User talk:Keithpickering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Interesting

It will be interesting to see your proof that Kowal and Myles Standish have not awarded medals to themselves. 74.33.27.248 seems to be K. Pickering. The Rawlins article refers favourably to "K.Pickering". The ban on autobiographies in Wikipedia has been broken by the Rawlins biography. I have noted this in an e-mail to Wikipedia. The biography seems to have been written largely by Rawlins, Kowal and Pickering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.11.103 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 74.33.98.63 seems to be Pickering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.11.103 (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What's really interesting is anonymous posters not having the guts to put their names behind their opinions. --Keithpickering (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I am most impressed by your proof that my facts are untrue. DD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) GTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Keith Pickering and Dennis Rawlins have made numerous anonymous edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Adams POV bias in the 'Discovery of Neptune' article (May 2008)

Dear Keithpickering: With recent edits (May 2008) (some of which I believe you added), substantial parts of the article now appear to have a clear anti-Adams POV bias. This may be inadvertent. So far as Adams' own actions are concerned, he did original research, and then published it, simultaneously making full acknowledgement of credit and priority to the other researchers (LeVerrier, Galle) whose results had been published first (see main 'Discovery of Neptune' article reference to Adams' November 1846 paper, with link to online image-text). It is hard to see how those actions of Adams were blameworthy in any way. The anti-Adams invective seems quite inappropriate. There is a sarcastic question and discussion on the talk page headed 'what date was Adams going to discover Neptune on?' and this both shows anti-Adams POV bias, and is answered (along with some of the other anti-Adams material) by the content of the website of the Observatoire de Paris.

See for example the content of a biography page for LeVerrier at the Paris Observatory ( http://www.obspm.fr/histoire/acteurs/leverrier.fr.shtml ). The authors/editors of the biography page (S. Débarbat, S. Grillot, J. Lévy), all professional staff at the Paris observatory, write, in a footnote:- "Un jeune mathématicien britannique, J.C. Adams (1819-1892) avait fait un calcul analogue, moins précis mais qui aurait suffi à faire découvrir la planète si les astronomes de Cambridge avaient été plus diligents dans l'analyse de leurs observations." ("A young British mathematician, J C Adams (1819-1892) had made an analogous calculation, it was less precise, but it would have been sufficient for the discovery of the planet if the Cambridge astronomers had been more diligent in the analysis of their observations.")

In other words, this French-language article acknowledges that the theory and observations were both sufficiently present in Cambridge to have made the discovery, but the astronomers at Cambridge were slow in analysing their observations. (Part of the story of that slowness is given in the 1946 French-language article by A Danjon, referenced, with a link to the online text, on the main page.)

The actions of Airy and Challis are another matter, but an anti-Adams POV bias seems to be unjustified and unhistorical. (terry0051, not signed-in, there is some glitch that I haven't been able to sort out up to this moment.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.25.215 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Adams published his computations?? This is certainly news to me, and to the entire history of science community. Please provide a reference to Adams' pre-discovery publication. Until then, the article is factually correct as written: Adams' computations were (a) unpublished; (b) unstable, i.e., all over the sky; and (c) less accurate than LeVerrier's -- who, in fact, did publish his predictions in full. Indeed, were it not for LeVerrier's public confirmation of Adams' private computations, no English astronomer would have attempted to find the planet at all. In other words, even if Airy had succeeded, LeVerrier would still deserve the lion's share of credit. The fact that Airy didn't succeed can be lain mostly at the feet of Adams -- whose 1846 predictions were increasingly far from where the planet, and Adams' own 1845 predictions, were. --Keithpickering (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me also state that Adams' work deserves respect, and I believe the article as written gives him his due. But such respect does not, and should not, extend to credit, or even partial credit, for discovery of the planet itself, in which Adams played no role. --Keithpickering (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, while I agree that the talk page comment was sarcastic, such attitudes are not wholly inappropriate for talk pages dealing with controversial subjects. The point is to keep such attitudes out of the article itself. The main reason for having a talk page is to hash out such disputes in frank discussion. Can you point to a statement in the article itself to which you take issue? --Keithpickering (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)