Talk:Godfrey Louis

Untitled
Most of the text on this page was lifted directly from a news item (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html).

What is the process for eliminating blatent plagiarism from Wikipedia?


 * ... the encouragement of constructive editing? Davy p 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

this article is fanciful at best and contains zero information. I would suggest deleting it as this man has not done anything noteworthy.


 * As far as I can see, Godfrey Louis's third paper on the red rain, 0601022, published on arXiv astro-ph is seriously flawed; as are the related postings on the Cardiff university (Centre for Astrobiology) website. Nevertheless Louis was featured on BBC's Horizon pop-sci programme about panspermia on 14 November 2006, so the issue remains current. (I haven't yet watched this programme - but story rumbles on.) Given that 'alien spores' received a fair amount of acclaim (e.g. World Science, and in the UK New Scientist, The Times, Observer etc.) I imagine that a fair few people might want to know more, even if it is disppointing to learn that the Earth probably hasn't actually been invaded by microbes transported on a comet.


 * My personal views on the subject do not immediately mesh well with Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. I would, for example, favour the setting up at Mahatma Ghandi university of a department of bioremediation rather than one of astrobiology which seems to be Louis's aim. However, rather than deleting Louis's entry, might it not be better to edit the present 'lifted' text without serious disrespect and add links to the preprints on arXiv that Louis published there? Much of the discussion seems to be second- and third-hand opinions around the original articles, and this could ground the issue rather than leaving it floating or ignoring it in the hope that it will go away.
 * Davy p 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Godfrey Louis is described in the article as a person who achieved notoriety for his hypothesis about red rain of Kerala. Proposing a new hypothesis and publishing the same in a reputed scientific journal should not be judged as a notorious act. Astrophysics and Space Science is a peer reviewed journal and experts in the area must have approved the arguments of Dr. Louis. I prefer to replace the word “notoriety” with “worldwide attention”. Keraliean (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A Google news search shows that Godfrey Louis went directly to press and this is not considered as a scientific practice. The paper which was published after few years, talks about the existing concept of panspermia and is different from the original stand point as reported in the news papers. It seems he was after publicity. Hence reverting back to the usage "notoriety" - used originally by the user with ip 108.13.54.97 Klarav1 (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS)
The paragraph that I'd added about the failure to use GCMS analysis was removed on the grounds of being Original Research. It isn't, and I've replaced it with a shorter version.

GCMS is a now standard technique which is used whenever 'unidentified' chemical stuff turns up, especially if it might potentially be hazardous. To mention the lack of such a test isn't OR but a courtesy to readers who may be unaware that such test equipment exists. If 'original resarch' was involved it was in reading Louis's papers themselves rather than second- and third-hand accounts, and in following the affair. I remain astounded than none of those involved in the 'microbes from space' episode - Louis, Wainwright, Wickramasinghe - put the red raindust through GCMS: this would have been expected to provide useful information in short order. Mention of the failure to use GCMS does not seem at all inappropriate.Davy p 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I considered it OR was the lack of citation. Unless you happen to be aware of every use of gas chromatography ever, even those uses that went unpublished, you cannot truly say that it was "never apparently done."  To say this is your own original research, as in, your own inability to find a publication of it.  And no matter how many other Wikipedians are unable to find publication of it, until the fact that this test has never been undertaken appears in a reliable source, it doesn't belong in the article.  Someguy1221 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Red rain in Kerala
The article is written like an advertisement. But I do feel that some portion of this article can be added to the topic - Red rain in Kerala

This page doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. The only one report provided is that of a regional daily and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe has denied the fact as well (see the report published by Guardian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klarav1 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that some one has corrected the line I added. But please see 'criticism' section under Red rain in Kerala, you can see Wickramasinghe's remarks. Klarav1 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Normally I don't like to see too much merging, as it makes the parent topic page too big. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, but there is no new information is this page. So I am not sure if it meets Wikipedia's standards. I also checked if the claim concerning the new department is true. And I am unable to find any such information in the University's website Klarav1 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This needs to be merged with Red rain in Kerala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John mg42 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

==Repost of Godfrey Louis== A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template hang on underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you.

As suggested by few other editors, there is nothing new in this page. This page talks only about the Red Rain phenomenon and the same information is available in the main article

Klarav1 (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Godfrey Louis. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/Sampath2001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Godfrey Louis. 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/20060612015342/http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/2c21c0f98d07b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html to http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/2c21c0f98d07b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.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) 12:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)