I don't follow.

What I posted above is simply a layman's summary of all the same things cited in your link.

You didn't see this line?

> Like that of Earth, the Venusian core is at least partially liquid because the two planets have been cooling at about the same rate.

Oh no, I'm very much aware of that reasoning.

I offered a guess as to how/why someone might think the core is solid, not an argument for that conclusion. I included an easily digestible article which touches on all the same theory as the Wikipedia entry which was posted in "response" to it.

Not all Internet communication has to be quippy argument.

Also, the context of that citation:

"By analogy with Earth, the core of Venus is at least partly liquid because the surface-to-volume ratios of the two planets in Figure 10.5 are virtually identical, which implies that they have been cooling at about the rate. If the core of Venus is at least partly liquid, then Venus should have a magnetic field similar in strength to the magnetic field of Earth as discussed in Section 6.4.5 and in Science Briefs 6.7.3,4,5,6 and 7. However, the Mariner 2 spacecraft determined during a flyby on December 14 of 1962 that Venus does not have a planetary magnetic field."

The book goes on to cover various theories about the absence of a magnetic field identifying a solid core as "not credible", slow rotation of Venus failing to activate convection currents as "possible", lack of a solid inner core due due to pressure (questionable) and temporary decay of the field (questionable).

Ah, I lost track of the thread and thought you were the initial poster who asserted that Venus was solid as if it was an established fact.

My apologies.