Talk:Kevin Knuth - Knowledge

443: 2019:

that old jobs listed on a cv/resume are usually uncontroversial, that it might be downright churlish of me to question if any of those outlets actually verified those job claims (after all, why would they?), and that I should perhaps ignore that the Cornell position is mentioned only once in that list of sources. Just so we're clear, I am not claiming that Knuth did not have any of these long-ago jobs. This isn't about The Truth. But are those jobs rendered notable because some secondary sources parrot a cv? Perhaps they are. I do note, however, that published papers, invited talks, society/organization memberships, and other professional activities can all be verified

2089:. That's on me. My understanding, however, is that being encyclopedic, WP pages (including BLPs) should not simply replicate every item from cv's/resumes. Are we to include on BLPs every single cv-based meeting abstract, publication, external talk, class taught, and (more apropos this discussion) previous job? Where does it end? The point I was/am trying to make, quite poorly it seems, is that items derived ultimately/solely from a subject's cv/webpage can be problematic, and should probably not be included if they are not independently verifiable. 378: 530: 433: 406: 551: 316: 292: 261: 1923:

much every other university, it's oversight of faculty webpages is probably better described as "near-zero" than "limited," at least with respect to such pages' factual content - they are far more concerned with issues of formatting, color choice, photo quality, etc. If SFR can find reliable, secondary sources to support the information, that would be terrific! But are those positions really so notable that they do not collide with

2161:. Unsurprisingly I do not agree, as there seems nothing undue about the inclusion of reliably sourced, factual, and notable information about the publisher of the journal for which the article subject serves as editor-in-chief. If the subject's editorial position is to be included in the article, it seems appropriate for the publisher's standing in the scientific community to also be (briefly) included. What 21: 326: 2261:

And there's no guilt-by-association going on here. We're characterizing MDPI, not suggesting that Knuth is wrong to have worked for them. The guilt-by-association seem to be happening internally, when you read that part. I can tell you that I don't see it that way, though I can understand how someone

2117:

Sounds good. On that basis I think the multiple mentions (as opposed to "cover", because those jobs weren't really covered in the listed sources) of Ames justify its inclusion here. But not so the Cornell job, which seems to have been mentioned in only one source, and in passing. I'll try to make the

1974:

Knuth has a doctorate in physics and a minor in mathematics and has worked at the NASA Ames Research Center and been a Cornell University instructor for the medical college's Department of Physiology and Biophysics.He's worked on research in the fields of cyberphysics and robotics and foundations of

919:

Is cherry-picking as contrary to our policies as using a self-published source in a BLP? We're already using a source that is not allowed in a BLP, I don't think looking at the quotes we're using to find a reasonable balance between "this shouldn't be used at all" and "lets provide some criticism and

889:

I just went over the sources, and even judging by just the quote provided here, Colavito's characterization seems fair enough. Knuth claims that a scientist needs to weigh "all of the data", clearly thinks of himself as a scientist, and clearly comes to the conclusion that it's aliens. Colavito isn't

776:

Colavito clearly and deliberately pulls the phrase "all of the data" (and puts in quotation marks), so it appears as if Knuth is stating that he thinks all of the data would be explained as, as Colavito puts it, "spaceships from another world". That quote from Colavito's website has been lifted &

753:

does not, to me, seem to stand up to even the most straightforward of due diligence and scrutiny. Knuth is, whether wittingly or unwittingly, aping the same arguments that have been aped for decades by the ufology community. I understand his stated desire is to "rehabilitate" the topic, but he is not

716:

in this biography. I have removed a lot of the CV-like aggrandizement. What is left is a truncated biography that does all the work that is possible to do given the sources we have. The job of Knowledge is to give the information that third-parties have deemed relevant about a person. Right now, this

667:

The reference to the movie criticism. I removed the quote from a film critic about production standards, as this is entirely irrelevant to the subject. Knuth simply appeared in the film which is referenced here as an example of notability. The film was made by an independent production company; Knuth

663:

The reference to the publisher of Entropy journal (MDPI). I removed this to prevent unfair inferences being made relating to Knuth's editorship the journal. Knuth is not accountable for the publisher's historical record pertaining to controversial decisions made before he was editor. The reference is

1568:

The AfD ended in no consensus. I think that that at least adds up to a consensus that notability is questionable, and the tag is called for. I agree that if the AfD had ended in Keep then the tag should be removed. On the other hand, I do not at this stage see a great need for the Primary Sources

2265:

This is another situation where I feel like emergent judgements are overriding fundamental facts. Does critical information about MDPI reflect poorly upon Knuth? Well, that really depends, but generally speaking, yeah. So what should we (an encyclopedia) do about that? Do we omit relevant, accurate

2018:

seems curiously parroted a few times, suggesting that this particular biographical information was derived directly from a single source, Knuth's faculty page. That is, from Knuth himself. I recognize that boilerplate biographical information of this type can be neatly written in only so many ways,

1784:

The instructions for the template also say that we should not edit war over its removal. I do think that there is a consensus for including the template, however, which among other things serves as a hint that a future editor may want to consider nominating for AfD. I am of the opinion that right

1752:

The argument here is turning into process wonkery. People are arguing over the tags themselves, rather than trying to address the issues they call out. I would be happy to remove the tags myself, if only given a good reason to do so. Go find some more sources, better sources than what we have right

1388:

There is no hard rule that any subject spoken about by a particular person at a conference is, in fact, a subject of expertise for that person. Indeed, it's quite common for credentialed individuals to speak on a topic they are relatively new to at a conference, to share a newcomer's perspective on

1230:

The reference to which you refer is there to factually support the statement that Knuth researches UAP. The statement does not discuss any particular study, hypothesis, or theory. Ergo, including "analysis and comment" by anyone on that point would be inappropriate unless it was intended to provide

671:

I removed the quote from Colavito which misrepresented Knuth's comments and, moreover, was added here in the absence of Knuth's original full quotation for reference. The quote was lacking in context and taken from the personal website of someone who wrote critically about Knuth. The author of that

1922:

The IEEE and paper biographies are essentially cut-and-paste replicates of Knuth's faculty page (certainly the second of those will have been provided by Knuth himself, and thus the source is really not secondary). And regarding that faculty page, I would suspect that if SUNY Albany is like pretty

1854:

Regarding the 'citation needed' tags, other than Knuth's own faculty page at SUNY Albany (article reference 1) I have been unable to find any reliable, non-Knuth-derived sources that support the content that Knuth worked as a researcher at the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research and at

1061:

The text in question is not about the living person. It is about a publication that the living person wrote. Now, maybe you think that none of the publications deserve inclusion here. Fair enough. But if the publications that Knuth wrote can be talked about here, so can legitimate criticism of the

2180:

I was the reverter. I don't disagree about MDPI being a bit problematic, but I don't think that every mention of MDPI on Knowledge should be accompanied by text about its uneven standards. Material can be reliably sourced and still not be appropriate to include in the article, particularly in a

1707:

A "no consensus" does not result in deletion of the article, but is also well short of a keep. Past usage that I have seen has often resulted in replacing of a tag at a no-consensus article. Indeed, this replacement may be useful for future editors: no consensus articles are good candidates for

1115:

that we can't use the blog source. I've trimmed the UFO section down to a dry summary of activities, which at least is not particularly promoting of fringe theories; I then removed the blog source. Comment that media sources are over-impressed with his 4 years as a junior scientist at NASA, and

1092:

I would be fine removing anything without actual secondary coverage in RS. If I hadn't been busy reverting an LTA I would have removed their movie appearance too. What I'm trying to do is compromise and leave the material that want objected to, despite the guideline specifically saying the policy

672:

referenced content had quite blatantly misrepresented the quote of Keven Knuth on his own website. The editor who posted that here chose to re-post this misrepresentation, whilst completely omitting to Knuth's original quote for context - which ironically *was* even included on Colavito's website.

2388:

I'm saying that including information on the controversies of a publisher of hundreds of journals isn't due in an article on a topic that sources haven't connected to the controversies. We generally don't include unrelated information about a subject's employer unless there is some link found in

1366:

As for the conference proceedings; you are failing to appreciate *what* they were being used to support. If you are accurately representing the current consensus interpretation of the Knowledge guidelines (I really do not have the time to spend investigating volumes of conflicting guidelines and

2304:

If sources were covering MDPI's credibility with a focus on Knuth, then they would, by necessity, be sources covering Knuth's credibility, which we're not discussing here. We don't need sources describing Knuth's credibility to make a statement about MDPI's credibility, even in an article about

2580:

where it says, "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Knowledge-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages..." I recommend you remove this comment and link.

1513:

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split, with a slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. The notability of academics is a notoriously contentious topic, and people here don't agree about whether Knuth is notable for his academic work, his UFO-related activity, or

926:

criticized Knuth's belief that the U.S. government is covering up encounters with aliens, writing that Knuth "leaned heavily on his credentials as a former NASA employee" but "provided no “insider” knowledge, nor any indication that he had firsthand evidence of a government

826:

1605:

Agreed. Although my initial gut reaction was the opposite, I am coming around to thinking this is correct. And for what it's worth, I think Cosmoid would be a valuable part of the conversation if we could get past this single-person veto issue. Cheers, all.

1446:

Perhaps others have reached 3RR. You have blown right past it. You seem fond of warning others against edit warring while blatantly doing so yourself. I would also respectfully suggest that ultimatums are not particularly conducive to collaborative editing.

833:

concerns exist? That seems like a reasonable compromise, as it leaves out the obvious misinterpretation, and provides the bog standard "he doesn't actually have proof UFOs are real" language that we need to tack onto every article about someone who talks about

656:

I am open to discussion on these points - please use as a starting point the reasons I have already provided for deletion. Please provide short, clear and concise explanations of why you believe my reasons for removing said content are not strong enough. Thank

2454:

I think "the controversial" is important to characterizing the publisher, and a fair compromise on its own, versus the accurate and relevant text you had previously added. Without it, my proposed wording is functionally no different to what is there, now.

1983:

Working with Ailleris to employ satellite imagery to detect and monitor UAPs is Kevin Knuth, a former scientist with NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley. He is now an associate professor of physics at the University at Albany in New

795:

argue for an extraterrestrial solution should be considered, just as equally as those that do. At no point does Knuth state that all UFO are a linked to a single phenomenon - let alone are "spaceships from another world". That is simply not what he said.

1025:

Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must also comply with Knowledge's policy on biographies of living persons

2365:

You're arguing here that we should decide whether or not some clearly relevant information about MDPI's credibility is due based on the number of sources we have about Knuth's credibility, and that's simply not an intellectually honest approach.

897:, and it's very much contrary to our policies. If Colavito had claimed Knuth said quite the opposite of what he had actually said, that would be a good reason to re-evaluate Colavito as a source. But this? No, this is not problematic text. 772:

As you will see on Colavito's web page, Knuth's actual quotation was: "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled

2417:

I'm not suggesting using either link as a source in this article, by the way. Simply showing you that your assertion that Knuth and MDPI's reputation for lax standards aren't nearly as disconnected as you have insisted they are.

1855:

NASA's Ames Research Center. Additionally, and independently of this apparent lack of sources, those jobs were from 20 years ago (or more) and do not seem particularly notable. I assume he actually did work at those places, but

1965:

Leading the team of scientists is Dr. Kevin Knuth, a former scientist with NASA’s Ames Research Center, now an associate professor of physics at the University of Albany. Knuth specializes in machine learning and the study of

1320:

I think the user who instituted the last few edits may not be familiar with how Knowledge functions. First of all, conference proceedings should not be used to support anything, really, as they are not generally considered

1785:

after an AfD that ended in no consensus is a great time to include the template. It is not appropriate to immediately renominate, but notability is uncertain (otherwise, the discussion would have ended in a keep).

799:

Using this quote is simply not a factual way of representing who the subject is, nor what he believes - based on Knuth's actual quote and also everything I have seen and heard him say in interviews and writings.

2414:, in any event. I can't tell if Knuth oversaw that second one, but it remains a possibility. He was established as editor-in-chief when the first was published, however, which puts that squarely within his watch. 181: 1035:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

874:

1975:

quantum theory. One of his current projects is studying planets orbiting stars that are too far away for data about their atmospheres to be gathered so "it's not possible to know if there is life on them."

1877:

I had found some sources that provided a less detailed work history, researcher for NASA for instance. Unfortunately I don't have access to them right now, but I'd rather see it sources and less detailed.

1431:

Nope. Other users have also reached 3RR. I have added the Primary source tag myself, as am willing to compromise on that. But the notability tag is not staying up unless I am banned from editing. Period.

2338:

I'm not sure how not including information would violate SYNTH, and V doesn't require we include everything verifiable, just that what is included must be verifiable. I think we should be checking for

1684:

Do not place this message on an article that has already survived a discussion at Knowledge:Articles for deletion as "keep". This is not a badge of shame to show your disagreement with the AFD outcome.

2359:

You've misunderstood what I said. I said that using sources talking about Knuth's credibility to make statements about MDPI's credibility would be synth, not that removing information would be synth.

815:

A parent must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the dog eating all of the cookies from the counter hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out.

2291:

Are any of the sources covering Knuth within the context of MDPI? Or are these sources just covering MDPI generally? Because if it is the latter, it is questionable to include here. ---Lilach5 (

1263:

The source is impeached in a major way. An alternative approach would be just to not use it at all. Space.com is sometimes fine, but it often strays into problematic territory when it comes to

2363:

I think we should be checking for WP:DUEWEIGHT, so we look at the topic, Knuth, the number of sources discussing his involvement with MDPI controversies, zero, and assign weight based on that.

1583:

The sourcing issue does seem to be far less intractable and a lot more debatable. I certainly don't see an issue coming to a consensus on that one. The notability problem on the other hand...

1146: 2636: 1992:

Kevin Knuth, a former scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley, said he and Ailleris would use satellites to monitor the ocean area south of Catalina Island

1005:

worthiness here, in which case proper couching is required, or the fringe claims are irrelevant to the biography in which case we should trash the entire section. Which do you prefer?

1894:

Since it's not unduly self-serving, I think sourcing to the self-published source of his faculty profile page (which indeed even has some limited university oversight) is fine, per

1461:

I was the first to warn against WP:EW and provided my reasons for removal. Go look at the history. If you were interested in 'collaborative editing', you would have discussed here

653:

And I have removed it again. If you would like to add materials that have already been removed and are clearly contentious, please discuss here *before* reposting the same content.

2063:, both of which have significant detail on employment, and it seemed like relevant detail when writing. Also, in my experience a "Career" heading is pretty common in biographies. 2631: 1623:

Completely agree. The more POVs we have, the better the final result. Hence why I said earlier that sanctions are not what anyone here wants. But the disruption has to stop.

1417:

Cosmoid, by my count you are at 5RR. So far we have two people in support of the tags, and you against. With all due respect, it might be worth considering that. Cheers.

2023:

of what a subject includes on their faculty web page or cv, or what they say during an interview. Not so, apparently, these jobs. Does that not make them problematic per

2244:

I don't think guilt by association is necessary, unless there is some indication that Entropy is one journals that had been discussed by sources discussing MDPI issues.

1392:

Regarding the tags: You've already threatened an edit war, and started to engage in one with multiple reverts. If this persists, you will very likely be blocked over it.

1001:

as he is as good as it gets when it comes to expert evaluation of fringe ufological claims. The situation is that we can't have it both ways. Either we have established

1708:

renomination. I agree that this situation is not well addressed by guidelines, and suggest that we open a larger conversation elsewhere. Is there a better place than

664:

here simply to demonstrate notability - this article is not about Entropy, nor MDPI. Knuth should not be *seen* to be accountable for that over which he has no control.

754:

the first person to declaim such a motivation and Colavito is a good source for tying this back to the normal ufology social scene. In short, this is a pretty decent

175: 2595:

No, it's not intended as a personal attack. It's a reminder that this type of synthesis is inappropriate based on an example that Jojo is previously familiar with.

2118:

corresponding edits today, although it's so nice outside I might have a tough time sitting in front of a computer screen today. The Call of the Wild, and all that.

893:

It's not within our remit to judge individual aspects of a source for their reliability and then only include those we accept. The proper term for that behavior is

2534:) also covered the case. Overall, I think this still falls a bit short of what we can include in a BLP, but it's possible that there's better sourcing elsewhere. 2316:

As I said above, the emergent judgements one draws from the facts is not the concern of an encyclopedia, only that the facts given are both relevant and accurate.

2661: 1352:

No. I disagree. The article was not found to lacking 'notability' following the AfD discussion. If it had been, the article would have been deleted. It was not.

1799:

I agree that another AfD lies in this article's future, especially if people continue to argue about the tags instead of working on the issues they call out.

1245:

In the article, Knuth expresses his ideas about the NASA UAP investigation, and Sheaffer's comments about the NASA UAP investigation serve as a counterpoint,

499: 1395:

That's not what anyone wants here, so I'd advise you to work with your fellow editors to address those issues, rather than pretending like they don't exist.

837:

I get that we need to make sure that the non-existent portion of readers who are on the fence about UFOs and would be convinced one way or another by adding

1961: 1734:

As the AfD closed as no consensus I don't see an issue including the tag, at least until there are some more sources to convince more people of notability.

841:

get the right information, but do we really need to quote the plainly wrong interpretation from a source that already shouldn't be used in a BLP to do it?

777:

put into the WP article to make Knuth's position appear preposterous - and done so without even the context of Knuth's original quotation! Colavito stated:

387: 302: 228:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 780:"He asks us to accept at face value the claim that “all of the data” about UFOs are linked to a singular phenomenon, namely spaceships from another world" 613: 1281:

I'm OK with keeping fringe claims out of the article so there's no need for mainstream context. However, based on the discussions of Knowledge on UAPx's

240: 1988: 2666: 2641: 1957:

Kevin Knuth, a former scientist with NASA's Ames Research Center, is teaming up with Ailleris to employ satellite imagery to detect and monitor UAPs.

2572:

your comment connecting JoJo to synthesis in an unrelated discussion that took place in September 2020 could be construed as a personal attack. See

1318: 750: 2342:, so we look at the topic, Knuth, the number of sources discussing his involvement with MDPI controversies, zero, and assign weight based on that. 1970: 1822: 2403:

The controversies are integral to MDPI's nature. Knuth is directly connected to MDPI. To say that there's no connection there is disingenuous.

943:

These are not claims about Knuth personally, but about his advocacy, as I said in my edit summary. BLP is not a blanket rule that 'overrides'

1902:(but I think it is actually better to use the profile page here). Inspired by ScottishFinnishRadish, I looked a little more, and found this 787:

what Knuth is asking anyone to accept. Anyone with any semblance of skill in English comprehension should be able to see that. Knuth stated "

2621: 1047:

must be followed. I'm not sure where removing a misrepresentation violates anything except for WP:BLP, since it's still coming from a SPS.

511: 416: 245: 2266:

information in order to change this perception? Or do we shrug our shoulders and report the facts, regardless of the impression they make?

1149:

about situations like this, with regards to PARITY, FRINGEBLP and BLPSPS that is likely of interest to those involved in this discussion.

2681: 1621:

And for what it's worth, I think Cosmoid would be a valuable part of the conversation if we could get past this single-person veto issue.

603: 31: 2407: 107: 2440:

How about this as as compromise: using HMS's suggested text above, retaining the two RS, but removing the phrase "the controversial"?

2005: 884: 708:

sources who critically appraise his advocacy, so we can start from there. However, there was a lot of fluff inserted into the article

1945: 2686: 2676: 2656: 489: 343:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 2646: 2626: 344: 220: 1949:

Dr. Knuth has published over 100 peer-reviewed publications and has been invited to give over 80 presentations in 14 countries.

1917: 1743: 1133: 2486: 2435: 2398: 2383: 2351: 2286: 2253: 968: 938: 914: 2671: 2651: 2514:

I don't think we should insert references that have little to do with Knuth. So I went looking for better referencing. The

2127: 2112: 2098: 2072: 2050: 2036: 1887: 1554:

The obvious consensus here is that notability continues to be an issue and needs to be resolved before the tags are removed.

1074:

justification for including Knuth's fringe sources in this article. To argue otherwise is to basically to thumb your nose at

579: 113: 1532:

is misleading. You cannot just look at what you said in the AfD and ignore what everybody else including the closer said. --

1381:

The conference proceedings should not ever be used except to support what the conference proceedings say. And if those are

1225: 348: 196: 2406:

If you need concrete evidence of this, then you should be aware that he was editor in chief of Entropy when that journal

72: 2553: 163: 1816: 1794: 1600: 465: 352: 58: 2194: 1936: 2604: 2590: 2472: 2449: 2239: 1979: 751:

The author of that referenced content had quite blatantly misrepresented the quote of Keven Knuth on his own website.

1578: 1231:

balance to the assertion that Knuth is involved in UAP research (which would be absurd, being that he clearly is).

1158: 1102: 1087: 1056: 850: 1211: 578:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

558: 535: 2199:

I agree that the nature of the journal should be outlined, but perhaps a change of wording is in order. How about:

442: 2482: 2394: 2347: 2249: 2108: 2068: 2046: 2001: 1883: 1871: 1739: 1563: 1221: 1154: 1098: 1052: 934: 880: 846: 339: 297: 127: 2408:

published an article full of pseudoscience, written by an anti-vaxxer with no relevant qualifications whatsoever

1996:

Looks like NASA's Ames Research Center, Cornell, and associate professor all have secondary sourcing available.

1640: 1615: 1426: 1412: 861:

All articles concerning these people must also comply with Knowledge's policy on biographies of living persons.

132: 48: 2333: 2299: 2154: 2150: 1541: 636: 2041:

It's my understanding that NOTCV applies to editor user pages, not biographical detail for article subjects.

1729: 1258: 1240: 456: 411: 157: 102: 1837: 1779: 272: 1953: 1906: 1496: 1478: 1456: 1441: 1849: 1666: 1301: 1276: 93: 2103:

I would say if secondary sources are covering it, it's noteworthy. That's my general bar for inclusion.

1173: 685: 153: 2478: 2390: 2343: 2245: 2104: 2064: 2042: 2014:. So there we have it, several sort-of secondary sources. I wrote "sort-of" because the precise phrase 2011: 1997: 1879: 1735: 1715: 1217: 1150: 1112: 1094: 1048: 988: 930: 876: 842: 1483:

To my eye, three people are editing in a collegial manner and you are obstructing same with a blatant

1376: 1361: 809: 767: 734: 2296: 1342: 1272: 1083: 1010: 763: 730: 644: 239:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 27: 647: 2600: 2559: 2539: 2190: 1913: 1790: 1725: 1709: 1574: 1129: 203: 2526:. The Reuters piece that it is response to mentions the journal (although the link may be weakly 1701: 1346: 1014: 464:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2465: 2428: 2376: 2326: 2279: 2232: 1809: 1772: 1633: 1593: 1469:. So do not come here playing the "I'm just trying to be constructively collegial card". Thanks. 1405: 1204: 961: 907: 260: 243:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 229: 137: 2185:. A source that specifically mentioned Knuth or Entropy would likely be worthwhile to include. 1329:). Finally, tags should not be removed. The two issues were identified during the course of the 1188: 829:

enough criticism to hang on a source that shouldn't be used in a BLP anyway to satisfy whatever

2563: 2543: 2445: 2170: 2123: 2094: 2032: 1932: 1867: 791:

of the possible hypotheses, to explain all of the data...". In other words, hypotheses that do

2586: 2174: 1537: 1313: 1117: 630: 278: 2292: 1559: 1338: 1297: 1268: 1254: 1184: 1079: 1006: 759: 726: 713: 640: 20: 8: 2596: 2569: 2555: 2535: 2519: 2339: 2186: 1909: 1786: 1759: 1721: 1720:

for suggestions as an experienced and fairly neutral editor, familiar with this article.

1677: 1570: 1125: 1020: 1002: 948: 856: 169: 83: 2577: 2456: 2419: 2367: 2317: 2270: 2223: 1800: 1763: 1624: 1584: 1396: 1289: 1286: 1195: 1169: 952: 898: 98: 2515: 2441: 2208: 2166: 2119: 2090: 2028: 1928: 1863: 1611: 1492: 1474: 1452: 1437: 1422: 1372: 1357: 1236: 805: 681: 79: 2518:

article discusses a case that happened under Knuth's editorship. It was covered by

1216:

Analysis and commentary on a UAP study funded by NASA that Knuth isn't involved in?

2582: 2531: 2477:

I think at this point we should wait on some more input and see what others think.

1533: 1264: 1176: 1108: 1067: 1063: 1040: 994: 944: 865: 830: 821:

are linked to one phenomena, the dog jumping on the counter and eating the cookies?

755: 701: 331: 1385:, then they're likely covered by more reliable sources, which should be preferred. 890:

misquoting Knuth; he's using the context to accurately characterize Knuth's point.

189: 2527: 2306: 2204: 2086: 2078: 2024: 1924: 1903: 1859: 1555: 1293: 1250: 1180: 1175:, the analysis and comment by Robert Sheaffer should definitely be included, per 998: 705: 236: 377: 2576:. Also, bringing that discussion into this discussion is off topic. Please see 2056: 1326: 1075: 894: 697: 448: 1758:

P.S. As far as I can tell, this situation is, indeed, well covered by policy.

1530:

The article was not found to lacking 'notability' following the AfD discussion

2615: 2573: 2549: 2258:

The issues highlighted with MDPI aren't really on a journal-by-journal basis.

2182: 2082: 2081:

is such that I should have instead referred to either the overarching policy

1895: 1834: 1698: 1521: 1484: 1382: 1330: 1044: 1030: 921: 722: 571: 567: 550: 529: 2411: 2060: 1607: 1488: 1470: 1448: 1433: 1418: 1368: 1353: 1322: 1232: 1163: 801: 677: 2165:

is undue about the inclusion of that content? Additional opinions please.

2310: 52: 575: 1908:(which I believe to be secondary for the purpose of his affiliation). 1823:

Template_talk:Notability#Notability tag after no consensus AfD close

432: 405: 1826: 1690: 351:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 315: 291: 1673:

Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".

924:" is cherry-picking anyway. I don't think if that were being done 660:

For sake of clarity I'll reiterate the 3 contentious issues here:

2145: 1282: 563: 461: 1325:. Find peer-reviewed sources for adding content (preferably not 947:, as you have suggested. It applies to different subjects. And 1285:

server, I would be very surprised if this BLP didn't become an

2357:

I'm not sure how not including information would violate SYNTH

1905:, which you might like better; or the biography of this paper 235:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

704:

advocacy may push him over the edge. Luckily there are a few

696:

Knuth is a pretty minor academic who would probably not pass

2637:

Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles

1927:? Many, many people have held similar jobs at those places. 1898:. The NASA job could also be sourced to, say, the piece in 2214: 2410:. And it's not like Entropy is any stranger to publishing 1862:

I am uncertain this content should be retained. Thoughts?

1367:

related discussions), then they are quite frankly absurd.

1070:

is concerned, it is the legitimate criticism that is the

1520:

The two issues were identified during the course of the

839:

just a little bit more criticism sourced to a guy's blog

2305:

Knuth. In fact, doing so would be a gross violation of

717:

article is pretty thin on that, but I judge that it is

188: 2632:

Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles

2522:, but this piece does not directly mention Knuth or 712:

attested to by outside sources as being relevant or

562:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 460:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 438: 321: 43: 2269:It seems to me like the latter is the better path. 2159:

I think it's WP:UNDUE to include this material here

2016:

a former scientist with NASA's Ames Research Center

1333:and continue to be pretty problematic here. Please 855:And just to make sure we're all on the same page, 2613: 2085:, or perhaps the third sentence of section 5 of 1688:Therefore, the notability tag is not warranted. 61:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2662:Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance 1093:must be followed in the interests of balance. 2530:), and Beal's List (possibly not useable per 1821:A discussion about retagging can be found at 929:would have been left in the article as well. 668:had nothing to do with the film's production. 202: 1753:now, and this argument becomes a moot point. 993:The Colavito source is allowed in a BLP per 2213:, a journal published by the controversial 258: 1465:as opposed to simply reverting the edit - 2667:Start-Class physics biographies articles 2642:Science and academia work group articles 1267:claims as do a lot of popsci websites. 2614: 2552:just like you (Jojo) tried to do here. 1337:the article before removing the tags. 783:That is quite obviously and evidently 1107:Our BLP guidelines are central, and 556:This article is within the scope of 454:This article is within the scope of 337:This article is within the scope of 254: 212: 15: 2622:Biography articles of living people 639:on Knuth from sources. ---Lilach5 ( 388:the science and academia work group 277:It is of interest to the following 51:for discussing improvements to the 13: 2682:Low-importance Skepticism articles 2077:Yeah, perhaps my understanding of 376: 14: 2698: 1116:that there's a certain amount of 2055:As a bit of an example, I wrote 588:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 549: 528: 441: 431: 404: 324: 314: 290: 259: 218:This article must adhere to the 73:Click here to start a new topic. 19: 2687:WikiProject Skepticism articles 2677:Start-Class Skepticism articles 2657:Low-importance physics articles 608:This article has been rated as 591:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 494:This article has been rated as 361:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 30:on 28 July 2022. The result of 26:This article was nominated for 2647:WikiProject Biography articles 2627:Start-Class biography articles 1249:, they are quite appropriate. 1111:is unambiguous. I agree with 364:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 1292:at some point in the future. 1039:So the various guidelines in 582:and see a list of open tasks. 509:This article is supported by 474:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 468:and see a list of open tasks. 385:This article is supported by 221:biographies of living persons 70:Put new text under old text. 2672:Physics biographies articles 2652:Start-Class physics articles 714:prominently worth discussing 700:, but the popularity of his 477:Template:WikiProject Physics 349:contribute to the discussion 7: 2605:00:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC) 2591:00:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC) 2564:23:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC) 2544:19:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2487:18:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2473:14:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2450:14:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2436:14:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2399:13:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2384:12:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2352:22:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2334:22:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2300:20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2287:18:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2254:18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2240:17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2195:17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2175:16:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2128:14:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 2113:20:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2099:20:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2073:19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2051:19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2037:19:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2006:17:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1937:16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1918:16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1888:16:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1872:16:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1838:13:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC) 1817:17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1795:16:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1780:12:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1744:16:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1730:11:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1702:10:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 1667:Knowledge:Guide to deletion 951:is quite clear about this. 233:must be removed immediately 78:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 2703: 2203:Since 2012 Knuth has been 1641:15:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1616:14:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1601:14:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1579:14:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1564:14:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1542:14:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1497:13:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1479:13:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1457:13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1442:13:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1427:13:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1413:13:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1377:13:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1362:12:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC) 1347:18:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC) 1302:20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC) 1277:18:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC) 1259:13:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC) 1241:00:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC) 1226:22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC) 1212:21:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC) 1189:20:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC) 1145:I've started a discussion 614:project's importance scale 500:project's importance scale 1989:Bisnis, Indonesian source 1511:The closing comment was, 1159:17:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 1134:16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 1103:16:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 1088:16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 1057:15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 1015:15:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 969:15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 939:15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 915:15:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 885:15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 851:15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 810:14:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 768:13:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 735:10:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 686:10:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 648:04:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 607: 544: 508: 493: 426: 384: 309: 285: 108:Be welcoming to newcomers 1850:Regarding the cn tags... 1762:being the relevant one. 1710:Template talk:Notability 1327:primary sources to boot 872:be complied with, says 1954:IGN (for some reason?) 1946:Northeast Public Radio 1686: 1675: 559:WikiProject Skepticism 381: 267:This article is rated 103:avoid personal attacks 2479:ScottishFinnishRadish 2391:ScottishFinnishRadish 2344:ScottishFinnishRadish 2246:ScottishFinnishRadish 2105:ScottishFinnishRadish 2065:ScottishFinnishRadish 2043:ScottishFinnishRadish 1998:ScottishFinnishRadish 1880:ScottishFinnishRadish 1736:ScottishFinnishRadish 1716:ScottishFinnishRadish 1682: 1671: 1218:ScottishFinnishRadish 1151:ScottishFinnishRadish 1124:article and similar. 1113:ScottishFinnishRadish 1095:ScottishFinnishRadish 1066:. In fact, as far as 1049:ScottishFinnishRadish 1043:say that the policy, 989:ScottishFinnishRadish 931:ScottishFinnishRadish 877:ScottishFinnishRadish 843:ScottishFinnishRadish 512:Biographies Taskforce 380: 340:WikiProject Biography 128:Neutral point of view 2157:with the claim that 1172:has been introduced 817:Is this saying that 637:returned information 303:Science and Academia 133:No original research 2520:Discover (magazine) 1678:Template:Notability 594:Skepticism articles 457:WikiProject Physics 2153:edit was reverted 1314:Revert explanation 868:, the policy that 631:Critical appraisal 382: 367:biography articles 273:content assessment 114:dispute resolution 75: 2516:Entropy (journal) 2468: 2431: 2412:antivaxx nonsense 2379: 2329: 2282: 2235: 1812: 1775: 1636: 1596: 1408: 1207: 964: 920:context, despite 910: 628: 627: 624: 623: 620: 619: 523: 522: 519: 518: 399: 398: 395: 394: 253: 252: 211: 210: 94:Assume good faith 71: 42: 41: 2694: 2466: 2461: 2429: 2424: 2377: 2372: 2327: 2322: 2280: 2275: 2233: 2228: 1962:Vice Motherboard 1836: 1831: 1810: 1805: 1773: 1768: 1719: 1700: 1695: 1634: 1629: 1594: 1589: 1406: 1401: 1205: 1200: 992: 962: 957: 908: 903: 596: 595: 592: 589: 586: 553: 546: 545: 540: 532: 525: 524: 482: 481: 480:physics articles 478: 475: 472: 451: 446: 445: 435: 428: 427: 422: 419: 408: 401: 400: 369: 368: 365: 362: 359: 345:join the project 334: 332:Biography portal 329: 328: 327: 318: 311: 310: 305: 294: 287: 286: 270: 264: 263: 255: 241:this noticeboard 213: 207: 206: 192: 123:Article policies 44: 23: 16: 2702: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2612: 2611: 2457: 2420: 2368: 2318: 2271: 2224: 2218: 2207:of the journal 2205:editor-in-chief 2148: 1852: 1827: 1825: 1801: 1764: 1713: 1691: 1689: 1625: 1585: 1397: 1316: 1196: 1166: 986: 953: 899: 819:all of the data 749:The claim that 633: 593: 590: 587: 584: 583: 538: 479: 476: 473: 470: 469: 447: 440: 420: 414: 366: 363: 360: 357: 356: 330: 325: 323: 300: 271:on Knowledge's 268: 149: 144: 143: 142: 119: 89: 12: 11: 5: 2700: 2690: 2689: 2684: 2679: 2674: 2669: 2664: 2659: 2654: 2649: 2644: 2639: 2634: 2629: 2624: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2597:Morbidthoughts 2570:Morbidthoughts 2556:Morbidthoughts 2536:Russ Woodroofe 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2415: 2404: 2360: 2314: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2221: 2219: 2202: 2200: 2197: 2187:Russ Woodroofe 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2057:Rosetta Lawson 2053: 1994: 1986: 1977: 1968: 1959: 1951: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1910:Russ Woodroofe 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1787:Russ Woodroofe 1755: 1754: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1722:Russ Woodroofe 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1571:Russ Woodroofe 1526: 1516: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1364: 1315: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1228: 1214: 1165: 1162: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1126:Russ Woodroofe 1037: 1028: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 895:cherry picking 891: 887: 863: 835: 822: 812: 797: 781: 778: 774: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 689: 688: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 658: 654: 632: 629: 626: 625: 622: 621: 618: 617: 610:Low-importance 606: 600: 599: 597: 580:the discussion 554: 542: 541: 539:Low‑importance 533: 521: 520: 517: 516: 507: 504: 503: 496:Low-importance 492: 486: 485: 483: 466:the discussion 453: 452: 449:Physics portal 436: 424: 423: 421:Low‑importance 409: 397: 396: 393: 392: 383: 373: 372: 370: 336: 335: 319: 307: 306: 295: 283: 282: 276: 265: 251: 250: 246:this help page 230:poorly sourced 216: 209: 208: 146: 145: 141: 140: 135: 130: 121: 120: 118: 117: 110: 105: 96: 90: 88: 87: 76: 67: 66: 63: 62: 56: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2699: 2688: 2685: 2683: 2680: 2678: 2675: 2673: 2670: 2668: 2665: 2663: 2660: 2658: 2655: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2620: 2619: 2617: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2554: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2471: 2469: 2462: 2460: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2432: 2425: 2423: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2382: 2380: 2373: 2371: 2364: 2361: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2330: 2323: 2321: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2283: 2276: 2274: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2236: 2229: 2227: 2222: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2206: 2201: 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2021:independently 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1985: 1981: 1978: 1976: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1958: 1955: 1952: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1858: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1830: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1813: 1806: 1804: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1776: 1769: 1767: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1750: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1717: 1711: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1699: 1696: 1694: 1685: 1681: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1668: 1642: 1639: 1637: 1630: 1628: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1597: 1590: 1588: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1517: 1515: 1510: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1411: 1409: 1402: 1400: 1394: 1391: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1319: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1213: 1210: 1208: 1201: 1199: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1118:man bites dog 1114: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1036: 1032: 1029: 1027: 1022: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 990: 970: 967: 965: 958: 956: 950: 946: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 928: 923: 918: 917: 916: 913: 911: 904: 902: 896: 892: 888: 886: 882: 878: 875: 871: 867: 864: 862: 858: 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 823: 820: 816: 813: 811: 807: 803: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 779: 775: 771: 770: 769: 765: 761: 757: 752: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 687: 683: 679: 676: 670: 666: 662: 661: 659: 655: 652: 651: 650: 649: 646: 642: 638: 615: 611: 605: 602: 601: 598: 581: 577: 573: 572:pseudohistory 569: 568:pseudoscience 565: 561: 560: 555: 552: 548: 547: 543: 537: 534: 531: 527: 526: 514: 513: 506: 505: 501: 497: 491: 488: 487: 484: 467: 463: 459: 458: 450: 444: 439: 437: 434: 430: 429: 425: 418: 413: 410: 407: 403: 402: 390: 389: 379: 375: 374: 371: 354: 353:documentation 350: 346: 342: 341: 333: 322: 320: 317: 313: 312: 308: 304: 299: 296: 293: 289: 288: 284: 280: 274: 266: 262: 257: 256: 248: 247: 242: 238: 234: 231: 227: 223: 222: 217: 215: 214: 205: 201: 198: 195: 191: 187: 183: 180: 177: 174: 171: 168: 165: 162: 159: 155: 152: 151:Find sources: 148: 147: 139: 138:Verifiability 136: 134: 131: 129: 126: 125: 124: 115: 111: 109: 106: 104: 100: 97: 95: 92: 91: 85: 81: 80:Learn to edit 77: 74: 69: 68: 65: 64: 60: 54: 50: 46: 45: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2547: 2523: 2513: 2463: 2458: 2442:JoJo Anthrax 2426: 2421: 2374: 2369: 2362: 2356: 2340:WP:DUEWEIGHT 2324: 2319: 2277: 2272: 2230: 2225: 2209: 2167:JoJo Anthrax 2163:specifically 2162: 2158: 2149: 2120:JoJo Anthrax 2091:JoJo Anthrax 2061:Jesse Lawson 2029:JoJo Anthrax 2020: 2015: 1991: 1982: 1973: 1964: 1956: 1948: 1929:JoJo Anthrax 1900:The Guardian 1899: 1864:JoJo Anthrax 1856: 1853: 1828: 1807: 1802: 1770: 1765: 1760:WP:CONSENSUS 1692: 1687: 1683: 1676: 1672: 1665: 1631: 1626: 1620: 1591: 1586: 1556:- LuckyLouie 1529: 1519: 1512: 1466: 1462: 1403: 1398: 1334: 1317: 1294:- LuckyLouie 1251:- LuckyLouie 1246: 1202: 1197: 1181:- LuckyLouie 1167: 1144: 1121: 1071: 1034: 1024: 1021:WP:FRINGEBLP 1003:WP:FRINGEBLP 985: 959: 954: 949:WP:FRINGEBLP 925: 905: 900: 873: 869: 860: 857:WP:FRINGEBLP 838: 825: 818: 814: 792: 788: 784: 758:point here. 718: 709: 634: 609: 557: 510: 495: 455: 386: 338: 279:WikiProjects 244: 232: 225: 219: 199: 193: 185: 178: 172: 166: 160: 150: 122: 47:This is the 36:no consensus 35: 2583:Steve Quinn 2578:WP:NOTFORUM 2262:else could. 2010:Thank you, 1980:Livescience 1971:Times Union 1966:exoplanets. 1712:? Pinging 1534:Hob Gadling 1528:Therefore, 1525:is correct. 1518:Therefore, 1487:rationale. 1389:that topic. 1290:WP:COATRACK 1287:WP:ADVOCACY 1170:this source 927:conspiracy. 827:conspiracy. 417:Biographies 269:Start-class 176:free images 59:not a forum 53:Kevin Knuth 2616:Categories 585:Skepticism 576:skepticism 536:Skepticism 2550:synthesis 2532:WP:BLPSPS 2389:sources. 1265:WP:FRINGE 1177:WP:FRINGE 1164:Space.com 1109:WP:BLPSPS 1068:WP:FRINGE 1064:WP:FRINGE 1062:same per 1041:WP:FRINGE 1026:(WP:BLP). 995:WP:PARITY 945:WP:FRINGE 866:WP:BLPSPS 831:WP:PARITY 756:WP:PARITY 721:over the 702:WP:FRINGE 358:Biography 298:Biography 237:libellous 116:if needed 99:Be polite 49:talk page 2528:WP:SYNTH 2307:WP:SYNTH 2087:WP:PROMO 2079:WP:NOTCV 2025:WP:NOTCV 1925:WP:NOTCV 1860:WP:NOTCV 1323:reliable 1194:Agreed. 1122:Guardian 999:WP:FRIND 706:WP:FRIND 84:get help 57:This is 55:article. 28:deletion 2524:Entropy 2467:Slap me 2430:Slap me 2378:Slap me 2328:Slap me 2297:discuss 2281:Slap me 2234:Slap me 2210:Entropy 1811:Slap me 1774:Slap me 1635:Slap me 1608:Dumuzid 1595:Slap me 1489:Dumuzid 1471:Cosmoid 1449:Dumuzid 1434:Cosmoid 1419:Dumuzid 1407:Slap me 1369:Cosmoid 1354:Cosmoid 1335:improve 1283:discord 1233:Cosmoid 1206:Slap me 1147:at BLPN 1120:in the 1076:WP:COAT 963:Slap me 909:Slap me 802:Cosmoid 796:Period. 698:WP:PROF 678:Cosmoid 645:discuss 612:on the 564:science 498:on the 471:Physics 462:Physics 412:Physics 182:WP refs 170:scholar 2574:WP:NPA 2183:WP:BLP 2083:WP:NOT 1896:WP:SPS 1680:says: 1669:says: 1522:WP:AfD 1485:WP:OWN 1383:WP:DUE 1331:WP:AfD 1168:Since 1045:WP:BLP 1031:WP:BLP 922:WP:BLP 824:Isn't 725:line. 723:WP:GNG 275:scale. 154:Google 2548:It's 2459:Happy 2422:Happy 2370:Happy 2320:Happy 2293:לילך5 2273:Happy 2226:Happy 1984:York. 1803:Happy 1766:Happy 1627:Happy 1587:Happy 1569:tag. 1514:both. 1467:again 1463:first 1399:Happy 1198:Happy 1033:says 1023:says 955:Happy 901:Happy 859:says 834:UFOs. 773:out." 641:לילך5 197:JSTOR 158:books 112:Seek 2601:talk 2587:talk 2560:talk 2540:talk 2483:talk 2446:talk 2395:talk 2348:talk 2311:WP:V 2309:and 2250:talk 2215:MDPI 2191:talk 2171:talk 2155:here 2151:This 2146:MDPI 2124:talk 2109:talk 2095:talk 2069:talk 2059:and 2047:talk 2033:talk 2002:talk 1933:talk 1914:talk 1884:talk 1868:talk 1791:talk 1740:talk 1726:talk 1612:talk 1575:talk 1560:talk 1538:talk 1493:talk 1475:talk 1453:talk 1438:talk 1423:talk 1373:talk 1358:talk 1343:talk 1298:talk 1273:talk 1255:talk 1247:ergo 1237:talk 1222:talk 1185:talk 1155:talk 1130:talk 1099:talk 1084:talk 1072:only 1053:talk 1011:talk 997:and 935:talk 881:talk 870:must 847:talk 806:talk 764:talk 731:talk 719:just 682:talk 657:you. 574:and 347:and 190:FENS 164:news 101:and 34:was 2581:--- 2027:? 2012:SFR 1857:per 1829:5Q5 1693:5Q5 1339:jps 1269:jps 1080:jps 1007:jps 793:NOT 789:ALL 785:not 760:jps 727:jps 710:not 604:Low 490:Low 226:BLP 204:TWL 2618:: 2603:) 2589:) 2562:) 2542:) 2485:) 2448:) 2397:) 2350:) 2295:) 2252:) 2193:) 2173:) 2126:) 2111:) 2097:) 2071:) 2049:) 2035:) 2004:) 1935:) 1916:) 1886:) 1870:) 1793:) 1742:) 1728:) 1614:) 1577:) 1562:) 1540:) 1495:) 1477:) 1455:) 1440:) 1425:) 1375:) 1360:) 1345:) 1300:) 1275:) 1257:) 1239:) 1224:) 1187:) 1179:. 1157:) 1132:) 1101:) 1086:) 1078:. 1055:) 1013:) 937:) 883:) 849:) 808:) 766:) 733:) 684:) 643:) 635:I 570:, 566:, 415:: 301:: 184:) 82:; 2599:( 2585:( 2558:( 2538:( 2481:( 2470:) 2464:( 2444:( 2433:) 2427:( 2393:( 2381:) 2375:( 2346:( 2331:) 2325:( 2313:. 2284:) 2278:( 2248:( 2237:) 2231:( 2217:. 2189:( 2169:( 2122:( 2107:( 2093:( 2067:( 2045:( 2031:( 2000:( 1931:( 1912:( 1882:( 1866:( 1833:| 1814:) 1808:( 1789:( 1777:) 1771:( 1738:( 1724:( 1718:: 1714:@ 1697:| 1638:) 1632:( 1610:( 1598:) 1592:( 1573:( 1558:( 1536:( 1491:( 1473:( 1451:( 1436:( 1421:( 1410:) 1404:( 1371:( 1356:( 1341:( 1296:( 1271:( 1253:( 1235:( 1220:( 1209:) 1203:( 1183:( 1153:( 1128:( 1097:( 1082:( 1051:( 1009:( 991:: 987:@ 966:) 960:( 933:( 912:) 906:( 879:( 845:( 804:( 762:( 729:( 680:( 616:. 515:. 502:. 391:. 355:. 281:: 249:. 224:( 200:· 194:· 186:· 179:· 173:· 167:· 161:· 156:( 86:. 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index