let me clarify my position while it may be a debatable point whether an amazon review or a blog thread is a reliable source to use at wikipedia i personally think it is given a supporting piece of evidence e g calling the person herself or the owner of the blog personally you are completely wrong if you think she is actually not a dissident or that the review and blog postings attributed to her are not hers um tara can you double check with pz that that post was actually from her look at the wording syntax thats not how scientists write that looks like lincoln with gel in his hair pz's not raised any red flags and the second quote was from the live chat the visit was to promote this new venture of hers unfortunately i have no doubt it's her posted by tara c smith march pm yeah i'll confirm it that was lynn margulis on the site and in the chatroom posted by pz myers march pm that sigh was because i thought highly of margulis she has done some excellent work and is always a source for original ideas unfortunately the hiv denialist comments were all ignorant crap that only a deluded fool would find convincing so that was a sigh of disappointment posted by pz myers march am furthermore i know form personal communication with harvey bialy that lynn margulis did communicate to him personally her positive review of the book so while the question of what's a reliable source may be some issue i just want you to know if happen to have any doubts that you are completely factually wrong if you claim a her statements and viewpoints attributed to her are not hers and b she is not a dissident unless you really believe that a mainstream biology professor is without any motivation committing some kind of hoax or is himself being impersonated by someone that's what i was referring to when i said you were beyond hopeless