Talk:Matthias Kuhle

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

Sources[edit]

I searched for secondary literature dealing with the Tibetan glaciation theory. I found many textbooks, which described this theory as well (i. e. J. Ehlers 2011: Das Eiszeitalter, cf. http://www.springer.com/popular/book/978-3-8274-2326-9.; Anderson, Goudie, Parker (2013): Global Environments Through the Quaternary: Exploring Evironmental Change, page 86-87, cf. https://books.google.de/books?id=lFP1CdFDkIMC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Global+Environments+through+the+Quaternary+kuhle&source=bl&ots=Qrz9AuLgzQ&sig=_22DYGYmK1VJ1UqxvBDCZdnLGd8&hl=de&sa=X&ei=_fCzVP7vBYnyPPLxgNAJ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Global%20Environments%20through%20the%20Quaternary%20kuhle&f=false) and Nesje, A. & Dahl, S. O., 2000. Glaciers and Environmental Change. Arnold, pp. 1-203). Furthermore I found several articles which described the lack of calibrated numerical dating samples in High Mountain Areas (also Tibet) (i. e. Chevalier et al. (2011): Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces, cf. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110004014; Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, page 369 cf. http://palaeoworks.anu.edu.au/pubs/INQUA2007abstracts.pdf). Consequently the last sentence of this author page should be corrected into: These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are uncalibrated numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique[1][2][3][4][5]. --— Tigona talk \\ 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, Quaternary International 167–168, page 369.
  2. ^ Kuhle, M., Kuhle, S. (2010): Review on Dating methods: Numerical Dating in the Quaternary of High Asia. In: Journal of Mountain Science (2010) 7: 105-122.
  3. ^ Chevalier, Marie-Luce; et al. (2011). "Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces". Quaternary Science Reviews. 30: 528–554. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.11.005.  line feed character in |title= at position 81 (help)
  4. ^ Seidler, C., (2011). http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/riesige-sonneneruption-kosmischer-streifschuss-fuer-mutter-erde-a-767415.html
  5. ^ Seidler, C., (2014). http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/swarm-esa-satelliten-messen-magnetfeld-der-erde-a-976116.html

Tags[edit]

I've added a number of tags to the page. For context/explanation, please see the issues raised at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Matthias Kuhle's Tibet glaciation hypothesis. The thread is yet to attract sufficient attention (at least as it stands as I write this), so tagging seems sensible until which point additional voices -- hopefully including uninvolved experts -- join the discussion. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes of Tags[edit]

There are no actual discussions [2] about this topic. The last input was posted more than one month ago - we should promote the discussions. During my readings of the discussion-board it seems like the user Florian Blaschke is affected by a conflict of interest (WP:COI), because I could not find any arguments (response) against the last post of the user Tigona (see above), which are taken several references into account. Consequently we should delete the pointed tags, otherwise the intervention of the user Florian Blaschke vandalizes the Wikipedia contribution continuously. Sagmon (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over their removal. Let's wait for the parties who have been discussing it in the past to comment. It's not remove and then discuss, it's discuss and then remove. BTW: Were you editing under an IP or different username before? It's unusual for new users to be familiar with things like maintenance templates. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How exactly should I have a conflict of interest? I'm not a glaciologist or geologist, and I have no connection with Matthias Kuhle. In contrast, those who keep pushing his POV could well be associated with him (students, for example), or identical with him, which makes them those with a COI. What a silly tactic to deflect criticism by saying "no, I'm not a vandal (etc.), the guy who reported me is a vandal (even though he is an established Wikipedian and vandal-hunter)!" It's like a group of white guys in KKK hoods beating up a black man and, when overwhelmed by the police after they were alerted by a passer-by, whining "We're not the racists, the passer-by is the racist!" Yeah, idiots keep trying the tactic for real, but that doesn't stop it from being incredibly idiotic and childish. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I could not found any new discussions after my last post, we should promote it. Are there any Wikipedia-restrictions dealing with the duration of tag blocking on personal pages? Sagmon (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That you're using terms like "promote" and "personal pages" indicates suggests some serious misunderstandings of Wikipedia. But no, there are not. Typically it's until they're resolved/discussed to some extent such that there is consensus to remove them or make changes. It's not something I typically support, but there are tags on articles dating back several years. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Matthias Kuhle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The sentence "Kuhle's idea of an ice sheet covering practically the entire Tibetan Plateau has been frequently opposed and are by many glacial geologists considered to be an outrageous hypothesis (cf. Derbyshire et al. 1991; Rutter 1995; Zheng and Rutter 1998; Owen et al. 2005; Lehmkuhl and Owen 2005)." contains a polemic that is inclined towards doubting the very respectability as a scientist and, thereby, damaging the reputation, and this with demonstrably false and demonstrably unfounded accusations. For this readon I delete it.

Last edited at 08:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)