Talk:Andrew Prentice

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Andrew Prentice is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Predictions a posteriori

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a small paraghraph about the so-called predictions of Prentice.

Refer also to J.Monaghan, 1995, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995EM&P...71...73M - luxorion

Any such material needs to be carefully written in view of WP:BLP. The second of the added paragraphs is particularly problematic. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You listed a selected choices of predictions but have ignored ALL failed predictions... Is it a so that works the ""objectivity" of wikipedia ?.... I doubt.

It is a pity that the comments of a scientist, even duly referenced, are refused by "Wikipedia" but that those of amateurs are validated. Where is the so-called "objectivity" ? - luxorion

A page that knows where it met you.

Predictions a posteriori