Talk:Adam Riess

Untitled

Is it worth to add a bit about unethical scientific behaiviour connected to the SNIa research? (page 105 of the following link http://books.google.de/books?id=yFgt50M0WPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+4+Percent+Universe:+Dark+Matter,+Dark+Energy,+and+the+Race+to+Discover&hl=de&ei=muKLTsLWM4SVswbo05WeAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.63.158 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Calan/Tololo Project

Half of the Research section has become an entry for the Calan/Tololo Project which did not involve the subject of this biography. Please create an entry for this project if does not exist and move the material from here to there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.167.171.156 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Section on Sarkar, Rameez work

Removed section on controversy as its inappropriate to be placed here. BattleOrc please place citation (Redacted) more relevant place such as one of the areas in Cosmology, not under Riess's bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.167.171.156 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of Adam Riess, please contact him at ... before reverting or adding a section on "Controversy" as it is inaccurate and libelous

On behalf of Adam Riess, please contact him at [redacted] before reverting or adding a section on "Controversy" as it is inaccurate and libelous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.167.171.156 (talk • contribs)

The information appears to be cited by 3 articles, two of which include but are not solely by the person you named in edit summary. Unfavorable info is fairgame on WP provided it is appropriately sourced and this appears to be. I'd say include it. And contacting someone as you say is not how WP works. ToeFungii (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that was not helpful at all, was it. Contentious negative BLP should be left out till discussed and a consensus achieved to include it. Also, conclusions drawn from sources that are not in the sources are WP:OR. I have left information on how to proceed in the future. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

IP 130.167.171.156 COI Violations

Whomever is using this IP address you are in violation of our WP:COI. You must declare yourself and since you are using an IP address and now engaging in edit warring and other non-sense your IP can be banned from editing Wikipedia.

Please follow COI.

Thanks, Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 00:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Riess' work

I've removed two of the criticism's of Riess' work for being original research (that is, analysis of published material that goes beyond what the source actually says). You can see the diff here [1]. I'm not very knowledgeable in the natural sciences, so if there's a consensus to re-insert the offending material that's fine, but Riess' work is only mentioned once in both articles, and not in a negative way. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth, I read the articles also but do not feel it's original research. The statements are verified as they discuss methodology and suggest an alternative explanation to the evidence of dark energy. Scientific colleagues or rivals will rarely directly criticise each other especially through an academic journal. The question about whether they belongs in the article is more about whether it's WP:UNDUE and belongs in an article about the expansion of the universe and dark energy than Riess even if it's his life work. I'm sure Riess doesn't like reading a rival's criticism in his biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I read the sources in the older version and thought they must be one of the above (not fully supported or undue), so I think it was the right call to remove them. Signed, not an astrophysicist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Any restoration of this material should be based on secondary sources rather than primary sources, but there are plenty to choose from such as Does Dark Energy Really Exist? Cosmologists Battle It Out, Dark energy is the biggest mystery in cosmology, but it may not exist at all - leading physicist, No Dark Energy? No Chance, Cosmologists Contend, Dark energy debate reignited by controversial analysis of supernovae data and This Is Why Dark Energy Must Exist, Despite Recent Reports To The Contrary. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well the journal articles are secondary sources to the subject matter. Even though these magazine articles are much more accessible to the layman for verification, we do have a preference for WP:SCHOLARSHIP in making scientific assertions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read WP:SCHOLARSHIP you will find in the first sentence "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Then the second bullet shows "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean published in places such as Physics World published by the Institute of Physics? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely stronger than a Forbes article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

But let's stick to the fundamentals: WP:PSTS which is part of WP:NOR states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you really believe journal articles challenging existing methodology and theories as not being secondary to them? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

contentious negative content

Dr Riess. Apologies on behalf of the project. If further problems exist, please discuss them here. Or at the noticeboard WP:BLPN. Or contact me on my talk page if I'm on line. If all else fails, please contact the WMF at info-en-qwikimedia.org. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help is a resource for subjects of articles. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 12:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove current "Controversies" section?

I would propose removing the current controversies section. Over the years it has boiled down to a single claim by a single journalist, never further substantiated and with documentary evidence contradicting the claim. There has been plenty of time for further evidence of a true controversy to emerge, and none has. Especially in biographies of living persons (like this), I think we need to be very careful about labeling something a controversy when its substantiation is as small as this. Please comment here pro or con. If a consensus occurs (or if nobody is interested enough to comment), I will edit the article accordingly after some time has gone by. ServiceAT (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been 4 months, and no one has objected to this, so I am removing the controversies section as justified above. Now, if you want to object, please do so here on the Talk Page, so that we can discuss. I.e., don't just revert without further discussion here. Thanks! ServiceAT (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)