Talk:Randall Munroe

Quaker

Is the only reference for Quaker heritage the one what-if comic? If so, it may not be reliable as he could be joking or exaggerating or pulling a Citogenesis (http://xkcd.com/978/) on us. Xargque (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good point - while it didn't really seem obviously in jest, it's true that such a reference isn't really a sufficiently reliable source. Does anyone know of any other reference to this? In a talk somewhere, perhaps? --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A quick google of "Randall Munroe quaker" doesn't turn up anything interesting, although by sheer coincidence, Rob of xkcdsucks also claims to be a Quaker. Not useful here, but some fun trivia, at least. --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also on his "About me" page. It's obviously not a joke. Where's the "funny?" If anyone else said they were a quaker, you wouldn't dispute it, why Randall? The fact he was raised in a quaker family isn't in google because that is not interesting enough for anyone to talk about it. Under what scenario do you imagine someone bringing that up in a blog post? I'm removing the "factual accuracy disputed" tag. Verdana♥Bøld 16:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

I just wanted to note that I removed that sentence since it was a primary source that appears to be irreplaceable and, as far as I can tell, the blog post doesn't even say that anymore. Someone feel free to correct me on the latter point if I just missed it, even though the former still stands. Cat-fivetc ---- 03:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is still there; presumably you couldn't find it because it's in the form of a footnote. I agree with Verdana Bold in that we have no reason to doubt the statement's accuracy, and have re-added it. Zacwill16 (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Radiation

The following unsourced sentences were added recently to the section about the radiation chart by an anonymous IP editor:

However, the chart is designed to be visually misleading by representing radiation doses for significantly differing periods of time for the circumstances depicted and at differing distances from the radiation source. E,g. Whilst many of the examples given represent one year's accumulation of radiation those representing the Fukishma and Chernobyl events are for periods of two weeks and one hour respectively, creating a false impression foR anyone not reading and understanding the significance if the small print.

They have since been adjusted and citation tags added. I have looked for evidence to support the claim that the chart has been criticised on these grounds, and have not found any. I am sure the chart can, and possibly has, been criticised, but I feel that the circumstances of its creation, the value that it does have, and the avowedly non-expert nature of its creator are adequately covered in the preceding paragraph, so I have removed these sentences. If there is encyclopedically significant criticism that should be acknowledged here perhaps someone can add it with appropriate citations. mooncow 14:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it's probably a moot point by now, but if Randall is comparing doses of an hour, two weeks, and a year; then I think this is extremely important and should be noted. Verdana♥Bøld 14:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Proposed merge with 4942 Munroe

This asteroid's only real notability is that is is named after Randall Munroe, and so it probab;y belongs as a part of that article rather than its own astronomical page. All the sidebar data [easily available at one link] felixphew (talk | contribs) 08:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that information on an astronomical object is best presented on the biography of the person it's named after, even if the person it's named after is it's primary 'claim to fame'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn, the 4942 article should remain a stub. A mention should be made in Randall's article, however, I feel an astronomical object should not be solely represented in the biography of its namer. 129.130.18.10 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting question, but I disagree with "an astronomical object should not be solely represented in the biography of its namer."

If that's the only reason the asteroid is "famous", then yes, I think it should just be in Randall's page. And it only need be a single sentence, "An asteroid, 4942 MUNROE" Was named after him in 2003 [or whenever it was]." Verdana♥Bøld 11:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Infobox "area"

Hmm, very curious as to why there's a "Pen and pencil" in the infobox for Monroe's area of interest/expertise. SPD ☎ ✎ 17:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)