Talk:Irving Segal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Edits about Chronometric Theory

I do not think there is a valid point in trying to whitewash all reference to Segal's work in Chronometric theory. The facts are that he spent 25 years on this. He lectured around the globe on it, including at the National Academy of Sciences. There are thousands of references to Chronometic Cosmology online. We do not have to agree with the theory. We have pared Segal's bio down to bare minimum per the suggestions of editors. But this article is simply a bio about Segal, and to omit this huge part of his work would actually be decidedly biased. Skotting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skotting (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to look at workshopping a consensus version that is properly cited to his Chromoetic Cosmology, but using him as a primary source is unacceptable per WP:PSTS. Please find some third-party sources that discuss his idea and its impact for inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the reference to Chronometric Cosmology remain but without additional discussion of Chronometric Cosmology on the Segal bio page. The statement that Segal developed Chronometric Cosmology is well supported. As for your requirement of "notable" work, we would need to understand your definition. Secondly, discussion of Chronometric Cosmology would require a properly cited page under the heading of Chronometric Cosmology, but that is not the bio. That is the place for the consensus version that you suggest.

We are not using Segal as a primary source because in the last version there is no discussion of the nature of the theory, only that he worked on it, and therefore that it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skotting (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)