Talk:Reiner Grundmann

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) 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.

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