Talk:Richard J. Green
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard J. Green article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
categorisation of 'Dubious Historical Resources' edit
212.219.189.69 removed the categorisation of 'Dubious Historical Resources' because, "without criticism, it is unjustified."
I did so not referring to Green's work but because he deals with the Leuchter report and the Rudolf report. So, IMO people browsing the cat should be able to find Green. --tickle me 13:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Then perhaps you could give Leuchter and Rudolf the 'Dubious Historical Resources' tag and link to Green from them? I was just afraid that it might confuse some people regarding the integrity of Green's work.
Green's Response edit
Richard J. Green has used FIVE YEARS to answer back on Germar Rudolfs refutation of Greens report. Having studied chemistry myself I can't see how Green has refuted anything at all. Most of the chemistry articles on wikipedia are excellente, so why cant someone competent have a look?
- For those who are having a hard time using Google, I'll give you the link to Green's response to Rudolph's "response" [1]. Quote:
Let's be straightforward here. Most of Rudolf's argument is rhetorical, not scientific. If we address his rhetorical points, he accuses us of being non-scientific, if we fail to address them, we are not answering a supposedly legitimate question.
- The classic, "heads I win, tails you lose" approach. Innovative, but not very scientific. When Rudolf comes up with some valid scientific flaws, maybe there will be a response.
- Most chemistry reports are written by people who are legitimate and accredited. Why can't revisionism find anyone other then Rudolf (or Leuchter) to support their theories? Cantankrus 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)