Talk:Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Notability note removal edit
In May 2010, User:Verbal (who now isn't very active) tagged an early version of this article by {{notability}}. That version was just a little more than a substub; and did not include the crucial information that Schmitz-Feuerhake has chaired an nuclear power critical committe of 'concerned scientists', with close connections to one of the large party groups in the European Parliament. (The article of the committy, European Committee on Radiation Risk, is not questioned for notability.) This alone would provide at least some notability.
Seemingly, her research findings on leucemia caused by nuclear power station pollution has had an public impact in Germany - but also been criticised as POV. If correct, this clearly contributes a greater interest; it might suffice in itself for including the article. (Recall that our notability criteria do not concern whether a person is 'right' or 'wrong'.) In combination, I find the matter fairly decided.
Verbal provided no arguments for the tag. If the reason was that the article then was rather substandard, argumentation was hardly necessary; but that reason IMHO no longer is valid. Thus, I'll remove the tag. I'll notify Verbal, who may reinstate it, if there were other reasons; but in that case I'd like to see them explained. JoergenB (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable source? edit
The only source given for the award of ISF is marked "unreliable". I'm not sure why; possibly, since it's a primary source: the announcement of the award giving organisation itself. Now, that organisation (or foundation) was completely unknown for me before, as was its price. Thus, I'm not contesting that it could be marked "unreliable" w.r.t. e.g. scientific claims. However, the only thing it is attributed is its notice that it delivered this award.
The existence of award itself seems not to be contested on other pages; its importance might well be dubious. However, that might motivate a question of the notability of the award to ISF, but has no impact on whether she got the prize or not. I found another source, in German, confirming that she got the award; however, it is a source of the same character; secondary, surely, but otherwise in no manner superior of the original one, IMHO. It does support the fact (but I do think that the original source should be enough for that); it contributes just a little towards a notability confirmation.
The crucial question rather might be: Was the award reported in "ordinary" German newspapers, or not? If not, was it at least noted by "environmentalist" circles outside Germany? JoergenB (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)