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) |
||
Line 40:
: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|<font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
:: 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 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)
Line 130:
: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 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)
| |||