Talk:Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

The recent editor "Tweenk" has not only added significantly to this page, but removed the "neutrality is under dispute" message, although I can see no sign whatsoever that the dispute has been resolved.

I have no data (that I can reference) to resolve the dispute either way. My personal suspicions are that the page is entirely accurate. But the dispute should be acknowledged and either debated, or the inability of supporters to defend Mr. van Leeuwen be visible.

If the page had been "unmolested" for years, I could point to that when using it. But a Wikipedia page involving hotly-disputed estimations that itself has not had the dispute resolved, can't be used in an argument.

Can we get some van Leeuwen /Caldicott supporters out to state their views and either reference them or admit that Mr. "Tweenk" can't be debated?

Rbrander (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I have re-inserted the standard "this section is under dispute" Wikipedia notice just above the paragraph that refers to the study as "widely discredited". Actually, though I am persuaded by the 'discrediters', I'm not sure how "widely" the critics range. I have found the major discussion at nuclearinfo.net that cites the very different numbers from the Vattenfall utility in Sweden for their own power plant, but I'm not clear on what material - say, in peer-reviewed environmental journals - is available.[reply]

Rbrander (talk) I hope that all of this material can be collected on the Wikipedia and a conclusion with a neutral POV reached. Rbrander (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was edited and the "under dispute" marker removed again; as it reads now, I can't come up with an objection. At least one number showing a 69:1 exaggeration in the subject's famous analysis has been offered, I think I'll leave it up to Storm van Leeuwen supporters to make any other objections. Rbrander (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are so far no arguments for the weasel (April 2010) tag. Therefore, the article cannot be improved. Please state your inquiry, User:Headbomb, or the tag will be removed over time. AlexH555 (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually thinking the best way to show some anti-nuclear POV is to write Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen opinion of himself/his studies. Talk about the smarts things he come up with as related as possible with the study (obviously, it may not rebutte the current arguments but may show some more. The article gotta at least give something to the anti-nuclear side. AlexH555 (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Keep The article has plenty of references to show that Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen is notable under General Notability:

 "Significant coverage," - A Google search for "Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen" yields over 16,200 search results.
 "Reliable," Many of those 16,200 search results are reliable sources.
 "Sources," The sources are secondary
 and "Independent of the subject" are independent of the subject.  Furthermore, the Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith paper "Nuclear power – the energy balance" is widely quoted.[[1]]   kgrr ^talk 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]