Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 5: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 39:
:TS, I walked through the history of these articles from start to finish and overall it is embarrassing to see how the biographies of these mainstream scientist have been highjacked by both side of the GW debate. I selected a few examples of the problems that I saw. There are too many to list. People who are here to promote a position about either side of this issue need not be editing in this topic because they are filling the article with poorly written disjointed material instead of making any attempt to create a comprehensive well balanced article on the person. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥♥]] 00:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:You're not reading what FloNight is saying. It's not the sourcing, it's that the articles are coatracks, with lots of emphasis placed on negative reactions to their views on climate change. Some of the editors clearly have an agenda, with WMC being at the top of the list. (His insertions of links to Exxon secrets and his removal of ISI highly cited notations on skeptics has been documented elsewhere in the arbitration, and Flo is showing sustained and systematic efforts by two editors to marginalize skeptics. '''[[User:Horologium|<
:: And I've previously highlighted the same pattern elsewhere. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
:: I asked H for any recent diffs on this, and he had nothing (see his talk). So this looks like old muckraking to me [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 49:
::::Is it safe to say that everyone agrees with FloNight on this? I certainly do, and it's a problem I deal with on a daily basis with no end in sight. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree that there is a problem. I think Boris pointed out somewhere above that one of the problems with even mildly contrarian BLPs is that they are often used as coatracks to introduce not information on the person, but to prominently present their non-mainstream views. Morevover, many of the contrarians are only prominent due to the man-bites-dog effect, and there often is very little other material about the person to round out the biographies. Peacocking and coatracking tend to provoke counter reactions - and not always perfect ones. Some systemic ideas to handle this problem would be very welcome. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 00:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::I too agree that it is a problem. I remember SlimVirgin rewriting [[Fred Singer]] a few months ago, turning it from a climate change coatrack into an actual biography. She had to fight hard to have her changes stand, against editors with vested CC interests, and a lesser editor would have failed. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
Risker, you should know that I do not adhere to the notability standards, I'm a [[wikipedia:verifiability|verifiability]] kinda guy. On prominence, I would not write about most of these people but I understand well that there might have been pressure to write ''something'' about these characters. It's the same reason we have articles about modern biologists who have no distinguished work behind them but happen to be opposed to evolution.
Line 57:
Looking at Balling, it looks as if he was mentioned in Wikipedia because a right wing political organization known as the Cato Institute employed him to give a contrarian briefing in December, 2003. I don't think there would be an article about him if he hadn't been mentioned in that context. The Cato Institute isn't a scientific institution, you know. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 00:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:Cato is not right-wing, it's Libertarian, but that's beside the point. What is interesting is that three of the four bios cited by FloNight were created by WMC; the only one that he didn't create is the one which is unquestionably notable (Seitz). '''[[User:Horologium|<
:: You're seriously arguing that John Christy and Roy Spencer are NN? That is ridiculous [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 66:
:::Well, Tony, you know exactly how to PROD an article, or to AfD it. Nobody needs Arbcom permission to do it, just an agreement that if a scientist isn't notable for xyr scientific work, then they shouldn't have an article. You can make the argument even better than I can. In fact, so can 80% of the editors on this page. But keeping these coatracks - and yes, that's what they are - is contrary to the purposes of the project. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 01:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I think a good example of some of what is being discussed here is the [[Fred Singer]] article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Singer&oldid=363482434 This] is what it looked like before SlimVirgin got involved with it. Now, go look at it the much improved version. SlimVirgin changed the article to be about the person, not a few of his views that some of the editors here apparently felt were controversial and worthy of being labeled as such. Now, look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fred_Singer/Archive_4#Dean_of... here] to see that a number of editors tried to get in the way of her improving the article. Are there any familiar account names? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::What I ended up having to do at the Singer article was work on it on a user subpage, then present it as a whole to the other editors before inserting it. That way, it became difficult for William Connolley and the others to object to it as a whole package. But it was very clear that their aim at that article was to produce an attack page, not a biography. Are diffs needed?[[User:SlimVirgin|<
::::(EC) @Risker: A good thought, but not possible in practice. Contrarian editors will fight tooth-and-nail to keep the articles (e.g.,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29]), and as you are aware if there is the slightest doubt as to deletion, the default is to keep the article. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 01:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::I suspect that were the three bios above to be submitted to AFD, the results would differ from your prediction. Remember, [[Anthony Watts]] was not created by a member of the mainstream science club. I know that *I* would vote to delete them, as right now they are coatracks, and I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to fix them, and it's equally obvious that the creator and some of the more frequent editors from the mainstream science club will filibuster any effort to fix them, as happened on the Singer article. '''[[User:Horologium|<
:::::This is '''not''' an one sided issue!! People with widely differing pov are creating these articles and adding content that adds bias. The articles that I named were not just created and maintained by editors with one point of view. The reason that I'm raising the concerns is because long time editors seem complicit in maintaining the status quo of these poorly written articles. We need to work to make them better, stub them to a list of basic bio facts, or redirect them to the most appropriate article until someone can rewrite them. But maintaining the articles in their current state is not an acceptable alternative. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥♥]] 01:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. How do we implement this? Could we have arbcom agree to some kind of [[Wikipedia:Office actions|office-like action]]? I realize that such a proposal is extremely controversial, but that's what needs to happen. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 114:
:::::::::::::::::::::<blockquote>A six-month investigation into the leaked e-mails that formed the "climategate" scandal has largely exonerated key scientists...In his report, British civil servant Sir Muir Russell found that the climategate e-mails don't undermine the basic science behind man-made global warming. Nevertheless, the impact of the leaked e-mails has been to push scientists toward the realization that talking about punching climate skeptics and being coy about releasing data hardly build public trust in their work...Failure to release requested data was ultimately not an issue, Russell found, because qualified researchers could easily find global warming data in other places. And while several e-mails revealed at least an intent to subvert the peer review process in order to exclude skeptical research, the report found that CRU scientists did not ultimately undermine the IPCC's peer review process..."We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report said..."We accept the report's conclusion that we could and should have been more proactively open, not least because – as this exhaustive report makes abundantly clear – we have nothing to hide," UAE's vice chancellor, Edward Acton..."[http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged]
:::::::::::::::::::::Let's see, that's ''Newsweek'', ''Time'' magazine, ''The New York Times'', ''USA Today'', and now the ''Christian Science Monitor'' — vs. TGL and AQFK. Who is reliable here? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 10:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::The [http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf Muir Russell report], released this July, stated in its findings, p. 93, "The Review found an ethos of minimal compliance (and at times non-compliance) by the CRU with both the letter and the spirit of the FoIA and EIR." The executive summary, p. 14, stated "On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance." Beyond that, I agree with your principle that we should follow secondary sources, and I agree that the scientific work was largely given a clean bill of health. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
{{od}}I'm so glad FloNight brought this issue here. We've all danced around it throughout the case, but I think the BLP issue is the biggest problem in this topic area for all the reasons everyone has stated above. I almost with there could be a mandate against editing the BLP of someone whose views an editor disagrees with. I know that's not realisitic, but it sure would help the situation. Regarding Rd232, I had presented a proposal about that editor, but it was limited to articles I had edited - so I was at a loss to address some of Roger Davies' comments about a larger pattern. Some of the diffs here do support the principle I was trying to illustrate though. Thanks FloNight for your entry into this madness as things seem to be winding down. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 02:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:I'm amused at how poor FloNight's evidence is in relation to me. Duplicated diffs don't help, but the characterisation of some of the talk page comments and edits... Anyway, what it comes down to at Seitz was that FellGleaming deleted key information on Seitz's key role in a key political action on climate change.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&action=historysubmit&diff=381777766&oldid=381763641] so I expanded that to fully clarify the issue. The initial paragraph was then quite big, and I reduced it myself, and some others' reductions are OK in terms of balancing clarity and brevity. Bottom line: if we're trying to whack me with a bias stick, let's whack the NYT as well. Their obituary [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E1D71138F935A35750C0A96E9C8B63] is 952 words long., and climate change takes up 199 words (21%), RJ Reynolds 164 (17%). On 15 Sep ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&oldid=384975801] last time I edited the article), the body text (excluding lead, and not including Positions or anything below) was 810 words. Reynolds is 54 words (7%), climate change 246 (30%). So NYT has 38% on these two issues, and our article had 37%. Is this really what [[WP:COATRACK]]ing looks like? I must be doing it wrong. (And for comparison, after FellGleaming's recent trimming [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&oldid=385859254], climate change is 29%. Are we really saying that 1% more or less in a 1000-word article is a measure of bias?) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 123:
::::At least until you succeed in getting wikipedia to declare Fox News not a news organization - how's that been working out for you? [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 10:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Do you find it a bit odd that after covering the "greatest scientific scandal of our time" day and night for six months, that after the scientists were cleared by five investigations, you could hear crickets chirping in the newsroom at Fox? I suppose it is "fair and balanced" to hurl unsupported allegations at scientists for month after month, but not to inform their audience of the results clearing the scientists of any wrongdoing? That's an interesting interpretation of fairness and balance, don't you think? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 11:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Would the two of you please pull in your claws and take the partisan sniping elsewhere? '''[[User:Horologium|<
*FloNight points to a genuine problem area, of BLPs being used to promote a viewpoint rather than description of the life of the person. In some ways that's a reflection of the political/economic controversy, as those with fringe or small minority views are promoted by those denying the need for action, gaining disproportionate attention in the media, and mainstream figures are subjected to smear campaigns intended to discredit the science. Her statement "I found these examples of poorly written articles about mainstream scientists by randomly selecting articles in the Environmental skepticism category." is self-contradictory, these are scientists promoting minority views rather than the mainstream. A wider examination would show possibly greater problems with articles on the mainstream. Taking some cases I'm aware of;<br>[[Michael E. Mann]] has been the subject of pov pushing, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=379622269&oldid=379621413 misrepresentation of an offtopic source], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=379441368&oldid=379437600 misrepresentation of a source] in a section giving undue weight to an ephemeral political stunt attacking Mann, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=376755884&oldid=375977358 battlefield behaviour] in tagging, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=376826978&oldid=376826334 presentation of fringe critics] as though they should be given "equal validity". The latter problem persists, as does undue weight to the Climatic Research Unit emails reinforced by the iconic image of a building which Mann may never have visited.<br>[[Rajendra K. Pachauri]] has been the subject of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajendra_K._Pachauri&diff=334801630&oldid=333336448 newspaper smear campaigns], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajendra_K._Pachauri&diff=382479756&oldid=382477597 attempts to coatrack issues], and even after the allegations were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajendra_K._Pachauri&diff=381299255&oldid=381166102 shown to be false], there has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajendra_K._Pachauri&diff=382494543&oldid=382493957 removal of well sourced content defending Pachauri] and persistent reorganising the "criticism" section to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajendra_K._Pachauri&diff=next&oldid=382077665 show the allegations] before noting that they've been withdrawn, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajendra_K._Pachauri&diff=prev&oldid=385788866#State_of_Texas_lawsuit_says_IPCC_findings_are_thoroughly_discredited persistent calls for coatracks].<br>[[Phil Jones (climatologist)]] has also been a continued problem article, even now there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phil_Jones_(climatologist)#New_bbc_interview persistent discussion] and attempts to add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Jones_(climatologist)&diff=376863036&oldid=376388124 a criticism that was withdrawn] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Jones_(climatologist)&diff=384173831&oldid=376899853 and interview that was misrepresented], giving undue weight to peripheral issues rather than to his life. <br>There's not an easy answer to this, but it's certainly been an area where biographies are used to coatrack a point of view. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::I have no disagreement with you on those, but the major difference is that those three individuals are all pretty unquestionably notable, and it is easier to keep an article on a notable person from turning into a coatrack. It's when biographies of people of marginal notability are created solely to disparage their views that the problem begins. For a number of reasons, that seems to happen more with the skeptics, but part of that is because WMC is a prolific contributor, who has started articles on *many* climatologists, including those on both sides of the issue. '''[[User:Horologium|<
:::@ Horologium, on Flo's selection your argument looks unfair: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&oldid=648617 Frederick Seitz] was begun by an IP in 2002, in 2004 WMC started articles on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Balling&oldid=2553841 Robert Balling], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer_(scientist)&diff=10514535&oldid=2449574 Roy Spencer (scientist)] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Christy&diff=5216382&oldid=5187386 John Christy], all of which look good. Only the Christy article makes any mention of "skeptical views on global warming", and that's supported by a citation to a reliable source. They clearly weren't created to disparage their views. . .[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:dave souza, I'm pleased to see that you recognize that BLPs in this topic area are a problem. I'm disappointed to see that you are introducing a partisan slant into the discussion by discussing the people based on their views. The people that I discussed are/were primary employment is mainstream institutions and their work is published in mainstream journals. Their article will need to primarily summarize their entire life work with emphasis on the areas where they are most known. Instead too often the article are used by both side to to discuss the overall GW issue as a way for each side to advocate for their side. Editors on both sides engage in this activity on articles about people with a wide spectrum of views by over emphasizing the amount of detail about GW issues compared to the rest of the coverage of their life. The level of detail used gives undue weight to the significance of these events in the persons life. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥♥]] 12:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::Some of it is simply [[WP:Recentism]], which is to say, bias in availability of sources to recent events/issues multiplied by bias of editors' interest in recent events, which is one of WP's biggest structural biases. For low notability people you often have little more than their CV to work from [for older stuff], and any survey of their published work in journals risks being synthy. (With books it's not so bad as these will be fewer and have more easily available summaries or reviews.) Bottom line: editors should be reminded of the need to ''actively'' combat recentism through adding what info is available. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: In other cases, when virtually ''every'' single mainstream reliable source reports things, over a period of years, it is not [[WP:RECENTISM]]-- it's [[WP:DUE|due weight]] and representation of mainstream views. Just as [[WP:BLP]] has become a bludgeon to stifle criticism, so has misuse of recentism when academic sources are lagging. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<
:::::[[WP:Recentism]] is an essay, and therefore incapable of being used as a bludgeon in the way that [[WP:BLP]] policy is. And the issue you describe does not apply in the same way in climate change as it does to Venezuela articles, because of vastly more publishing activity, and much shorter publishing cycles in science journals. PS Knowing that your contributions to climate change articles are close to zero (AFAIK), this response directed at me has a certain "when did you stop beating your wife?" quality. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 12:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::@ FloNight: Ah, a language based misunderstanding. You chose examples from a list of those defined as "sceptics", by definition they're publicly known for views differing from the modern mainstream, but they have had a recognised career in mainstream science, at least up to a point. If you'd made a broader selection it wouldn't have raised my concern about the need to look at this in a more balanced way. The point remains, that supposedly reputable publications like ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' or books by reputable publishers present attack information about scientists or others associated with the science of global warming, and simply insisting on meeting the basic requirements of reliable sources without considering political slant leads to problems when editors try to push news items into biographies. There's also the question of adequately informing readers about the current status of scientists in science, and a careful balance has to be set. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 140:
:::Unfortunately, robust discussion tends to get mistaken for "battleground behaviour", as seen in the copious diffs presented above. Having looked into it a bit more, AQFK's outburst of "criminals", which certainly shocked me at the time, seems to arisen from a good faith belief in press reports such as ''[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7088055/University-scientists-in-climategate-row-hid-data.html The Telegraph]'' writing that "The Information Commissioner's office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act – an offence which is punishable by an unlimited fine." It only takes a little investigation of the act to see that this is nonsense, as such an offence has to go to a magistrate's court where the magistrate makes the ruling, not the ICO. It was also rather shocking that AQFK was willing to see dubious press reports included, but kept removing the university's case,[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&diff=next&oldid=346484229][https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&diff=346677146&oldid=346676648] a situation not helped by Heyitspeter having removed links to sources and sourced statements.[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=346603250&oldid=346534530] Still, in the long run it's good news that there has been no finding of guilt under section 77, though the university has been found to have transgressed section 50 (or equivalent) which is not time barred, and is being dealt with in accordance with the legislation. All a bit confusing, which is why good faith robust discussion is needed, along with a presumption of innocence of BLP subjects until there is a proper and well established finding otherwise. Which potentially might happen someday, but hasn't yet and indeed further investigation seems unlikely to go ahead, though bloggers will no doubt keep complaining. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::::[[Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley|Christopher Monckton]] was the first person to actively promote the "scientists as criminals" position in the wake of "Climategate". [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
**MastCell, it's a systemic problem. There are few people like SlimVirgin who bother writing an actual biography; instead we have lots of editors who are happy to add the latest controversy. You end up with biographies that just consist of the controversies that made it into the press. Only mustard and no meat. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
***Well as I said, it's partly [[WP:recentism]] - a generic interest in the recent multiplied by bias of source availability to recent issues. But it does go beyond that. We have editors willing to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&action=historysubmit&diff=382462779&oldid=382063497 restore recent non-issues] (presented in a partial way) into the lead of a BLP against consensus, yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz&action=historysubmit&diff=385965710&oldid=385965350 delete] well-sourced information showing the impact of non-recent work of another person. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 07:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 191:
::::::{{ec}}Sorry Bill but no. There is but one reason for using the term Denier, why do you think the Guardian has stopped using it? It is a pejorative. Do you think then it is ok for an editor to use the term denier? when the sources he is using actually use sceptic? and one of those sources was self published, and yet said editor insists that it was peer reviewed? You actually think that is acceptable behaviour in a BLP? [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 22:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Bill has correctly summarized my position on the matter which I have elucidated before on the Climate Change Enforcement page. If we really wanted to resolve this issue, I think there are likely many alternative ways to put this that use no words that begin with "ske-" or "den-" as dave souza suggests. I was in discussions about this with TheWordsmith at climate change enforcement when that thread got completely derailed by people crowing about how awful it was that some people take objection to the term "skeptic" when applied to these groups. I don't honestly understand why this can't be discussed without resorting to rhetorical violence. Please, Mark, stop casting aspersions upon the motivations you think I have. They are NOT the motivations I actually have. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 22:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
*"Denier" is an absolutely obscene term. As the son-in-law of one of the few Jewish survivors of [[Bialystok]] and as an extremely close friend of someone who has been HIV+ for 29 years, I find the comparison of people who don't agree with the current consensus on climate change with [[Holocaust deniers]] and [[AIDS deniers]] to be repugnant in the extreme, and I offer a sincere, heartfelt '''fuck you''' to anyone who finds the comparison to be apt. '''[[User:Horologium|<
**Climate change denial is obscene, but it is a valid phenomenon based on denying actual evidence for climate change, not skepticism. The term also has currency in scholarly work and in journalism, and refers to a movement funded by lobby groups, think tanks, and the oil industry. [[Lawrence Solomon]], a so-called "climate skeptic", positively reappropriated the term in his book, ''[[The Deniers]]'' (2008), based on a series of columns he wrote under that title for the ''[[National Post]]''. A little less emotional invective based on ignorance, and a little more research based on facts would be appreciated. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
***Look [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_denial&action=historysubmit&diff=356931636&oldid=356927731 who reverted me] when I tried to point out its relation to holocaust denial in the lede for that article (it was already documented in the main body). KDLP was grossly exaggerating with that edit summary, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_denial&oldid=356931636 the second paragraph] didn't say that. Any agenda-driven editing going on here? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
::There is no ignorance here. I am aware of the existence of a group of people who are working very hard to demonize anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy, but the use of that term is so beyond the realm of civil discourse that I can't help but display an emotional response. If you feel that it is appropriate to compare holocaust deniers with anyone with whom you have a ''political disagreement'' (which is the crux of the issue), then absolutely nothing is out of bounds. And FWIW, since I don't have any particular affection for Lawrence Solomon, it's irrelevant that he has attempted to reappropriate the term. Calling a woman a "cunt" is offensive, even if some women have tried to reappropriate the term, and I still despise the term "queer", which, IMO, doesn't need to be reappropriated either. '''[[User:Horologium|<
:::No, you are espousing stubborn ignorance with every comment you make. Climate change denial is an actual phenomenon, and it is a ''valid'' term that describes a ''reall'' movement based on denying evidence for climate change. This movement is funded by lobby groups, think tanks, and the oil industry. I am sorry that you don't understand that this is a real phenomenon, but we cannot make good decisions based on ignorance, only on facts. Please do some research on this topic before commenting again. If you don't have time to base your opinion on facts, just say the word, and I'll provide you with a list of journal articles and books. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: Might I suggest that you both take a deep breath, step back and realize that you won't agree on this point, and further discussion will probably get more and harsh, eventually leading to bad things happening? I think you've both said your points clearly, continuing will not lead to good things. [[User:Ravensfire|<b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b>]] ([[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color:black;">talk</span>]]) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::My final response has been made to Viriditas on my talk page. I will not be participating any further in this thread, because I have lost my temper in a rather spectacular fashion. I don't have any regrets about my statement, however. '''[[User:Horologium|<
::::::Horologium is not inventing anything. [[George Monbiot]] and others have directly [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/21/comment.georgemonbiot stated] that they do purposely mean to equate climate change denial with Holocaust denial. As far as our articles on "denial" are concerned, we don't take sides on it. Of course, it also means we shouldn't call each other "deniers", but I don't recall seeing any editor say that about another editor. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::{{Failed verification}}, not even remotely. Please be more careful in your claims. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 237:
:: This is clearly not "trivia", and it's not just "a name". It's the organization that provided free web hosting and other services. The RealClimate site purports to be a neutral agency that "puts science first". The site began, though, with the aid of an organization that exists to promote environmental issues however and as a means to this end, provides free hosting to RealClimate and other related sites. It was also founded by a past director of the radical advocacy group ''Environmental Defense Fund.'' That's quite relevant, and not merely "trivia". WMC wishes to not have this fact well know. The conflict is thus quite apparent.
::By the way, this "trivial information" was significant enough to merit a mention by by '''''Science''''' Magazine: [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.dtl] and a disclaimer on RealClimate itself in response: [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/]. [[User:FellGleaming|<
:::I am confused. What is so sinister about an organization promoting environmental issues (a laudable goal) giving free hosting to a website ostensibly about climate science? It would seem that this would be a logical arrangement. I know nothing of this "Environmental Defense Fund", but I cannot imagine defending the environment is a Bad Thing™ and I have only your word for it that the organization is "radical" (which means ''what'' exactly?). I would submit that you're jumping at the proverbial shadow here. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: The real question is, if this is just "trivia", why did RealClimate feel compelled to post an article clarifying the relationship? Why did Science Magazine cover the issue? [[User:FellGleaming|<
:::::No, that's ''not'' the real question. Evidently you ''personally'' feel that there is something significant/sinister/whatever hosting arrangement. The ''real'' question, therefore, is why did you feel the need to edit war over this material? We are only talking about a webhost, for goodness sake. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 278:
* This is kind of insane, or at least deeply silly. At first glance, I can't see anything particularly controversial about the material added by Cla68, which makes me wonder why William felt the need to revert it aggressively. By the same token, it doesn't seem particularly vital to the article either, which makes me wonder why FellGleaming felt the need to aggressively re-insert it with overheated rhetoric about a [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&action=historysubmit&diff=386081315&oldid=386079606 "whitewash"].<p>Then I read FellGleaming's comments on this thread. His motivation for fighting to include this factoid is evidently that he believes it casts a negative light on RealClimate, as it kicks off a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon connection to a "radical advocacy group". Of course, no actual ''reliable source'' has suggested or implied anything of the sort. As best I can tell, no reliable source has attached any political significance whatsoever to RealClimate's webhosting arrangements, beyond a bare mention. But because this isolated factoid serves FellGleaming's editorial agenda, it must be edit-warred into the article.<p>Really, William should absolutely ''not'' be edit-warring to remove this material (and I think his behavior will undoubtedly be addressed by the Committee). But nor should we tolerate transparently agenda-driven, combative editing of the sort which FellGleaming is exhibiting here and elsewhere. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::I agree with MastCell and also feel, per my note below, that this entire discussion involved a content dispute and needs to be pinched off, hatted or whatever they call it. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
: Again Mastcell ignores the forest to complain about a tree. The relationship was significant enough to be mentioned in the book Cla linked. It was significant enough for the The Wall Street Journal to comment on it and Science Magazine as well. It was considered significant enough for RealClimate to partially deny it (see link above). But you're still promoting the "its just trivia!" mantra? [[User:FellGleaming|<
::It's not mentioned on the page Cla68 cited from Pearce's book, is this misreading of the source? The Wall Street Journal (which has commonly featured fringe claims) hasn't been cited, link? The RealClimate disclaimer is of questionable notability, it links to the Science Magazine article but that's behind a paywall so don't know what it says. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Fell Gleaming: If you have other sources to support this content, you should cite them (if you haven't already). [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 295:
:*[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1W6dMudInpkC&pg=PA104&dq=realclimate+%22environmental+media%22&hl=en&ei=_RWZTO7eE4vAswaBl7CZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=realclimate%20%22environmental%20media%22&f=false Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception ... By Christopher C. Horner]
:*[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=97Hxfc-MCgsC&pg=PA145&dq=realclimate+%22environmental+media%22&hl=en&ei=_RWZTO7eE4vAswaBl7CZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=realclimate%20%22environmental%20media%22&f=false Science and public policy: the virtuous corruption of virtual environmental ... By Aynsley John Kellow]
:At least some of these sources would qualify as reliably published by WP criteria. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::At least some don't. The first and the third are opinion pieces, not reporting. The second is a letter to the editor, and does not support the claim, anyways. Please do some due diligence before dumping useless sources on us. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Jayen, I suppose I should have said that no source ''cited in the edit'' supported the implication that FellGleaming was determined to make. The sources you mention certainly contain such implications, although many appear to be factually incorrect based on [http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/climate-doubts-based-on-shortterm-irrelevancies/2008/11/10/1226165474661.html this]. One wonders whether we should use opinion pieces which contain uncorrected factual errors as sources here. In any case, my point had to do with cherry-picking and extrapolating the ''cited'' sources, but thank you for the legwork. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::: ''"no source ''cited in the edit'' supported the implication that FellGleaming was determined to make."'' Of course it did. Do you think the book mentioned just as an interesting bit of trivia? [[User:FellGleaming|<
:::::Page number? I don't think the book mentioned it, as far as I've found. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} Okay; but bear in mind that FG's comments were made on the talk page. S/he clearly was aware of that background. At any rate, the sources support that there have been speculation and denials concerning the nature of realclimate's links to EMS. As such, the content Cla68 inserted is not irrelevant. Some of the opinion pieces linked here may qualify as sources for a reception section. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. If you go to RSN and ask uninvolved editors whether the [[Sydney Morning Herald]] or the [[Wall Street Journal]] or [[Edward Elgar Publishing]] are reliable sources for fact or opinion, as the case may be, the answer would be yes, regardless of whether any particular editor ''likes'' that opinion or not. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::MastCell, you say, ''One wonders whether we should use opinion pieces which contain uncorrected factual errors as sources here.'' I am not an unmitigated friend of the lead sentence of [[WP:V]], and am all for editors of opposing sides being able to come to a consensus – through reasoned debate on a talk page or noticeboard – that it is better to do without a source of fact that is demonstrably in error, or without an opinion that is clearly misinformed. But absent such consensus building, the following sentence is site ''policy'': {{xt|The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.}} By all means, editors should agree to attribute facts and opinions to their sources, and make clear which of the two it is, but we do not just dismiss notable opinions expressed in mainstream sources because an editor thinks they are "wrong". --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::::I'm not saying that sources should be disregarded just because editors think they're "wrong". I'm saying that sources which contain demonstrable factual errors, and fail to correct them, do not meet our sourcing bar and should not be used. Moreover, if we step back from rules-based pedantry for a moment, why would we ''want'' to use sources which we know contain factual errors? Using such sources hinders, rather than furthers, the goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::Where there is a clear consensus that a source is mistaken, there is no problem. But you know as well as I do that that is rarely the case, and that there are real-life disputes where each side accuses the other of being wrong, or of producing misleading information, or where you simply get good sources contradicting each other, or indeed talking past each other, as the two sources in the Sydney Morning Herald arguably did. One of the problems of this topic area is that editors have wanted to play arbiters of truth, rather than following WP:NPOV and WP:V, i.e. presenting the full range of significant mainstream opinions, and attributing opinions to the people holding them. Do you see what I mean? --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
The blurb at ''Science'' (''not'' an "article", just news reporting) is:
:::WEB LOGS: Sifting for Truth About Global Warming
Line 315:
:It sounds like something reasonable to put in the article. But that does not justify this being hashed out here. Editors have to stop elevating content disputes to editor-conduct issues. Arbcom needs to take a stance on this kind of behavior, as this is not the first instance of this happening. When editors keep "going to the mat" on every little detail, they add to the battlefield atmosphere. That must stop. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:Just to clarify, I was directing the above remark at the topic-starter. I thank J.Johnson for bringing this RS to our attention. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::What else is an editor like Cla68 supposed to do if another editor reverts the addition of their sourced material three times? You can edit-war with them, and, if you are unlucky like Marknutley, get blocked yourself, while your opponent goes free. Or you can give up. Raising it here seems preferable to either of those. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::Cla68 is supposed to discuss if fully at the article talk page, and not present spurious references as he seems to have done – I'm still waiting for a clarification as to where if anywhere Pearce refers to the hosts of the website. See BRD . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Honestly, I sometimes think that we need a CC noticeboard. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::@Jayen: this was being discussed at the talk page of the article in question, but I see that rather than talk it out there on the merits he rushed here alleging a "COI" to get WMC off the page. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I am not sure "this was being discussed" is an apt expression to describe what was happening at [[Talk:RealClimate#Relevance]]. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::::(ec)I agree in the sense that there was no serious effort on the talk page by Cla68 to discuss the merits of his edit. He made just one edit on the talk page on this issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealClimate&diff=prev&oldid=386105498] before coming here. It's like a baseball player spending all his time in the league office, filing complaints against other players. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::That may be appropriate, depending on what the other players are using their baseball bats for. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::@AQFK, I disagree. This is precisely why the CC noticeboard needs to be abolished. Editors need to discuss content issues on the talk pages of the articles. Here, the merits of the dispute were properly laid out by JJohnson. This appears to have been a "POV push" by Cla68, and when he didn't get his way on the talk page he came here. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I 100% agree with ScottyBerg here. The CC noticeboard has become a place to get your opponents removed by administrative fiat in lieu of actually coming to consensus across article talk pages. The, erm, climate in climate change was not great before, but has worsened since this noticeboard was instituted. [[User:Awickert|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert|talk]]) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
::::: Just curious, but why do enforcement actions against any editors WMC butts heads with invariably result in enforcement action, but whenever one is brought against WMC, we wind up with a few admin sayings, "you're right, he did something wrong, but we really shouldn't use enforcement to try to solve the problem". Do you think this is the only edit war WMC has engaged in this week? Or even today? His normal ''modus operandi'' is simply to continually revert with ambiguous edit descriptions such as "unbalanced", "not helpful", "unsalvageable", etc. He won't give specifics, he won't propose alternate or compromise texts; it's a continual pattern of stonewalling and abuse. [[User:FellGleaming|<
::::::It boils down to WMC doing the right thing in the wrong way, and the "editors WMC butts heads with" doing the wrong thing in the wrong way. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 341:
:::::::Let me make sure I understand this, Scotty. You don't have an issue with one of the founders of that blog edit warring to remove reliably sourced information from the article. You don't disagree that the information was reliably sourced. You believe, however, that fault lies with the person who added the information in the first place? If so, it sounds like no one could add anything to that article, because they might risk offending WMC, and this is a bad thing. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::What I see, and what I've been seeing, and what I see again in your gratuitous comment "risk offending WMC" is an effort to personalize a content dispute, and to turn it into one of user behavior. Since you feel strongly about the validity of your edit, what's needed is for you to make your case on the article talk page. If you have a specific addition to the PD that you would like to make, this is the place for it. Other uses are wastes of time, clog the page, and are, again, disruptive. I think you need to reevaluate your usage of dispute resolution procedures. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: WMC reverted this factually correct material three times. Yet you speak of "personalising a content dispute". Is it not allowed to mention the elephant in the room? --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::::::::Scotty, I understand that you might disagree with me doing so, but I was trying to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=381478880 follow directions] here. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 370:
:::::::Unfortunately, NuclearWarfare is both wrong and involved. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Um, no. ''You're'' both wrong and involved. NuclearWarfare, on the other hand, is both an [[WP:ARBCLERK|arbitration clerk]] and right in redacting that commentary. He even mentioned that he would follow up on it, but that it was irrelevant there. --[[User:Shirik|<span style="color:#005">Sh</span><span style="color:#007">i</span><span style="color:#009">r</span><span style="color:#00A">ik</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Shirik|<span style="color:#88C">Questions or Comments?</span>]])</small> 02:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I for one have no confidence in NW's neutrality any more. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
== Disinterested in BLP's? ==
Line 382:
::::Odd. Which version of the OED are you looking at? Mine (v4.0) gives "Without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned" as the first meaning of disinterested and doesn't give the text you mention at all. The SOED definition is just "Not interested, unconcerned". I suppose, in the context of the high passions here, dispassionate fits the bill better and is less ambiguous. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Disinterested" means not influenced by a personal view, or personal interest in the sense of advantage; neutral; uninvolved. It's not the same as "uninterested." [[User:SlimVirgin|<
:::::: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinterested For info] [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Weird. That's directly at odds with what I was actually taught in school. Maybe it's an American usage? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 397:
:Moreover,it doesn't solve anything over the long term. There's no shortage of aggressive editors in this area and there's no reason to think such a shortage will develop in the future. If anything the opposite, given certain chatter in the blogosphere. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::I am not sure it won't solve anything. I see no way back into this topic area for many editors who have become totally engrained in their positions. Indef bans and placing the topic area under arbcom sanctions worked in Scientology, a topic that is quite comparable in the amount of emotion and blog coverage associated with it. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
:::I'm not sure the situations are entirely comparable, except to people who spend a lot of time in-universe with Scientology disputes. Wikipedia is a bubble. By this site's standards, ''date delinking'' disputes are of comparable magnitude to the dispute over climate change. Is Scientology the subject of a consensus statement of concern from the National Academies of Science of the U.S., Brazil, India, South Africa, Canada, Italy, the U.K., China, Japan, France, Mexico, Germany, and Russia? Is it routinely a major political issue in elections and national and international legislative sessions?<p>The current list of topic ban candidates seems to suffer from a desire to sanction a roughly equal number of people from each "side", an approach which I think is based on faulty assumptions. The idea that, say, Verbal, Minor4th, and Mark Nutley have been equally "disruptive" on climate change articles seems questionable at best. The cynical side of me thinks that if we wait a week or two, the pendulum will swing back and we'll see another, different set of proposed remedies, but whatever. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
::::We're not trying to fix the climate, we're trying to fix a Wikipedia topic area. ;) --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::I think it's a great idea. There should be more names added though. Anyone who has edit warred or been uncivil more than once in this topic area should be topic banned. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}I do agree with Mastcell that the editors listed are not equal in terms of the amount of disruption, but that just indicates that the threshold is rather low -- not a bad guiding principle, but there's a lot of work yet to be done if the threshold is so low. Off the top of my head, without regard to which "side" these folks fall on, the list should include ScienceApologist, FellGleaming, Viriditas, Rd232, Guettarda, Jehochman, Tony Sidaway. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of -- tried to think of more on the skeptic side, but they are mostly either listed or banned already. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 441:
:@TS: Think we're on the same page here. Mainstream expertise is made unwelcome in this topic area as a matter of political expediency, reflected in the mass media. The "poisonous atmosphere" in editing reflects those politics, and discourages expert editing. . . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::I strongly suspect that few experts will accept being told that they misrepresent their own work, or that [[WP:RANDY|sword-wielding skeletons were involved]], especially not over and over and over again over years. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::<s>I have no sympathy for editors with "mainstream expertise" who behave like school boys drawing false moustaches and horn-rimmed glasses on someone's portrait when they edit skeptics' BLPs, then go on and bully neutral editors like SlimVirgin who are trying to rescue a biography from the unpalatable mess they have reduced it to, and finally end up huffily claiming the moral high ground. Let's just acknowledge there were failings on both sides here. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::: I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that it's okay to mess up a biographical article. Your precise characterization, however, is inflammatory. And of course it has absolutely nothing to do with expertise. Has evidence been presented in this case to the effect that SlimVirgin has been "bullied"?
Line 447:
::: And finally I'm sick and tired of being told that there are "sides" here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I'll readily agree that many editors have behaved imperfectly, including SlimVirgin. The "skeptics'" BLPs present a particular difficulty in that they commonly have little or no standing in the field, but have their credentials inflated to give more weight to fringe views. Getting the balance right isn't easy, as is also the case in BLPs of mainstream scientists subjected to vilification in parts of the mass media. Better behaviour needed all round. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::Struck. Perhaps we can agree then that there were failings ''all round here'', and that no one who is the subject of a finding of fact and/or a proposed remedy should think that they were merely a ''victim'' of outside circumstances. It does not seem a very constructive way of going forward. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::::: Thanks. This section is about structural bias, and I'd hope we'd discuss that issue. I've expressed a hope that experts will be able to edit the articles more freely than before once the battleground issues have been cleared up. Obviously I don't want to see unbalanced BLPs. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'd hope that we can agree that various editors had various failings in differing degrees, and that any such failings should not obscure the significance of outside circumstances affecting editing of articles in this topic area. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I have to say I agree with what Scotty, Tony and Dave are saying. If the scientist who have FoF's against them and they pass, I guess we'll see what happens to the articles. I hope my bad feelings about how they are going to look is wrong but I have to admit I have a bad feeling about all of this. Above I gave two difs about outside influences and a third one that I am told also has conversations going on about this case. I think that it's a mistake to treat all the FoF's the same esp. since some of them are about misrepresenting sources or copyright problems which to me is far more worse than being uncivil or edit warring. As for others coming in to these articles, I know I would be hesitant to edit these articles. I guess we should see what the arbitrators decide on and then it's a wait and see for the rest. The readers are the most important in all of this so please keep this in mind. Thanks for listening, I'm tired, so good night everyone, --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Discretionary sanctions will be in place, and have worked in similarly contested topic areas (they should be advertised on every talk page). I am confident that anyone coming from one of these outside places to edit with an agenda will have a very short Wikipedia career. Also bear in mind that the atmosphere that developed over the past months and years will actually have kept away editors who might otherwise have joined the effort. The last thing Wikipedia needs is for the same strife to continue, with the same editors continuing to go hammer and tongs at each other. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
*A couple of comments, the first directed to Tony Sidaway, but not to him exclusively. There are quite clearly at least two sides to this dispute. Whether you choose to characterize them as "pro-science vs. anti-science", or "skeptic vs. anti-skeptic", or whatever, it is clear that the regular editors of the climate change articles are factionalized, and protestations to the contrary are pointless.
:The second is directed more towards Guettarda and dave souza. Guettarda dismisses [[Linus Pauling]]'s views towards Vitamin C megadoses as a fringe position. Perhaps that is so, but there is a section in the Vitamin C article, ([[Vitamin C#Vitamin C megadosage]]) which not only discusses Pauling's views, but also has a link to another page ([[Vitamin C megadosage]]), which details Pauling's views at some length. Yet when it comes to skeptical positions of climate change, there has been a concerted effort to eliminate any discussion of non-mainstream views in the main articles, under the justification that they are "fringe views" which don't merit any mention at all. However, when I proposed that some of the BLPs of skeptics were deletion candidates, WMC came to their defense, with the argument "you are arguing that John Christie and Roy Spencer are NN? That is ridiculous." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=386141954&oldid=386141684]) If they are notable enough to merit articles on Wikipedia, then they should be notable enough to merit at least a mention in articles which relate to their field of expertise, yet the adherents to the "scientific view" argue that they should be excluded because their views are not mainstream. Dave souza argues that in this diff ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=386141954&oldid=386141684]), so we have a dilemma; do we agree with WMC or with dave souza, who argue the mutually exclusive views that skeptics are either too notable to delete, or not notable enough to acknowledge? We can't have it both ways; either they are ultimately non-notable, in which case their articles should be deleted from Wikipedia entirely, or they are notable, in which case their views should be noted in the articles to which their views are relevant. I'd request a clarification on which course we should pursue before I either nominate the articles for deletion or push to include their views in relevant articles, noting that their views are minority views, but not excluding them entirely, as some here have advocated. '''[[User:Horologium|<
:::Clarification or correction – my position is that notable "skeptical" or contrarian people/arguments/publications should be shown in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, and with WP:FRINGE where appropriate, and non-notable articles or non-significant parts of articles shouldn't exist. It can be argued that articles about purely scientific subjects shouldn't show fringe views, due weight only requires coverage of views significant to the subject, with detailed minority views going in sub-articles. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 05:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::::That is essentially restating what I said; you want to characterize the views of any and all skeptics as "fringe", in order to exclude their views from articles entirely. If someone is notable solely based on their work in the field of climate research (such as Christy and Spencer, or Soon and Baliunas), then they are notable enough to merit at least a brief mention in an article. There are other skeptics whose notability derives from other fields whose views could be excluded, but you can't simultaneously insist someone is both notable enough to have an article and not notable enough to be discussed in articles relating to their primary field of research. Further, if their work in the field of climatology is notable enough to be discussed in a critical fashion in their BLP, then it is probably notable enough to be discussed elsewhere. If it's not, then it is a coatrack, and should be excised. '''[[User:Horologium|<
:::::Your mind-reading leads you to a misrepresentation of my views – as a climate change sceptic myself, I want sceptical views to be presented accurately and proportionately, in the context of mainstream views of minority views. As required by weight policies. For example, I added discussion of Soon and Baliunas to a relevant article, and their contribution is something I'd like to see examined in more detail. By the way, their notability in this topic area rests on a review article rather than on research. Your further point is interesting, and possibly one I could support if applied to all BLPs in the topic area. Criticism of the work of mainstream scientists could well be better covered in other articles than their biography, or removed if it's not sufficiently notable. I'll think that over. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::I very much favor the deletion of BLPs of skeptics (or non-skeptics) who have little or no notability aside from their commentary on the global warming dispute. As a test case I propose that the article on [[Tim Ball]] be deleted. His lack of general notability is reflected in his lifetime [[h-index]] of 3, which is [[litotes|not especially high]] for a (former) full professor in the sciences at a major university. If we can't agree on this one we can't agree on any of them. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 468:
I too am baffled by H, who writes ''when I proposed that some of the BLPs of skeptics were deletion candidates, WMC came to their defense, with the argument "you are arguing that John Christie and Roy Spencer are NN? That is ridiculous."'' Yes, it was and is ridiculous. If you know nothing at all about them, then obviously you can believe they are NN. If you know anything at all about the [[satellite temperature record]], you can't. I know this arbcomm case is trying to pretend that expertise is dispensable, but H is doing his best to prove by misexample the reverse. If you don't believe me, put them up for AFD. However, be aware that such debates tend to polarise - even very weak candidates like [[Joanne Nova]] get voted as "keep" by their partisans, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Nova]] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:Actually, it was SBHB who suggested that they were of marginal notability ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=385822794&oldid=385822478]). I have neither the knowledge nor the interest to delve into the scientific articles, but I ''do'' have a concern about the abuse of BLPs on this topic. SBHB is possibly the only editor on this topic who has both a PhD in the relevant field and a bunch of peer-reviewed papers directly relating to the topic, so if he says that they are not notable, I am inclined to believe him. The fact that he is one of the very few regular editors of this topic who has ''zero'' findings of fact about him makes his view even more sustainable, because he's not an edit warrior, a POV pusher, or a chronic civility sink. I will expand upon this when I return home later this evening. '''[[User:Horologium|<
:: Boris mentioned Christy, which I find very odd. Boris? You're really arguing that he is NN? I think H has misunderstood you. But H, you cannot evade responsibility for what you said, which is 'What is interesting is that three of the four bios cited by FloNight were created by WMC; the only one that he didn't create is the one which is unquestionably notable (Seitz)'. This goes together with snark from you elsewhere. And you're wrong re doctorates: I too have one, and a number of publications - or are you forgetting that "Inconvenient" fact? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 16:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 477:
CrohnieGal (and peripherally, Jayen466) have brought up an issue that needs more attention, specifically what might be called "kamikaze editing." These are editors who don't much care if they are blocked as long as they can score against an opponent. Some of the blogosphere chatter has been along these lines, and I recall a few editors saying on-site that they didn't care whether they were blocked as long as editor X got blocked too (mild on-site example,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marknutley&diff=prev&oldid=371748473]). For this reason I'm not as sanguine as Jayen466 that the discretionary sanctions will achieve the desired result: even if we let such individuals know they will end up with "a very short Wikipedia career," it won't be a deterrent and there are more waiting to take their place. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:It will go away. This ill-tempered dispute here in the project is what has heated up the blogosphere, keeping the fires there going. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
::No, that's an in-bubble viewpoint. Because of Wikipedia's prominence, it's stop #1 for ''anyone'' who wants to raise the visibility of their pet minoritarian belief. It doesn't matter if the topic area is prone to "ill-tempered disputes" or not, and it's not going to change no matter what the outcome of this case is. It doesn't take an internal Wikipedia projectspace dispute to keep people fired up about climate change. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 03:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Sure. But then you will be getting the bog-standard POV pushers, rather than people outraged by witnessing daily the shenanigans documented in the Findings of Fact. --'''[[User:Jayen466|<
We cannot know whether the commenters on external sites are just blow hards or are going to be a serious problem. We'll know it's the latter if the ecology of the topic settles down to a steady drip of scientifically illiterate nonsense of the kind seen often on one of the blogs cited by CrohnieGal. We've had that on the evolution articles and the various conspiracy articles for a very long time so we know how to deal with it.
| |||