Talk:Claude Allègre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

National Post article[edit]

The Canadian National Post had this article, part of a series on Global Warming "deniers", maybe someone can utilize it in this article.

Done--Zeeboid 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

- Crockspot 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RC post[edit] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That blog article is perhaps of most use as a pointer to the articles in Le Monde and Liberation which dissect this chap's work in mainstream French sources. This is a bit like having both the Telegraph and the Guardian publishing debunking pieces on the same subject. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

asbestos claim "is deemed to have killed"[edit]

The article says "The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people." and this is referenced to an article in French. Can somebody who reads French better than I check up on this? I see two potential problems with it. (1) "Is deemed". Deemed by 'whom'? Is deemed the right word in this context, or is "claimed" or "alleged" better? If this deeming was a scientific determination, who made that determination? Can we figure that out and include it in the sentence? (2) when was this deemed to have happened? Since the reference on "killed 22 people" is from 2007 which is 11 years after the reference to his objection it seems conceivable that it was the asbestos removal effort that killed 22 people, in which case it's evidence that he might have been right to oppose that asbestos removal effort. In short, let's include *who* made the determination, *when* they made it, and whether it was the presence of asbestos or the removal of it that is said to have caused damage. --Blogjack (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


This article is biased to highlight his controversies over his highly recognised scientific work. In addition the controversies should be expained in more detail to ensure a more comprehensive view of them and avoid picking things out of context. Dentren | Talk 11:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see no dispute here. Allègre’s work has received some recognition (deserved or not) and the article mentions it; controversies are mentioned in context. Besides, Allègre’s views are notoriously controversial; the fact that many statements of his have been challenged by (other) scientists is also to be mentioned. There is no bias in doing so. If you care to add significant reviews in praise of his scientific work that you happen to know of or if you wish to explain those controversies in a more extensive way, that may address your concern. But there is no neutrality dispute here. I will remove the tag with your kind permission. Cheers, -- (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The article does not mention his work properly (sourced) and in lenght comparable to his controversies and political adventures. Lets remeber that outside France Allégre is mainly known for his career as geochemist. -Dentren | Talk 22:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. That can be perfectly true but then again I can see no neutrality dispute in it. Adding mentions of his significant papers/books in geochemistry (awards in science are already mentioned) (I see you had added three /Fact/tags (and it can be enough to show that this is lacking)) and removing the tag seem like the good thing to do. Do you agree ?-- (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC) (PS: I added some sources. I let you remove the tag if you agree).
The article has improved considerably, but considering that the article gives an unbalanced account of Allegres activities I think the NNPOV tag should stay. Removing the NNPOV tag will not make the article neutral. Dentren | Talk 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I can only repeat that I disagree. I already proposed a solution, which I started to implement by the way. Anyway, and only because of your concern (a concern that I do not share, allow me to repeat myself) I tag the p. with a more appropriate template (although I think this new tag (/UNDUE/) is (also) quite unnecessary). Hope editors to this page will find this discussion and process useful and that you or other editors will add the sources/material you wish for, so that they balance the weight of the controversies section according to what you expressed. As for me, my contributions to this page end here.-- (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Gravity" dispute fails WP:WEIGHT?[edit]

This section appears far too detailed for the importance of the "dispute". Also, the second para, while true, appears to be overkill, and is uncited.

I'm moving the para here for now. I think it should be edited down to a line or two, or just dropped as non-notable. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. Allègre responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; Allègre maintained his statement yet again.[1][2]

(Each falling ball experiences acceleration due to two main competing forces: gravity and air resistance. The acceleration due to gravity will be the same for both balls, regardless of mass [because F = ma = mg, so a = g], but the acceleration due to air resistance will be different because the balls have different sizes and surface textures. As a result, the balls' total accelerations will be different, as will their final speeds. If the balls fall in a vacuum, then there is no air resistance and their final speeds will be the same.)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Claude_All.C3.A8gre_2009.2C_p.48 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Initial articles in Le Canard enchaîné, February 24, March 3, 10 and 17 1999

BLP noticeboard[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claude Allègre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)