Talk:Colin Pillinger

Comment

This entry needs work. Unnamed self-interested trolls (see comment above) have been at work. the present version is unfair and undetailed. --WPWiles 03:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know what year he was on Test The Nation, he was the with rocket scientists if that helps.Davie4264 19:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

eg "In one case, he derided NASA's Mars Exploration Rover project, and touted his own project. " - [This article http://www.planetary.org/news/2004/0104_Mars_Exploration_Rovers_Update_Spirit.html] and [this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3421981.stm] both imply he was supportive of the other efforts. Scottkeir 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Negative

Pillinger strikes me as a "good man" who put a lot of effort into Beagle 2 only to have it smash to bits on a distant planet. The tone of the article seems to suggest that was due to his incompetence in some way which is an appalling slur on a man who has worked so hard to further human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.46.173 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Positive

As an Englishman I was looking forward to seeing the Beagle 2 succeed.. but it has to be said that Pillinger played a huge role in it's downfall. The reason broadcast to us on BBC news was that Pillinger hadn't realised that NASA still work in imperial feet and inches and the rest of the world uses metric. He's a farmer who should not have been given such an important task. 80.195.180.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It was Nasa's Mars Climate Orbiter that was lost due to a 'metric mixup'. Maybe you ought to get your facts straight, before spitting such totally unnecessary bile. CrackDragon (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read CrackDragon, the comment above said that was what was broadcast on British TV. It was, I can second that. You can probably still find the broadcast. I don't think it was a deliberate lie/slur. The prevailing opinion of Colin Pillinger is similar to the views expressed above. There was a huge feeling of mistakes made by a farmer who joined the space field.77.96.95.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You're defending a person attacking another based on an incorrect report?! And even though it was wrong, it somehow now has validity because you saw it also? Great logic. In actuality, I think there is a very high probability that you're the same person who posted the first unnecessarily vitriolic comment. CrackDragon (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Go fk some sheep welshie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.64.8.139 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If your intention here is to make yourself look like a small-minded, ignorant, vindictive moron, you're doing an excellent job! CrackDragon (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

'Swansea University'

When Pillinger took his degrees, the institution was known as 'University College of Swansea'. Should his academic details be amended, or is this kind of retrospective renaming acceptable? Tsuguya (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to put the old name for the university and also mention what it is called now; article amended. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism

I have just removed the section that says: <quote> but an ESA inquiry concluded that the failure was most likely due to Pillinger: "... there were programmatic and organisational reasons that led to a significantly higher risk of Beagle 2 failure, than otherwise might have been the case."[citation needed] However, despite claims that the failure of Beagle 2 was a consequence of his poor management, Pillinger continued to defend Beagle 2. </quote>

Without a citation the first part is surely a violation of WP:BLP. It may come from an ESA enquiry (the fact that a quotation is included makes that seem very possible) but that needs to be linked.

The second part is also un-sourced and, IMO, does not really make any sense when the previous text is removed.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)