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. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
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<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
:: 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 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 69:
::::(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 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)
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 298:
::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|<span style="color:#0000FF;">JN</span>]][[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color:#FFBF00;">466</span>]]''' 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Line 324:
:::@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 454:
::::::::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|<span style="color:#0000FF;">JN</span>]][[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color:#FFBF00;">466</span>]]''' 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
*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)
| |||