate science is politicized, which is kind of WP:BLUESKY these days. It wasn't even quoted in an article about Parker; a journalist included the quote in an interview of Henrik Svensmark to provide context for the reception of Svensmark's book. There is no relevant context in the article for adding the quote. Not everything that a person says, does, or writes is significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone can edit Wikipedia by adding a well-sourced information. Your opinion that an information is not important is not superimposed over the opinion of the editor who added this information who (obviously) believes that it is important. You can offer new sources in support of your own non-neutral POV that he did not mean what he said, or that he did not regard it important, or that in the meantime he changed his mind. But we cannot take your not sourced opinion over sources that say the opposite.Yreuq (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Parker died two days ago, so that board is not a place to discuss this issue.Yreuq (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased as well, so mentioning this on that noticeboard is appropriate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's about as ridiculous as it gets.Yreuq (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to share the sentiment expressed above that this material is WP:UNDUE. Biographical articles are supposed to be biographies, not collections of quotations. Moreover, pop-science magazines like Discover are ... dubious sources for scientific content, and a quotation-in-passing in the preface of an interview of somebody else is not significant coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The "significant coverage" rule refers to a topic. The addition did not discuss a topic but an individual's opinion on a topic. So there is nothing that stops us from including that opinion in that individual's personal article. Here source's reputation is irrelevant because the quote is exact and undisputed (unless you can offer sources on such a dispute).Yreuq (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's a bad source, it's a bad source. NPOV means we accurately and fairly summarize what reliable sources have said, in proportion to the weight that they give. Here, the weight is minimal, and the reliability is dubious. The distinction between "a topic" and "an individual's opinion on a topic" is spurious. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exact quotes can be neither of "minimal weight" nor "dubious reliability". Quotes are simply, well... quotes. They exist, and we include them without fuss. Yreuq (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from misquoting Wikipedia rules. This is an article about a person, and so about what he said too.Yreuq (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Policy applies to all content, including biographies and quotations within them. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Policy applies to what it says it applies to. The rule you cited does not (apply here).Yreuq (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What utter nonsense is that? WP:BLP explicitly mentions we have to consider WP:UNDUE weight concerns and in any case as XOR'easter said policy applies to all of Wikipedia unless it says it didn't. You seem to be seriously misinformed about BLP policy and Wikipedia policy in general and should refrain from touching any articles or parts of articles which deal with living persons or the recently deceased until you familiarise yourself with policy. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The extension applies in extreme-case situations only, like when there's a threat of suicide of a family member of the deceased whose bio article is being discussed. This situation is so remote it isn't worth the time wasted on your gang.Yreuq (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is misleading. The quote doesn't say anything about Parker's own views on climate change but seems to be included to imply something about them. Parker's own "important new idea" about the existence of the solar wind upset the "established orthodoxy" and was ridiculed. The effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation (the topic he was talking about) was certainly worth exploring and CERN ran experiments. It turned out years later that the effect is not large enough to affect the climate. Including Parker's views on climate change would need to reference his published views on climate change itself. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that supports your POV on Parker having changed his mind after he wrote the opinion? Yreuq (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation (the topic he was talking about) was certainly worth exploring and CERN ran experiments. It turned out years later that the effect is not large enough to affect the climate."
 * While there can be no doubt that rising CO2 is raising Earth's global mean surface temperature, with a likely Transient Climate Response (TCR) of around 1.8 to 1.9 °C per doubling of CO2 leading to several degrees increase by 2100, I seriously doubt whether CERN has the final word on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. This sort of thing is difficult to judge. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree that the foreword quote is WP:UNDUE also if only one source mentioned it compared to his life's work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One source usually suffices for an exact quotation. We can't expect people to repeat exact words in different outlets. Yreuq (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not when the one source is an interview with Svensmark. I do expect exact quotes to be repeated if prominent. You can also stop bludgeoning the discussion and not respond to everyone that disagrees with you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a foreword in a book, not an interview. Please stop misquoting Wikipedia rules: the "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people" provision does not apply here because different editors tried make different arguments, which is how discussion is done. Note that "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided." Yreuq (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The foreword was quoted in an interview. The problem is that being quoted in an interview is not WP:SIGCOV. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the Discover magazine interview. You should also reread this section carefully, especially "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear." Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread it carefully, and particularly pay attention to "Editors have learned that formation into "gangs" is the most effective way of imposing their views on opposite-minded contributors. It makes a travesty of the revert-rule when one individual can simply send an e-mail alert to friends requesting a timely "revert favour" once they have reached the limit of their daily reverts. This may apply to deletion debates as well, where a group of editors may be organised so as to always vote en masse in favour of keeping an article written by one of the gang, or related to the gang's main field of interest; or to push through deletion if their interest is a deletionism. Gangs sometimes do serious damage to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines also; by ganging up they can be written to say almost anything" This is quite obviously a case of editors ganging up - there was no gradual discussion, a bunch of you appeared out of the blue. Think twice what you will say next.Yreuq (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite what you seem to think, this is a BLP issue and was raised on BLPN. It's perfectly normal that BLP friendly editors will be attracted to a discussion when that happens. It's even more likely when one editor demonstrates an utter contempt for BLP as you did at BLPN, and have done even more here. In other words, in so much as there has been a number of editors attracted here, it's likely in no small part because you've attracted them by demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of our core policies. And worse than that, shown no willingness to learn them. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a wrong board for this issue. The extensions are granted in extreme situations, such as suicide threats to family members of the deceased whose bio article we are discussing. This situation (of a scientist who simply stated his opinion on a scientific topic in writing) is so unrelated that it isn't even funny.Yreuq (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this is undue. Is there any secondary sourcing that shows that this was in any way noteworthy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a biography article, so it's about what the person said too; not a topical article about global warming. Stop arguing with the dead, please.Yreuq (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he said and wrote many things that are not worth putting in his biography article. It's up to the consensus of editors to determine what is suitable for the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Only biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively.Yreuq (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy applies to the recently deceased as well. Two days is recent. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't even see it as a BLP issue, this is just plain WP:DUE and consensus. I'm not sure what they're not understanding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Such extensions only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. A scientist's view on a scientific topic does not qualify for the extension, sorry. The man is dead, BLP no longer applies.Yreuq (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A scientist's statements about a topic that has attracted pseudoscience, particularly when they support or can be seen to support the fringe side of the "debate", are indeed contentious or questionable material. But is correct: WP:DUE applies whether the person is alive or not. The text in question fails that test. This is really very simple. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is not about that topic. This is Parker's biography article. Whatever opinions he held on important topics - all have a place in his bio article.Yreuq (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's completely and goes against fundamental wikipedia policy not just for BLPs but for any biographies. As with all articles, biographies should only cover material that is significant as demonstrated by the level of coverage in WP:reliable secondary sources. There should be very little material that is only from WP:primary sources. In the specific case of biographies, this should be mostly limited to basic biographical material but definitely not an exposition of a subject's views on "important topics" based mostly or completely on primary sources. Note I'm aware of the interview in this case which may technically be considered a secondary sources, however your statement doesn't deal with such distinctions as you are claiming that "" which is seriously wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the ganging stopped the very moment I pasted the anti-ganging notice above, and was instantly replaced by you alone. So, aren't you now doing the same thing your gang accused me for - single-person bludgeoning? Funny - how effortlessly the gang switches in the roles. Smooth operators, aren't we. Yreuq (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, we all just see that consensus is against you, and you're clearly not listening to what literally every other editor in this discussion is saying. The easiest thing to do now is wait for you to wear yourself out and stop. Then either the problem is solved, or you edit war and get blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, this one doesn't end in the usual way.Yreuq (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Spoilers: it did. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote is WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS is on those who support including the quote to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Not Wiki-lawyer with the nonsense written above that accuses editors of "being a gang" and making up policy that onus shifts to those who wish to exclude. Also read WP:NOTBURO, which quite simply does not invalidate a discussion because its on the "wrong board". Also WP:1AM may be worth a read.Slywriter (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Darn! I wanted to jump in and comment as a long standing member of "the gang." Well, I'm glad the word CABAL wasn't used when referring to this group. That word is so insulting! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on the inclusion of an exact quote by a scientist on global warming
Q: Should this biography article be censored by redacting a written statement of this leading physicist on the contentious topic of global warming, or is a bio article the right (the only; a normal/usual) place for such a quote to be stated. The discussion has attracted only a gang of editors who fiercely advocated the former view, but who stopped ganging up after a notice to that effect was posted. Wikipedia officially does not censor, and the Biography of Living Persons policy does not apply since the scientist has died (extensions apply only under special circumstances like threat of suicide for his/her family member, which clearly does not apply here). Yreuq (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe try again with a neutral RFC opening statement, as per WP:RFC? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Procedural Close Non-neutral. I highly suggest retracting before this escalates into a behavioural issue.Slywriter (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Everyone: please note RCs normally solicit comments from editors who previously did not discuss, not from those who already took part in the discussion.Yreuq (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how RfCs work. Nor is this one properly formed. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong and the RfC is invalid regardless. Again urge you to reconsider and retract and cut the wiki-lawyering, otherwise escalation to administrators will be necessary.16:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , as the statement fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL and includes personal attacks. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural close per Firefangledfeathers. Also, this wasted one of my WP:FRSs for the month :( ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up to all involved, I've opened an ANI thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reply: The case is simply that of global warming alarmist editors ganging up to redact (censor) Parker's statement opposing global warming. Wikipedia does not censor. Yreuq (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Everyone: please note RCs normally solicit comments from a broader community, meaning primarily from editors who previously did not discuss, not from those who already took part in the discussion.Yreuq (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural close Blatantly malformed "request" for comment. Moreover, the assertion about who should participate in an RfC is simply untrue. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)