Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 9 May 2015

Reiner Grundmann

Reiner Grundmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, issues have been pointed out back in 2014 September on talk page, poor citing, most to blog posts from person and to his own publications, and often cites which do not conform to Misplaced Pages standards. prokaryotes (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, prune and improve. Professor in Nottingham with publications in the German National Library (I added that), notable enough I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there is some level of notability, looking at some unsourced content and a look at media appearance, but i could go there and delete half of the page or more(when removing listing of pubs), based on above issues. Thus, my impression is that the notability is over hyped, especially if you consider some of his involvement with his input about Climategate. prokaryotes (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you posted on my talk page Gerda Arendt (talk), i answer you here, please keep the discussion here. Another point i noticed, the article wrongly states "He was President (2009–10) of the Sociology and Social Policy Section of the British Science Association." Ofc, this claim is unsourced as most content on this article, a google search also does not show any validation. Then you can go to the criteria for listing academics, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) I do not see how Grundmann fits in here. Unless there are substantial updates, the person as it is, is not notable. prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what sort of google you use, but mine didn't have any problem to confirm his contribution to the British Science festival and his presidency with the sociology section of the BSA. Serten 20:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Additional information about the person, http://www.academia.edu/4754580/Debunking_skeptical_propaganda_Book_review_of_Oreskes_Conway_Merchants_of_Doubt & https://twitter.com/reinergrundmann/status/389419692642680832 Imho, his quest for knowledge appears to be agenda driven, and the current article version is careful to avoid his stance on climate science and reporting. Which comes to no surprise, because the editor who created the page is a known climate denier in the German Wikipediasphere (Previous Ger WP account of page creator Polentario), and Grundmann edited the page himself. Thus, COI would apply as well, and page creation can be seen as a way to create notability in the first place. prokaryotes (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add that i have read now two papers from him, but cannot judge him at this point. However, i don't think his work is that important, not the best, not extensive enough. Additionally, he doesn't seem to bother with pointing out errors of the science he quotes, he just quotes mainstream facts and compares both sides, and doesn't seem to be aware of all the science - he just skips a lot. But he might become notable in the future, i.e. in the case his papers gain traction and are judged by notable reviews in a peer-reviewed process or the related media. Thus, for now i suggest if required his work could be mentioned on related articles.prokaryotes (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete He writes papers and stuff, which is what all academics do. I don't see that he passes even the extremely low bar of WP:PROF, much less real-world notability. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - As Boris points out, he doesn't seem to meet PROF. In addition, the article is mostly original synthesis based on his publications. The few third-party sources that exist in the article don't speak to his importance or significance; take them out and there's almost nothing left (a book review, an interview on a blog) and even less would be appropriate for a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. As Guettarda says: there is a lack of reliable sources speaking to his notability. Aside, perhaps, from his trying to puff up "climategate", which does suggest some kind of agenda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. First the prokaryotes afD contains some offensive wording. I am far from being a denier, neither is any sockpuppetry allegation appropriate here or elsewhere. Grundmann's review of the Oreskes Merchants of doubt was not done at twitter, but with BioSocieties - a Palgrave Macmillan Journal and got a doi:10.1057/biosoc.2013.15 btw ;) and is the most scientific review of that opus magnum. Misplaced Pages:I DON'T LIKE IT respectively Misplaced Pages:I DON'T LIKE HIM of both an author and his works is no base for an afd. Writing about climategate and its effects, as Grundmann did (doi 10.1002/wcc.166), is scholarschip. The agenda is yours.

* I might have made the error to base the noteability on the German rules - a scholar with a habilitation, a research career at Germanys most prestigous reseacrh center (Max Planck Gesellschaft), tenure resp. head of department in Aston and Nottingham, contributing to the British Science festival with a presidential session (as president of the sociology section of the British Science Association and some dozens of books translated in different languages and even more peer reviewed publications, published at Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxford and Cambridge university press, Suhrkamp and others in different languages and (Worldcat providing 355 entries is a WP:SNOW case in the deWP with her much stricter rules. That said, I have inserted three reviews of three books and editions of Grundmann's, two in the Canadian Journal of Sociology, one in the New Left Review to get rid of the drive-by-tagging. A simple google research would have easened that task as well for prokaryotes.

* Prokaryotes accusations about the section Reiner_Grundmann#Peer_review_and_climate_change are being far from accurate and accusing me to carefully avoid his stance on climate is a sort of fairy tale. Either have the cake or eat it. Grundmann is mentioned as a coathor of the The Hartwell Paper (clear indication of a political cloud far from the denial crowd) and as an author of prestigeous books and studies comparing the political dealings with Ozone depletion and climate change and dealt as well with Climategate and its political effects. If you don't like the findings, no reason for an AfD, as said. I point out Grundmann's stance on Hans von Storch's science blog Klimazwiebel as well and refer to a controversy in the peer reviewed literature using various scientific entries. Finally just to quote the Nottingham University website:

* That said, the AfD is sort of contentious. WP:SNOW in combination with Misplaced Pages:I DON'T LIKE IT respectively Misplaced Pages:I DON'T LIKE HIM. Serten 20:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disclosure, last March Serten filed an successful AfD on my article about the scientific consensus on climate change, over at the German wikipedia, and the page was deleted. Because i tried to explain the issues with the Grundmann article to Serten on the article talk page already in detail, i have nothing else to add, unless someone wants more links or a translation etc. prokaryotes (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats sorta wrong. I filed a successfull AfD in the deWP on Prokaryotes Bablefish translation of Scientific opinion on climate change. Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

a scholar with a habilitation, a research career at Germanys most prestigous reseacrh center (Max Planck Gesellschaft), tenure resp. head of department in Aston and Nottingham

PROF asks for more than this: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)"

contributing to the British Science festival with a presidential session (as president of the sociology section of the British Science Association

PROF asks for more than this: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

and some dozens of books translated in different languages and even more peer reviewed publications, published at Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxford and Cambridge university press, Suhrkamp and others in different languages and Worldcat providing 355 entries

Then it shouldn't be difficult meet this requirement of PROF: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. But what we need are reliable secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I based larger parts of the articles on peer reviewed publications and scientific text books - that means, those books and entrys already went through independent checking and reviews. You seem to tell the audience here, that a peer reviewed contribution is same level as a blog entry. Thats sort of contentious again. That said, I have added various English reviews in scientific journals, some german and others are yet to come. Serten 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No,I didn't say anything like "a peer reviewed contribution is same level as a blog entry". Sorry, that's simply untrue.

We can't use Grundmann's publications to discuss the significance of Grundmann's publications. That shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp. Nor can we count Grundmann's publications and use that tally to assert that made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. His works are not independent sources. They're the opposite of independent. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I inserted some reviews, including Süddeutsche Zeitung / Perlentaucher (new scientific fiels, one of the essentials here), some politics and social science portals reviews in German and French, and btw I like the quotes Routledge was allowed to start Transnational environmental policy with: Take Gaia Guru Jim Lovelock stating This readable book is the best treatment of the subject published so far and Noble Prize Laureate Frank Sherwood Rowland with Stimulating and thought-provoking. The quoted WP_Prof requirements are no must, but shalls, but see no reason for doubt against notability. You? Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates